It will be hard to create more media outlets in Swaziland, because the kingdom is too poor to support them.
That was one of the key findings from a meeting held to discuss media freedom in Swaziland.
The Weekend Observer reported (17 May 2008) that there had been some attempts to start new publications, but these had closed down after getting into financial difficulties and this denied people their freedom of choice.
The Weekend Observer was reporting on a meeting of media folk in Siteki held to commemorate World Press Freedom Day.
Participants noted that in Swaziland today there is not freedom of the media and one way to tackle this would be to have more media outlets. At the moment just about all broadcasting is state controlled and there are only two newspaper groups (one, the Observer, is in effect owned by King Mswati III; the other, the Times, is a private company).
The Weekend Observer reported, that independent publications such as Business Sunday and the sports paper Ligoli closed because of ‘financial challenges’.
It is true that such publications closed because they could not attract enough readers or companies that wanted to advertise in them.
This should come as no surprise, however, because Swaziland is a desperately poor country with about 70 per cent of the population of just under one million living in abject poverty. They have no money to buy newspapers and advertisers do not want to advertise to them because they have no money to spend.
Until the economy of the kingdom improves spectacularly that situation will not change.
Despite this obvious economic reality there are many media people in Swaziland who want to try to create more media outlets. According to the Weekend Observer, media professionals want financial institutions in Swaziland to help them launch new outlets.
They claim that people in Swaziland are crying out for a third newspaper to rival the Times and the Observer.
I don’t know where the evidence for this is. It’s true that there are a number of improvements that could be made to the existing newspapers, but that doesn’t mean that any new newspaper would be able to do any better. If you look at the Times and the Observer, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of their content is taken up with sport, leisure and entertainment. Would a new newspaper be any different? What would they put in its place?
Would a new newspaper not concentrate on reporting from the urban areas of Swaziland (as the existing newspapers do)? Would it report less about the king and the status quo, than the papers we already have? I think the answer to all the questions here is probably, ‘no’.
The Weekend Observer reported Comfort Mabuza, the national director of the Media Institute of Southern Africa - Swaziland chapter (MISA), saying there should be more pluralism and diversity in the media.
He said that aspiring media owners often were too optimistic about the amount of money they could get from advertising. He said they should get more training in business enterprise before they try to start up new ventures. Also, donor agencies might be approached to give start up money to help new media ventures.
He advised aspiring media entrepreneurs to contact the Southern Africa Institute for Media Entrepreneurship Development (SAIMED) in Botswana, which had been tasked by MISA with helping emerging media enterprises to set management controls, sales and marketing ‘and other innovating ways of sustaining media business’.
I am reminded that in June 2007 MISA Swaziland unveiled a report that suggested there could be sufficient advertising in the kingdom to support small local / community newspapers in Swaziland. As far as I know nothing further has been done on this project.
Personally, I support the demand for more media in Swaziland, but I doubt if there is much money around to support commercial print media. A much better way forward would be to set up small community radio stations in the kingdom. These could be owned and controlled by members of the community they serve.
If experiences across the world are anything to go by, these stations could be set up with very little cost. The United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is always willing to meet the costs of studios and transmitters. The running costs of such stations would be low because they would be run and operated by members of the community, often acting as volunteers.
This is a simple way of introducing pluralism and diversity into media in Swaziland. I doubt if it will happen if history is anything to go by. Any attempts to set up community radio in Swaziland have been stalled by a government that says it is in support of such initiatives, but which fails to come up with the licences to let it happen.
No one who observes Swaziland would be in the least surprised by this. Broadcasting is strictly controlled by the state. Only ‘authorised’ voices are allowed on the airways and views that run contrary to the monarchy or the government’s are not allowed to be heard.
With such a control over what information people can receive why on earth would the ruling elite allow community radio to operate?
No, I’m afraid that even though Swaziland should have more voices, change will not come. Not until we have a proper democracy in the kingdom and its rulers can be held to account.
See also
A VOICE FOR THE VOICELESS
WHAT’S IN THE SWAZILAND PAPERS?
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Monday, 19 May 2008
SWAZI ELECTION PARTY DOUBLE TALK
Political parties are legal in Swaziland, but they are not allowed to compete for political office.
That is according to Chief Gija Dlamini, the chair of the Swazi Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC).
This is the same man who previously said that when the Swaziland Constitution talked about allowing freedom of association it meant freedom to join a soccer club, not to form a political party.
Chief Gija is under attack in pro-democracy circles in Swaziland for being unsuitable for the position of chair of the EBC. Chief Gija is variously described as ‘an electrician’ or an ‘electrical engineer’, when the Swazi Constitution states that the EBC chair ought to be a senior judge.
Chief Gija’s latest remarks were reported in the Times Sunday yesterday (18 May 2008). The newspaper reported that a distinguished political expert from the United States (with senior experience in states of the former Soviet Union) had met this week with the EBC and concluded ‘that they did not understand how political parties operate’.
The Times Sunday reported that Dr Robert Herman, Director of Programs at Freedom House, ‘had a tough time, trying to solicit their views on what they thought of democracy, human rights and elections’.
The Times Sunday reported, ‘During a press briefing on Friday Dr Herman explained that members of the EBC told him that political parties were not good for Swaziland because they caused wars and pointed to the situation in Kenya as a perfect example.’
The report continued,
‘Dr Herman said having spoken to a number of different spectrum of society in Swaziland, he came to the considered view that Swaziland was not a democracy and that a lot needed to be done in that regard.
‘He said that after learning that this country was to go to the polls later this year, he met the EBC and when he spoke to them he got the impression that they did not understand how political parties operate.’
The Times Sunday also reported, ‘Gija said he assured Dr Herman that political parties do exist in Swaziland, but it’s that they cannot compete for political office.’
The issue of the legality or otherwise of political parties in Swaziland has been receiving a lot of attention in the newspapers recently.
In the same edition of the Times Sunday (18 May 2008) King Mswati III’s Private Secretary Sam Mkhombe is quoting saying that political parties are allowed in Swaziland.
‘He challenged all those who say political parties are banned to show him the piece of legislation which prohibits political parties to operate in the country,’ the newspaper said.
One might add to this challenge a further challenge to Chief Gija to prove that if political parties are allowed to exist in Swaziland what is it that prevents them from standing in the election?
Mkhombe’s assertion that political parties are allowed in Swaziland follows a similar statement reported in the Swazi Observer (5 May 2008) from the kingdom’s Attorney-General (AG) Majahenkaba Dlamini to the effect that the constitution allows political parties.
The Observer reported that his audience of human rights activists greeted the AG’s remark with disbelief.
As well they might. Vusi Sibisi, writing in the Times Sunday (18 May 2008) makes a very valid practical point that the Swazi government has not put in place the legal framework that allows political parties to be registered and to operate.
I doubt that political parties would be allowed to meet to discuss the election. Here’s a challenge of my own. Why doesn’t a group in Swaziland call itself a political party and then announce that it is to hold a public meeting at which it will announce its candidates for the forthcoming election and also outline its manifesto for the coming elections.
Let’s see how far they get in Swaziland’s unique democracy.
There was another very sinister story in the Times Sunday (18 May 2008) regarding the elections. It is reported that the King’s advisory council, Liqoqo, summoned the Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Prince David to them to explain why the EBC thought it had the right to decide on the date of the election when this was the preserve of the king.
Has nobody at Liqoqo read the constitution?……
See also
PARTIES BANNED FROM SWAZI ELECTION
That is according to Chief Gija Dlamini, the chair of the Swazi Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC).
This is the same man who previously said that when the Swaziland Constitution talked about allowing freedom of association it meant freedom to join a soccer club, not to form a political party.
Chief Gija is under attack in pro-democracy circles in Swaziland for being unsuitable for the position of chair of the EBC. Chief Gija is variously described as ‘an electrician’ or an ‘electrical engineer’, when the Swazi Constitution states that the EBC chair ought to be a senior judge.
Chief Gija’s latest remarks were reported in the Times Sunday yesterday (18 May 2008). The newspaper reported that a distinguished political expert from the United States (with senior experience in states of the former Soviet Union) had met this week with the EBC and concluded ‘that they did not understand how political parties operate’.
The Times Sunday reported that Dr Robert Herman, Director of Programs at Freedom House, ‘had a tough time, trying to solicit their views on what they thought of democracy, human rights and elections’.
The Times Sunday reported, ‘During a press briefing on Friday Dr Herman explained that members of the EBC told him that political parties were not good for Swaziland because they caused wars and pointed to the situation in Kenya as a perfect example.’
The report continued,
‘Dr Herman said having spoken to a number of different spectrum of society in Swaziland, he came to the considered view that Swaziland was not a democracy and that a lot needed to be done in that regard.
‘He said that after learning that this country was to go to the polls later this year, he met the EBC and when he spoke to them he got the impression that they did not understand how political parties operate.’
The Times Sunday also reported, ‘Gija said he assured Dr Herman that political parties do exist in Swaziland, but it’s that they cannot compete for political office.’
The issue of the legality or otherwise of political parties in Swaziland has been receiving a lot of attention in the newspapers recently.
In the same edition of the Times Sunday (18 May 2008) King Mswati III’s Private Secretary Sam Mkhombe is quoting saying that political parties are allowed in Swaziland.
‘He challenged all those who say political parties are banned to show him the piece of legislation which prohibits political parties to operate in the country,’ the newspaper said.
One might add to this challenge a further challenge to Chief Gija to prove that if political parties are allowed to exist in Swaziland what is it that prevents them from standing in the election?
Mkhombe’s assertion that political parties are allowed in Swaziland follows a similar statement reported in the Swazi Observer (5 May 2008) from the kingdom’s Attorney-General (AG) Majahenkaba Dlamini to the effect that the constitution allows political parties.
The Observer reported that his audience of human rights activists greeted the AG’s remark with disbelief.
As well they might. Vusi Sibisi, writing in the Times Sunday (18 May 2008) makes a very valid practical point that the Swazi government has not put in place the legal framework that allows political parties to be registered and to operate.
I doubt that political parties would be allowed to meet to discuss the election. Here’s a challenge of my own. Why doesn’t a group in Swaziland call itself a political party and then announce that it is to hold a public meeting at which it will announce its candidates for the forthcoming election and also outline its manifesto for the coming elections.
Let’s see how far they get in Swaziland’s unique democracy.
There was another very sinister story in the Times Sunday (18 May 2008) regarding the elections. It is reported that the King’s advisory council, Liqoqo, summoned the Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Prince David to them to explain why the EBC thought it had the right to decide on the date of the election when this was the preserve of the king.
Has nobody at Liqoqo read the constitution?……
See also
PARTIES BANNED FROM SWAZI ELECTION
Friday, 16 May 2008
REALITY OF SWAZI POLICE BRUTALITY
Evidence of the casual brutality Swazi police use against people suspected of crime was reported yesterday (15 May 2008).
A 21-year-old man told magistrates how police brutally assaulted him in the cells, with officers taking turns to beat him with whatever they could lay their hands on. One hit him on the head with a hammer.
In a news report that told more about what it is really like to live in Swaziland than the newspaper probably intended, the Times of Swaziland told the story of four youths who appeared in court for allegedly breaking into the Mbabane Police Mess and stealing alcohol.
In a report headed Youth tortured by investigating officers, the Times said that police, acting on a tip-off raided the homes of the alleged criminals.
The Times reported one suspect saying that he was woken at home in the middle of the night by a loud bang at the door.
A police officer kicked the door to force entry and then pointed a gun in the face of the suspect ‘threatening to shoot in the process’.
The Times reported the suspect saying, ‘I was staring death in the face, and what was most threatening is that I could not make up of what on earth could I have done to provoke the stranger before me.’
The police then forced the suspect out of bed and took him to the police station, dressed only in his underwear.
In the holding cell ‘he experienced the worst of brutality, with the officers taking turns to beat him with whatever they could lay their hands on’.
The Times reported, ‘He said although he could not remember all the assortment of gadgets that were used to hit him, he still remembered being bludgeoned in the head with a hammer.
‘I almost lost consciousness and the injuries I sustained led to one officer taking me to hospital, where I was attended to by a doctor,’ the Times reported the suspect saying.
The allegations of the suspect were corroborated by the other suspects ‘who alluded having received death threats while the sleuths were trying to extract information,’ the Times reported.
The suspect told the court, ‘At one point I was told that I would be taken to kaMabhala [a thick bush in the outskirts of the capital city], where my return would only be guaranteed by a confession that I participated in the break-in at the police mess.’
The Times reported another suspect who told the court that during his interrogation, ‘he became the victim of the infamous “tubing” (an unorthodox method allegedly employed by cops to force confession, whereby a plastic bag is used to cover the suspect’s face to asphyxiate him).’
The Times journalist who wrote the report seems to have realised that there was more to this story than simply the report of a court case, making reference to the African Commission on People and Human Rights that is presently taking place in Swaziland.
Delegates heard that Swaziland is a major violator of human rights. This is undoubtedly true and the Swazi police are among the biggest violators. It was only this March (2008) that they showed their true colours as they brutally attacked textile workers who were lawfully striking for higher wages and better working conditions.
Despite condemnations of the police action by the Swazi Prime Minister, I have heard of no action being taken against the officers who were acting unlawfully.
I doubt either, that we will hear any more about the Mbabane police who allegedly made the attack on the youths in the Times’ report.
Truly, in Swaziland the police are a law unto themselves.
See also
SWAZI UNIONS AID ATTACKED WORKERS
A 21-year-old man told magistrates how police brutally assaulted him in the cells, with officers taking turns to beat him with whatever they could lay their hands on. One hit him on the head with a hammer.
In a news report that told more about what it is really like to live in Swaziland than the newspaper probably intended, the Times of Swaziland told the story of four youths who appeared in court for allegedly breaking into the Mbabane Police Mess and stealing alcohol.
In a report headed Youth tortured by investigating officers, the Times said that police, acting on a tip-off raided the homes of the alleged criminals.
The Times reported one suspect saying that he was woken at home in the middle of the night by a loud bang at the door.
A police officer kicked the door to force entry and then pointed a gun in the face of the suspect ‘threatening to shoot in the process’.
The Times reported the suspect saying, ‘I was staring death in the face, and what was most threatening is that I could not make up of what on earth could I have done to provoke the stranger before me.’
The police then forced the suspect out of bed and took him to the police station, dressed only in his underwear.
In the holding cell ‘he experienced the worst of brutality, with the officers taking turns to beat him with whatever they could lay their hands on’.
The Times reported, ‘He said although he could not remember all the assortment of gadgets that were used to hit him, he still remembered being bludgeoned in the head with a hammer.
‘I almost lost consciousness and the injuries I sustained led to one officer taking me to hospital, where I was attended to by a doctor,’ the Times reported the suspect saying.
The allegations of the suspect were corroborated by the other suspects ‘who alluded having received death threats while the sleuths were trying to extract information,’ the Times reported.
The suspect told the court, ‘At one point I was told that I would be taken to kaMabhala [a thick bush in the outskirts of the capital city], where my return would only be guaranteed by a confession that I participated in the break-in at the police mess.’
The Times reported another suspect who told the court that during his interrogation, ‘he became the victim of the infamous “tubing” (an unorthodox method allegedly employed by cops to force confession, whereby a plastic bag is used to cover the suspect’s face to asphyxiate him).’
The Times journalist who wrote the report seems to have realised that there was more to this story than simply the report of a court case, making reference to the African Commission on People and Human Rights that is presently taking place in Swaziland.
Delegates heard that Swaziland is a major violator of human rights. This is undoubtedly true and the Swazi police are among the biggest violators. It was only this March (2008) that they showed their true colours as they brutally attacked textile workers who were lawfully striking for higher wages and better working conditions.
Despite condemnations of the police action by the Swazi Prime Minister, I have heard of no action being taken against the officers who were acting unlawfully.
I doubt either, that we will hear any more about the Mbabane police who allegedly made the attack on the youths in the Times’ report.
Truly, in Swaziland the police are a law unto themselves.
See also
SWAZI UNIONS AID ATTACKED WORKERS
Thursday, 15 May 2008
SWAZI PRESS FREEDOM WOES
Following the Swazi Prime Minister’s assertion that there is no media freedom problem in Swaziland, comes yet another international report stating the exact opposite.
The International Press Institute (IPI) in its annual World Press Freedom Review, published last week (8 May 2008), investigates the state of media freedom in Swaziland for the year 2007.
Unsurprisingly, for anyone who follows the media scene in the kingdom it found a lot of problems. It shares many of the concerns that were featured in the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) So This Is Democracy? report, published on 3 May 2008.
The IPI also highlighted the way the libel laws were used in Swaziland to try to silence legitimate journalistic inquiry. You can read the full IPI report here.
I noticed two points from the IPI report of 2007 that I have not yet seen highlighted in any other press freedom review of Swaziland.
The first involved a controversial pastor called Justice Dlamini.
IPI reports,
‘Swaziland’s media was this year also confronted with a more surprising source of harassment. On 2 March, Justice Dlamini, a controversial church pastor, declared during a sermon that he was praying for the death of two journalists, Times of Swaziland managing editor Martin Dlamini and reporter Nhlanhla Mathunjwa, several days after the publication of a story detailing a squabble between the pastor and one of his subordinates over a church vehicle. Dlamini, who insisted the story “lowered his dignity,” said he had prayed to God to remove the two journalists from the face of the earth “to teach the media a lesson,” adding that this would also be a lesson to other journalists tempted to write “badly” about church ministers. The remarks triggered widespread condemnation, including from Cabinet Ministers present at the sermon, a Times editorial on the matter, and a public statement by MISA Swaziland, emphasising that such threats undermined the principle of freedom of expression and calling on Dlamini to follow more appropriate channels for addressing his gripes against journalists.’
IPI also reports on a more positive development,
‘Swaziland’s journalistic community also received some favourable attention, with the Index on Censorship, an organisation that issues annual awards to those who use journalism, literature, whistleblowing, films or campaigns to defend freedom of expression, selecting Swaziland’s Siphiwe Hlophe for the campaigning award, based on her work on behalf of HIV-infected women.’
So there you have it, Mr Prime Minister, It doesn’t matter how much you try to deny the truth; the whole world knows that media are not free in Swaziland.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
SWAZI P.M. ATTACKED ON PRESS FREEDOM
The International Press Institute (IPI) in its annual World Press Freedom Review, published last week (8 May 2008), investigates the state of media freedom in Swaziland for the year 2007.
Unsurprisingly, for anyone who follows the media scene in the kingdom it found a lot of problems. It shares many of the concerns that were featured in the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) So This Is Democracy? report, published on 3 May 2008.
The IPI also highlighted the way the libel laws were used in Swaziland to try to silence legitimate journalistic inquiry. You can read the full IPI report here.
I noticed two points from the IPI report of 2007 that I have not yet seen highlighted in any other press freedom review of Swaziland.
The first involved a controversial pastor called Justice Dlamini.
IPI reports,
‘Swaziland’s media was this year also confronted with a more surprising source of harassment. On 2 March, Justice Dlamini, a controversial church pastor, declared during a sermon that he was praying for the death of two journalists, Times of Swaziland managing editor Martin Dlamini and reporter Nhlanhla Mathunjwa, several days after the publication of a story detailing a squabble between the pastor and one of his subordinates over a church vehicle. Dlamini, who insisted the story “lowered his dignity,” said he had prayed to God to remove the two journalists from the face of the earth “to teach the media a lesson,” adding that this would also be a lesson to other journalists tempted to write “badly” about church ministers. The remarks triggered widespread condemnation, including from Cabinet Ministers present at the sermon, a Times editorial on the matter, and a public statement by MISA Swaziland, emphasising that such threats undermined the principle of freedom of expression and calling on Dlamini to follow more appropriate channels for addressing his gripes against journalists.’
IPI also reports on a more positive development,
‘Swaziland’s journalistic community also received some favourable attention, with the Index on Censorship, an organisation that issues annual awards to those who use journalism, literature, whistleblowing, films or campaigns to defend freedom of expression, selecting Swaziland’s Siphiwe Hlophe for the campaigning award, based on her work on behalf of HIV-infected women.’
So there you have it, Mr Prime Minister, It doesn’t matter how much you try to deny the truth; the whole world knows that media are not free in Swaziland.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
SWAZI P.M. ATTACKED ON PRESS FREEDOM
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
SWAZI MEDIA ‘UNDER CLOSURE THREAT’
Media in Swaziland operate under a perennial threat of closure if they do not toe the line, according to one of the kingdom’s most senior journalists.
The threats are real ‘and invariably come from the most powerful state apparatus’.
It has happened in the past, when the state closed down newspapers that it did not like.
Journalists in Swaziland, fearful that traditional authorities might attack them and their families, ‘have mastered the art of self-censorship, just so they can ensure their daily survival’.
Vusi Sibisi, writing in the Times Sunday (11 May 2008), said that although the new Swazi Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, in effect, the ruling elite in Swaziland is not allowing this to happen. Swazi Law and Custom and other ‘traditional’ values are considered to be more important than the constitution and this hampers journalists when they want to hold powerful people and institutions in Swaziland to account.
Sibisi wrote,
‘Disingenuous apologists of the state would point out specific media successes in bringing to the public attention sensitive stories such as the grand theft of E28 million (about 4 million US Dollars) from the taxpayer by politicians and government apparatchiks towards the purchase of an executive jet for the king is an example of how free the Swazi press is.
‘Of course, they would conveniently forget that this could be the tip of an iceberg, as it always is, to lull the public into thinking and believing that they have an effective watchdog when a lot more rot worse than the E28 million jetgate scandal goes unreported for fear of reprisals from the political elite.
‘Thus what the media in fact publishes does not and can never mirror the state of press freedom because there is so much more that goes unreported or unpublished because of overt and insidious threats that journalists have to deal with on a daily basis.
‘As such it would be simplistic to conclude about the state of press freedom on the basis of published news stories from a remote position without having an insight into and reflecting on why some news stories never see the light of day.’
On Swazi Law and Custom, Sibisi wrote,
‘And in the context of Swazi society, covert and insidious threats to press freedom are an everyday experience for a journalist because they are largely derived from Swazi Law and Custom and its concomitant baggage of traditional values and ethos, a very nebulous institution that enjoys boundless jurisdiction and [is] only accountable to the ruling elite.
‘As it were it is not a coincidence but by design that the constitution is also subordinate to Swazi Law and Custom. Swazi Law and Custom is a weapon of choice of the ruling class because it can be unleashed to make life hell for those who cross the paths of the ruling elite. By its very nature, Swazi Law and Custom is not compatible with equity justice as well as constitutionalism but is authoritarian in nature.
‘Thus journalists often find themselves having to weigh their professional responsibilities with not only their social welfare, but also those of their families.
‘Because of the insecurity over land tenure owing to the status of the country being more of a fiefdom than a nation state, citizens are forever at the mercy of traditional leaders who have the right to evict them at any time they so wish.
‘And a crusading investigative journalist is prone to be considered disrespectful and trigger the ire of traditional leaders and get evicted along with his / her entire family.
‘And this being the last line any journalist would want to cross, the alternative is to stay clear of those stories or issues that might lead to confrontation by developing extra-sensory self-censorship mechanisms.’
See also
SWAZILAND POLICE RAID MAGAZINE
LONG HISTORY OF SWAZI CENSORSHIP
The threats are real ‘and invariably come from the most powerful state apparatus’.
It has happened in the past, when the state closed down newspapers that it did not like.
Journalists in Swaziland, fearful that traditional authorities might attack them and their families, ‘have mastered the art of self-censorship, just so they can ensure their daily survival’.
Vusi Sibisi, writing in the Times Sunday (11 May 2008), said that although the new Swazi Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, in effect, the ruling elite in Swaziland is not allowing this to happen. Swazi Law and Custom and other ‘traditional’ values are considered to be more important than the constitution and this hampers journalists when they want to hold powerful people and institutions in Swaziland to account.
Sibisi wrote,
‘Disingenuous apologists of the state would point out specific media successes in bringing to the public attention sensitive stories such as the grand theft of E28 million (about 4 million US Dollars) from the taxpayer by politicians and government apparatchiks towards the purchase of an executive jet for the king is an example of how free the Swazi press is.
‘Of course, they would conveniently forget that this could be the tip of an iceberg, as it always is, to lull the public into thinking and believing that they have an effective watchdog when a lot more rot worse than the E28 million jetgate scandal goes unreported for fear of reprisals from the political elite.
‘Thus what the media in fact publishes does not and can never mirror the state of press freedom because there is so much more that goes unreported or unpublished because of overt and insidious threats that journalists have to deal with on a daily basis.
‘As such it would be simplistic to conclude about the state of press freedom on the basis of published news stories from a remote position without having an insight into and reflecting on why some news stories never see the light of day.’
On Swazi Law and Custom, Sibisi wrote,
‘And in the context of Swazi society, covert and insidious threats to press freedom are an everyday experience for a journalist because they are largely derived from Swazi Law and Custom and its concomitant baggage of traditional values and ethos, a very nebulous institution that enjoys boundless jurisdiction and [is] only accountable to the ruling elite.
‘As it were it is not a coincidence but by design that the constitution is also subordinate to Swazi Law and Custom. Swazi Law and Custom is a weapon of choice of the ruling class because it can be unleashed to make life hell for those who cross the paths of the ruling elite. By its very nature, Swazi Law and Custom is not compatible with equity justice as well as constitutionalism but is authoritarian in nature.
‘Thus journalists often find themselves having to weigh their professional responsibilities with not only their social welfare, but also those of their families.
‘Because of the insecurity over land tenure owing to the status of the country being more of a fiefdom than a nation state, citizens are forever at the mercy of traditional leaders who have the right to evict them at any time they so wish.
‘And a crusading investigative journalist is prone to be considered disrespectful and trigger the ire of traditional leaders and get evicted along with his / her entire family.
‘And this being the last line any journalist would want to cross, the alternative is to stay clear of those stories or issues that might lead to confrontation by developing extra-sensory self-censorship mechanisms.’
See also
SWAZILAND POLICE RAID MAGAZINE
LONG HISTORY OF SWAZI CENSORSHIP
SWAZI FREEDOM ACTIVIST ‘TRAITOR’
A leading freedom advocate in Swaziland has been branded a traitor by colleagues after saying that life in Swaziland isn’t as bad as all that.
Musa Hlophe, coordinator of the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisation (SCCCO)made his remarks at a meeting to mark World Press Freedom Day held in Mbabane on 2 May 2008
Hlophe’s remarks were seized upon by state radio Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service (SBIS). These comments from such a high profile freedom activist were a Godsend to the propaganda outfit as Hlophe seemed to be giving comfort to the ruling elite in Swaziland. In Hlophe’s own words SBIS ‘went to town about it’.
Hlophe returned to the theme in his weekly column in the Times Sunday (11 May 2008). He wrote that his remarks had brought comment from people both on the political right and the left. The left said that what he said was ‘an act of betrayal’.
Hlophe repeated his original remarks to the effect that people in Swaziland were better off than those in Zimbabwe or Burma.
‘I said that while I can criticise those in power for their misgovernance of the country, they have not found it necessary to put me and others like me behind bars. I said for that we needed to acknowledge God and thank Him for that,’ he wrote.
For this, Hlophe said, he was branded a traitor.
Calling him a traitor is a bit strong, but he is seriously misguided. To say that people in Swaziland should count their blessings because they are not as badly off as someone else is a bit like saying that a person put in jail for thirty years for a crime he did not commit should be grateful that he is not locked up for forty years.
The fact is that under any kind of definition you care to choose, Swaziland is not a free country. This is recognised throughout the free world. And Hlophe is not quite correct when he says that no one is prosecuted in Swaziland for their beliefs. Tell that to the Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) the banned political party and the people beaten by the police when they try to demand their constitutional rights. We might also ask those Swazis presently in exile abroad (because remaining in the kingdom is unsafe for them) what they think.
Hlophe is not a traitor, but on this occasion he has been a bit foolish and has given enormous comfort to the enemies of democracy in Swaziland.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
Musa Hlophe, coordinator of the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisation (SCCCO)made his remarks at a meeting to mark World Press Freedom Day held in Mbabane on 2 May 2008
Hlophe’s remarks were seized upon by state radio Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service (SBIS). These comments from such a high profile freedom activist were a Godsend to the propaganda outfit as Hlophe seemed to be giving comfort to the ruling elite in Swaziland. In Hlophe’s own words SBIS ‘went to town about it’.
Hlophe returned to the theme in his weekly column in the Times Sunday (11 May 2008). He wrote that his remarks had brought comment from people both on the political right and the left. The left said that what he said was ‘an act of betrayal’.
Hlophe repeated his original remarks to the effect that people in Swaziland were better off than those in Zimbabwe or Burma.
‘I said that while I can criticise those in power for their misgovernance of the country, they have not found it necessary to put me and others like me behind bars. I said for that we needed to acknowledge God and thank Him for that,’ he wrote.
For this, Hlophe said, he was branded a traitor.
Calling him a traitor is a bit strong, but he is seriously misguided. To say that people in Swaziland should count their blessings because they are not as badly off as someone else is a bit like saying that a person put in jail for thirty years for a crime he did not commit should be grateful that he is not locked up for forty years.
The fact is that under any kind of definition you care to choose, Swaziland is not a free country. This is recognised throughout the free world. And Hlophe is not quite correct when he says that no one is prosecuted in Swaziland for their beliefs. Tell that to the Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) the banned political party and the people beaten by the police when they try to demand their constitutional rights. We might also ask those Swazis presently in exile abroad (because remaining in the kingdom is unsafe for them) what they think.
Hlophe is not a traitor, but on this occasion he has been a bit foolish and has given enormous comfort to the enemies of democracy in Swaziland.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
SWAZI WOMEN DENIED RIGHTS
I’m glad to see that the Swazi Observer newspaper is giving us more reports from the rural areas.
Readers can learn so much about what life is really like in Swaziland from such reports in the Swazi media.
There was a good example of this in a report in the Observer on Friday (9 May 2008) which showed how women in the kingdom are discriminated against.
A report headlined Women charged with wearing pants told how three women in Dvokolwako had been summoned by ‘traditional authorities’ for wearing pants (trousers) after elders in the area had banned them.
One women told how someone reported her after she was spotted wearing jeans as she was walking to the shops. Another woman was said to be wearing pants at her home when she was charged.
One woman was reported by the Observer saying that leaders barred women from wearing pants because it was against culture.
The Observer added, ‘She viewed culture as a mechanism that is sometimes used to oppress people, especially women. She said culture should be dynamic and change with time.’
Another woman from the same community who was found wearing pants said she would not stop wearing them
‘I do not see any harm in wearing my jeans since I feel it is better than wearing mini skirts,’ the Observer reported her saying.
Parents, interviewed by the Observer said their children were being abused.
‘They said the elders should accept that this was another era in life where young people needed to live their lives differently from the time of their ancestors,’ the Observer reported.
Another mother told the Observer that her children would go on wearing pants and there was nothing she could do about it.
‘It means we will pay fines every single day because our children continue wearing pants even if they are warned against it,’ she told the Observer.
Unfortunately, the Observer reporter left it there. It would have been useful to the newspaper’s readers to have the dispute put into some context. After all, we know that under ‘traditional’ or ‘cultural’ law women are treated as children and are in effect ‘owned’ by their men (most obviously their husbands and fathers).
When we talk of ‘human rights’ for women we usually talk about major influences on a woman’s life, for example, the right to contraception and determination over their own bodies and the right to political, social and economic independence. But in Swaziland rural women have no rights at all. As the Observer report shows they don’t even have the right to decide which clothes to wear.
Not only have the elders of Dvokolwako denied these woman their human rights, more specifically they have denied them their rights under the Swaziland Constitution. Section 29 (3) states, ‘a woman shall not be compelled to undergo or uphold any custom to which she is in conscience opposed’.
The three women of Dvokolwako want to wear pants. The Constituion protects that wish and the elders are acting illegally in making the women stop.
So, thank you Observer for bringing this situation to our attention, but now please campaign on behalf of all Swazis to ensure that the new Swazi Constitution is upheld by everybody in the kingdom.
Readers can learn so much about what life is really like in Swaziland from such reports in the Swazi media.
There was a good example of this in a report in the Observer on Friday (9 May 2008) which showed how women in the kingdom are discriminated against.
A report headlined Women charged with wearing pants told how three women in Dvokolwako had been summoned by ‘traditional authorities’ for wearing pants (trousers) after elders in the area had banned them.
One women told how someone reported her after she was spotted wearing jeans as she was walking to the shops. Another woman was said to be wearing pants at her home when she was charged.
One woman was reported by the Observer saying that leaders barred women from wearing pants because it was against culture.
The Observer added, ‘She viewed culture as a mechanism that is sometimes used to oppress people, especially women. She said culture should be dynamic and change with time.’
Another woman from the same community who was found wearing pants said she would not stop wearing them
‘I do not see any harm in wearing my jeans since I feel it is better than wearing mini skirts,’ the Observer reported her saying.
Parents, interviewed by the Observer said their children were being abused.
‘They said the elders should accept that this was another era in life where young people needed to live their lives differently from the time of their ancestors,’ the Observer reported.
Another mother told the Observer that her children would go on wearing pants and there was nothing she could do about it.
‘It means we will pay fines every single day because our children continue wearing pants even if they are warned against it,’ she told the Observer.
Unfortunately, the Observer reporter left it there. It would have been useful to the newspaper’s readers to have the dispute put into some context. After all, we know that under ‘traditional’ or ‘cultural’ law women are treated as children and are in effect ‘owned’ by their men (most obviously their husbands and fathers).
When we talk of ‘human rights’ for women we usually talk about major influences on a woman’s life, for example, the right to contraception and determination over their own bodies and the right to political, social and economic independence. But in Swaziland rural women have no rights at all. As the Observer report shows they don’t even have the right to decide which clothes to wear.
Not only have the elders of Dvokolwako denied these woman their human rights, more specifically they have denied them their rights under the Swaziland Constitution. Section 29 (3) states, ‘a woman shall not be compelled to undergo or uphold any custom to which she is in conscience opposed’.
The three women of Dvokolwako want to wear pants. The Constituion protects that wish and the elders are acting illegally in making the women stop.
So, thank you Observer for bringing this situation to our attention, but now please campaign on behalf of all Swazis to ensure that the new Swazi Constitution is upheld by everybody in the kingdom.
Monday, 12 May 2008
TELL SWAZI KING THE TRUTH
Media in Swaziland are too meek when it comes to giving King Mswati III advice.
There is no straight talking, even on matters of huge national importance.
At a World Media Freedom Day meeting held in the Swazi capital Mbabane last week media folk said they should be brave and tell the king what is going on in his own kingdom.
I was reminded of the truth of this on Friday (9 May 2008) by an article in the Times of Swaziland by the newspaper’s managing editor, Martin Dlamini.
Dlamini wants the 40/40 celebration scheduled for later this year called off because Swaziland can’t afford it. The 40/40 is a double celebration to mark the king’s 40th birthday and also the 40th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from Britain.
Dlamini thinks that E50 million (about 7 million US Dollars) is too high a price to pay when living standards in the kingdom are at an all time low.
But Dlamini – like all other media people in Swaziland - isn’t allowed to tell the king the truth. Instead, he has to pussyfoot around and hope that someone other than the media will point out to him the reality of the situation.
Dlamini said this in his Just Thinking column, ‘Who, of all the wise men and women in this country [Swaziland], would dare approach the king to humbly request His Majesty to consider staggering these celebrations over the coming years until such time as we can really afford them?’
I note that Dlamini believes that the very act of approaching the king is something to be done ‘humbly’. Doesn’t this statement alone show how really out of touch people are making the king?
If the king reads the Times – and judging by the fuss he made last year (2007) when the Times Sunday reported that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thought the king’s lavish lifestyle was putting off foreign support – he, or his underlings (‘bootlickers’ Dlamini calls them in his article) certainly do, then he will already know what the problems over 40/40 are.
Dlamini set them out clearly in his article. Here’s what he had to say:
‘Living standards have dropped considerably. The gap between rich and poor has risen sharply and there are no indications yet that the situation could change anytime soon.
‘In the year of our 40th anniversary, we certainly need to take time to look back at our gains and our losses. One matter that needs serious attention is how this country has utilised its resources and how best she can invest the little that’s left for a better tomorrow.
‘The country’s statistics suggest that 70 percent of this population lives below the poverty line which means there is a great need to get the bigger part of this population out of misery.
‘These are the people to be thought of each time we have a little extra cash to spend.
‘For the 70 percent of the population, the celebration is meaningless because there is no guarantee they will have food on the table the next day. Even if there was, they are tired of living on handouts.
‘What would be a cause to celebrate independence for them is a day in their lives where the millions of Emalengeni have been pumped into genuine or effective community development projects that would make them independent of food aid, not the cosmetic projects or funding under the Regional Development Fund that has become a source of corruption for its administrators.’
Personally, I think Dlamini is right; the 40/40 celebrations should be put on hold. The cost is inappropriate at a time when about 600,000 people in Swaziland (out of a population of less than one million) have to rely on internationally donated food aid to stop from starving.
If the celebrations do go ahead, King Mswati III will once again be reviled in the eyes of the international community for spending money irresponsibly. He will also be seen to be out of touch with the realities of life in his own kingdom. This will do him immense personal harm and it will also damage Swaziland because it will make international donors reluctant to do business with the kingdom (something the IMF has already identified as happening).
There is still time to stop this happening, if someone would tell the king the truth. Humbly, or otherwise.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
There is no straight talking, even on matters of huge national importance.
At a World Media Freedom Day meeting held in the Swazi capital Mbabane last week media folk said they should be brave and tell the king what is going on in his own kingdom.
I was reminded of the truth of this on Friday (9 May 2008) by an article in the Times of Swaziland by the newspaper’s managing editor, Martin Dlamini.
Dlamini wants the 40/40 celebration scheduled for later this year called off because Swaziland can’t afford it. The 40/40 is a double celebration to mark the king’s 40th birthday and also the 40th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from Britain.
Dlamini thinks that E50 million (about 7 million US Dollars) is too high a price to pay when living standards in the kingdom are at an all time low.
But Dlamini – like all other media people in Swaziland - isn’t allowed to tell the king the truth. Instead, he has to pussyfoot around and hope that someone other than the media will point out to him the reality of the situation.
Dlamini said this in his Just Thinking column, ‘Who, of all the wise men and women in this country [Swaziland], would dare approach the king to humbly request His Majesty to consider staggering these celebrations over the coming years until such time as we can really afford them?’
I note that Dlamini believes that the very act of approaching the king is something to be done ‘humbly’. Doesn’t this statement alone show how really out of touch people are making the king?
If the king reads the Times – and judging by the fuss he made last year (2007) when the Times Sunday reported that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thought the king’s lavish lifestyle was putting off foreign support – he, or his underlings (‘bootlickers’ Dlamini calls them in his article) certainly do, then he will already know what the problems over 40/40 are.
Dlamini set them out clearly in his article. Here’s what he had to say:
‘Living standards have dropped considerably. The gap between rich and poor has risen sharply and there are no indications yet that the situation could change anytime soon.
‘In the year of our 40th anniversary, we certainly need to take time to look back at our gains and our losses. One matter that needs serious attention is how this country has utilised its resources and how best she can invest the little that’s left for a better tomorrow.
‘The country’s statistics suggest that 70 percent of this population lives below the poverty line which means there is a great need to get the bigger part of this population out of misery.
‘These are the people to be thought of each time we have a little extra cash to spend.
‘For the 70 percent of the population, the celebration is meaningless because there is no guarantee they will have food on the table the next day. Even if there was, they are tired of living on handouts.
‘What would be a cause to celebrate independence for them is a day in their lives where the millions of Emalengeni have been pumped into genuine or effective community development projects that would make them independent of food aid, not the cosmetic projects or funding under the Regional Development Fund that has become a source of corruption for its administrators.’
Personally, I think Dlamini is right; the 40/40 celebrations should be put on hold. The cost is inappropriate at a time when about 600,000 people in Swaziland (out of a population of less than one million) have to rely on internationally donated food aid to stop from starving.
If the celebrations do go ahead, King Mswati III will once again be reviled in the eyes of the international community for spending money irresponsibly. He will also be seen to be out of touch with the realities of life in his own kingdom. This will do him immense personal harm and it will also damage Swaziland because it will make international donors reluctant to do business with the kingdom (something the IMF has already identified as happening).
There is still time to stop this happening, if someone would tell the king the truth. Humbly, or otherwise.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
Sunday, 11 May 2008
SWAZI P.M. ATTACKED ON PRESS FREEDOM
Swazi Prime Minister Themba Dlamini has apparently ‘expressed shock’ that Swaziland is ranked among the worst nations in the world when it comes to press freedom.
He is reported to have asked a meeting of media editors, ‘Where does this come from, I wonder?’
According to a report in the Swazi Observer (9 May 2008), the PM was addressing the Swaziland Editor’s Forum at a monthly breakfast meeting he holds with its members.
Welile Dlamini of the Swaziland Broadcast and Information Service (SBIS) radio was reported to have told him that such information didn’t come from the Editor’s Forum.
One can forgive Welile Dlamini his comments. He does after all work for the government propaganda machine and he is expected to support the prime minister and his government whatever nonsense they may sprout.
But, how can the Prime Minister really not understand the state of media freedom in Swaziland? I suggest that he reads the publication So This Is democracy? The State of Media Freedom in Southern Africa 2007 that was published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) last Saturday (3 May 2008).
In that he can be reminded that a entire newspaper publishing house (The Times of Swaziland) was threatened with closure by King Mswati III last year because he objected to a report it had written on how the International Monetary Fund (IMF) believed that the king’s lavish lifestyle was deterring overseas’ investors from supporting Swaziland.
The Prime Minister came in for a kicking on his views on media freedom and the new Swazi Constitution at a conference of human rights activists being held in Swaziland.
The Observer reported (9 May 2008) that the Lawyers for Human Rights told the conference, ‘We regret with sadness to inform you and all the participants in this gathering, all that the Prime Minister said was totally incorrect and devoid of any truth and honesty.’
The Observer continued,
‘They [the Lawyers for Human Rights] argued that the premier conveniently omitted to mention that the constitution was a product of a flawed process in that not all citizens were allowed to participate in its formulation, conception and adoption.
‘They claimed the constitution was written under a state of emergency that had been imposed on the people since 12 April 1973.
‘They said the decree was announced through a King’s Proclamation that repealed the 1968 independence constitution, banned political parties and any form of political activity.’
The Observer reported the lawyers saying that the new Swazi Constituion had some good points, but ‘people still do not have the sovereign power to elect a government of their own choice … because they do not have the right to assembly and associate peacefully to form and join political parties’.
The Observer added, ‘On upcoming elections they said people were not allowed to elect representatives of their choice through political parties as they remain unlawful.’
This is pretty strong criticism of the government and I am sure many people will be surprised to see it published in the Swazi Observer, which is considered to be very loyal to the status quo in Swaziland. Only last week I attended a meeting to commemorate World Press Freedom Day at which the Observer was criticised for being ‘a government newspaper’.
Maybe the Observer is trying to shake off that label. If it continues to tell the Swazi people the truth about the government, the Swazi Constitution and the forthcoming elections it will deserve to be known as an independent newspaper.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
SWAZI MEDIA FREEDOM ON HOLD
He is reported to have asked a meeting of media editors, ‘Where does this come from, I wonder?’
According to a report in the Swazi Observer (9 May 2008), the PM was addressing the Swaziland Editor’s Forum at a monthly breakfast meeting he holds with its members.
Welile Dlamini of the Swaziland Broadcast and Information Service (SBIS) radio was reported to have told him that such information didn’t come from the Editor’s Forum.
One can forgive Welile Dlamini his comments. He does after all work for the government propaganda machine and he is expected to support the prime minister and his government whatever nonsense they may sprout.
But, how can the Prime Minister really not understand the state of media freedom in Swaziland? I suggest that he reads the publication So This Is democracy? The State of Media Freedom in Southern Africa 2007 that was published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) last Saturday (3 May 2008).
In that he can be reminded that a entire newspaper publishing house (The Times of Swaziland) was threatened with closure by King Mswati III last year because he objected to a report it had written on how the International Monetary Fund (IMF) believed that the king’s lavish lifestyle was deterring overseas’ investors from supporting Swaziland.
The Prime Minister came in for a kicking on his views on media freedom and the new Swazi Constitution at a conference of human rights activists being held in Swaziland.
The Observer reported (9 May 2008) that the Lawyers for Human Rights told the conference, ‘We regret with sadness to inform you and all the participants in this gathering, all that the Prime Minister said was totally incorrect and devoid of any truth and honesty.’
The Observer continued,
‘They [the Lawyers for Human Rights] argued that the premier conveniently omitted to mention that the constitution was a product of a flawed process in that not all citizens were allowed to participate in its formulation, conception and adoption.
‘They claimed the constitution was written under a state of emergency that had been imposed on the people since 12 April 1973.
‘They said the decree was announced through a King’s Proclamation that repealed the 1968 independence constitution, banned political parties and any form of political activity.’
The Observer reported the lawyers saying that the new Swazi Constituion had some good points, but ‘people still do not have the sovereign power to elect a government of their own choice … because they do not have the right to assembly and associate peacefully to form and join political parties’.
The Observer added, ‘On upcoming elections they said people were not allowed to elect representatives of their choice through political parties as they remain unlawful.’
This is pretty strong criticism of the government and I am sure many people will be surprised to see it published in the Swazi Observer, which is considered to be very loyal to the status quo in Swaziland. Only last week I attended a meeting to commemorate World Press Freedom Day at which the Observer was criticised for being ‘a government newspaper’.
Maybe the Observer is trying to shake off that label. If it continues to tell the Swazi people the truth about the government, the Swazi Constitution and the forthcoming elections it will deserve to be known as an independent newspaper.
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
SWAZI MEDIA FREEDOM ON HOLD
Friday, 9 May 2008
SWAZI TEXTILES ‘PR BLUNDER’
A public relations exercise by Swaziland’s textile factory owners may have backfired badly.
Journalists from Swazi media houses were given a tour of some of the factories in the kingdom that were at the centre of controversy in March this year (2008) when workers striking over poor pay and conditions were brutally attacked by police.
The idea was to show that the textile factories were responsible employers and had an important role to play in the Swazi economy.
The tour was organised by the Swaziland Textile Employers Association (STEA) with the Taiwanese embassy in Swaziland. (Companies based in Taiwan own most of the textile factories in Swaziland.)
The Swazi Observer played ball with the STEA and in its newspaper yesterday (8 May 2008) gave a simple account of the work going on in four of the major textile factories in Swaziland. Readers learned how many people were employed and such like. All good public relations stuff on behalf of the owners.
The Times of Swaziland took a different tack and managed to paint a pretty poor picture of the owners. A report (8 May 2008) headlined HIV/AIDS killing workers said that investors in the textile industry were complaining that too many workers were taking time off work because they were sick.
The Times reported, ‘It is said that those who are sick would spend more time visiting the health centres and clinics to seek medical attention than being at work.’
The Times managed to find someone to condemn the textile owners and complain that they were making unsubstantiated allegations against the workers. There are no official statistics available on which textile workers go sick and for what reason. Also, STEA members did not have HIV AIDS programmes to help workers. The conclusion reached was that ‘STEA were only interested in making money and do not care about Swazis.’
It didn’t get better for STEA when the Times also reported that factory bosses were searching workers as they left work to make sure they were not stealing. One factory owner described this behaviour as dehumanising.
The Observer has promised readers more reports from the textiles tour in its edition today (9 May 2008). The Times made no such promise. For which I am sure the STEA will be extremely grateful.
See also
SWAZI UNIONS AID ATTACKED WORKERS
Journalists from Swazi media houses were given a tour of some of the factories in the kingdom that were at the centre of controversy in March this year (2008) when workers striking over poor pay and conditions were brutally attacked by police.
The idea was to show that the textile factories were responsible employers and had an important role to play in the Swazi economy.
The tour was organised by the Swaziland Textile Employers Association (STEA) with the Taiwanese embassy in Swaziland. (Companies based in Taiwan own most of the textile factories in Swaziland.)
The Swazi Observer played ball with the STEA and in its newspaper yesterday (8 May 2008) gave a simple account of the work going on in four of the major textile factories in Swaziland. Readers learned how many people were employed and such like. All good public relations stuff on behalf of the owners.
The Times of Swaziland took a different tack and managed to paint a pretty poor picture of the owners. A report (8 May 2008) headlined HIV/AIDS killing workers said that investors in the textile industry were complaining that too many workers were taking time off work because they were sick.
The Times reported, ‘It is said that those who are sick would spend more time visiting the health centres and clinics to seek medical attention than being at work.’
The Times managed to find someone to condemn the textile owners and complain that they were making unsubstantiated allegations against the workers. There are no official statistics available on which textile workers go sick and for what reason. Also, STEA members did not have HIV AIDS programmes to help workers. The conclusion reached was that ‘STEA were only interested in making money and do not care about Swazis.’
It didn’t get better for STEA when the Times also reported that factory bosses were searching workers as they left work to make sure they were not stealing. One factory owner described this behaviour as dehumanising.
The Observer has promised readers more reports from the textiles tour in its edition today (9 May 2008). The Times made no such promise. For which I am sure the STEA will be extremely grateful.
See also
SWAZI UNIONS AID ATTACKED WORKERS
Thursday, 8 May 2008
SWAZI STUDENTS WRITE THE NEWS
The Times of Swaziland has published a unique supplement of news and features, written by university students.
It’s unique because the concept for the supplement, the collection and writing of the material, and persuading the Times to publish it, were all the initiative of the students.
The supplement called Varsity Pulse was published yesterday (7 May 2008). It was organised by students on the Journalism and Mass Communication (JMC) diploma at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA). But the fact that they are JMC students at UNISWA is not the point. Varsity Pulse was entirely the initiative of the students.
When the idea for a student newspaper was first raised among the students they sought information from UNISWA about how such a publication might be produced at the university itself.
UNISWA doesn’t really trust its students (or its staff for that matter) so it has built a huge bureaucratic wall to stop people taking initiative. In the case of student publications the Dean of Students’ Affairs Office would have to oversee the project and decide what could and could not be published: the Dean would in effect be the editor.
Disheartened by the bureaucracy, the students decided to go it alone and try to produce their own publication (but not to claim that it was an officially sanctioned publication of UNISWA). The next problem was the cost of producing the newspaper. In most publication enterprises the largest cost involved is in printing and distributing the final newspaper or magazine.
Despite what some members of the public might think, students are not swimming in spare cash, so they were not able to pay for it themselves. The idea of getting paid advertising was a non-starter because of a lack of time and anyway there are few advertisers in Swaziland and they wouldn’t immediately warm to a new newspaper that was untried in the market.
So the students approached the Times and the result was published yesterday. Quite fairly, the Times said that it would treat the material in the same way that it treated any other editorial contributions. It had to be of sufficient quality to be published and it had to adhere to journalism ethics.
Varsity Pulse, which ran for four pages, included articles about student living conditions; what it’s like to be a pregnant student; the unusual way some students are using condoms; profiles of a beauty queen and a student political leader; and a comment piece about the lack of freedom of expression in Swaziland. Oh, and an interview with some journalism professor….
As a university teacher I have seen many student publications in my time. Varsity Pulse ranks among the better ones, not only because of the variety of articles it contains that are mainly well written and well researched, but because of the way the supplement was produced entirely on the initiative of the students involved.
I hope there will be more editions of Varsity Pulse. It is a credit to the students and to the Times of Swaziland for supporting it.
It’s unique because the concept for the supplement, the collection and writing of the material, and persuading the Times to publish it, were all the initiative of the students.
The supplement called Varsity Pulse was published yesterday (7 May 2008). It was organised by students on the Journalism and Mass Communication (JMC) diploma at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA). But the fact that they are JMC students at UNISWA is not the point. Varsity Pulse was entirely the initiative of the students.
When the idea for a student newspaper was first raised among the students they sought information from UNISWA about how such a publication might be produced at the university itself.
UNISWA doesn’t really trust its students (or its staff for that matter) so it has built a huge bureaucratic wall to stop people taking initiative. In the case of student publications the Dean of Students’ Affairs Office would have to oversee the project and decide what could and could not be published: the Dean would in effect be the editor.
Disheartened by the bureaucracy, the students decided to go it alone and try to produce their own publication (but not to claim that it was an officially sanctioned publication of UNISWA). The next problem was the cost of producing the newspaper. In most publication enterprises the largest cost involved is in printing and distributing the final newspaper or magazine.
Despite what some members of the public might think, students are not swimming in spare cash, so they were not able to pay for it themselves. The idea of getting paid advertising was a non-starter because of a lack of time and anyway there are few advertisers in Swaziland and they wouldn’t immediately warm to a new newspaper that was untried in the market.
So the students approached the Times and the result was published yesterday. Quite fairly, the Times said that it would treat the material in the same way that it treated any other editorial contributions. It had to be of sufficient quality to be published and it had to adhere to journalism ethics.
Varsity Pulse, which ran for four pages, included articles about student living conditions; what it’s like to be a pregnant student; the unusual way some students are using condoms; profiles of a beauty queen and a student political leader; and a comment piece about the lack of freedom of expression in Swaziland. Oh, and an interview with some journalism professor….
As a university teacher I have seen many student publications in my time. Varsity Pulse ranks among the better ones, not only because of the variety of articles it contains that are mainly well written and well researched, but because of the way the supplement was produced entirely on the initiative of the students involved.
I hope there will be more editions of Varsity Pulse. It is a credit to the students and to the Times of Swaziland for supporting it.
SWAZILAND HIT BY ‘ELECTION CRISIS’
Swaziland holds it breath as it eagerly awaits King Mswati III’s declaration of the date for the kingdom’s national election.
Already dates have been set for people to register so that they are eligible to vote in the elections, widely expected to be in October or November 2008.
Yesterday (7 May 2008) the Swazi Observer published a special elections supplement, which among other things gave good solid information on who qualifies to be a voter and what a person has to do to register.
Some of the ‘qualifications’ look a bit strange to me. The Observer states that a person is only qualified to vote if she/he has been associated with Inkhundla for at least five years. That seems to mean that if you have moved home in the past five years you don’t get a vote. Or does it mean you have to move back to a place where you have lived for at least five years? It’s a bit confusing and seems to me that it will restrict the number of people who are entitled to vote, which is a pity because we need all the voters to participate that we can get if these elections are to be considered to be valid.
There is a lot of controversy in the Swazi media at the moment over these elections. Yesterday (7 May 2008) the Times of Swaziland went so far as to declare there was ‘an election crisis’. In an editorial comment the Times says the government is acting illegally in the way it announced the dates for voter registration.
The Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) announced the dates before a parliamentary bill was tabled that in effect gave the EBC the authority to do so. Two parliamentary bills intended to facilitate the smooth running of the election have now been withdrawn by the Swaziland Justice Minister.
There is already controversy over the way members of the EBC were selected (the inappropriate qualifications of the members has prompted many in the media to declare the ECB ‘illegal’).
The Times editorial states,
‘That the two bills have been withdrawn, while the EBC continues to educate people how to vote, only goes to prove how casual the authorities are about a very serious matter that has drastic implications for this country.
‘We subscribe to the view that while the constitution allows the existence of an EBC, it (the EBC) cannot operate without a law guiding its day to day operation.
‘If we had a parliament we did not regret, it would have moved to have the operations of the EBC suspended until Parliament had passed the law that governs its operations.’
The Observer supplement gave space to one organisation that doesn’t get much coverage in the Swazi media - the Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO).
PUDEMO is often incorrectly called in the international media the Swaziland ‘opposition party’. This isn’t true because in Swaziland all political parties are banned and there is no ‘official’ opposition in the way that democratically run countries would have a government and then have political parties that ‘opposed’ it.
Although PUDEMO is illegal in Swaziland that doesn’t stop it advocating for democracy in the kingdom.
It is because PUDEMO is illegal in Swaziland that some news media are reluctant to report its activities or comments. There is a feeling that to report on an illegal organisation might itself be illegal and therefore open up a media house to legal attack. Also, of course, in Swaziland just about the entire broadcast media are state controlled and they are not going to let PUDEMO make its case on the airwaves.
So, congratulations to the Observer for giving PUDEMO the chance to explain why it wants people to boycott the election and not cast their vote.
In an article, Mario Masuku, chairman of PUDEMO, writes that PUDEMO is ‘seeking for a constitutional multiparty democracy that is underpinned by the will of people,’ and ‘believes that unconditional respect for the fundamental people’s rights is core to any process of government, in particular that of adult suffrage.
‘National elections are a major component of the democratic process, but, however, they are not an end in themselves, and not all national elections are democratic, free and fair, and the forthcoming Swaziland ones are those one would describe as falling short of a popular democratic process.
‘The Commonwealth Expert Team that observed the Swaziland National Elections of 2003 had this to say on them: “We do not regard the credibility of these national elections as an issue; no elections can be credible when they are for a parliament which does not have power and when political parties are banned”.’
Masuku says that PUDEMO will boycott the election because the election will not give a mandate to ‘an accountable and credible government to serve the electorate’.
He adds, ‘Not only will we not take part, but will encourage people to hold on to their mandate until democratic elections are possible under a politically conducive environment.’
PUDEMO has also been getting coverage in the international media. On Tuesday (6 May 2008) the Voice of America (VoA) carried a report that PUDEMO ‘is accusing the government of King Mswati III of making a mockery of the tenets of democracy’ ahead of the election. VoA said PUDEMO ‘also reportedly described as illegal a decision by the electoral commission to open the voter’s register in preparation for the parliamentary elections’.
A report on the VoA website quotes Masuku saying that PUDEMO is determined to thwart the government’s efforts to deceive the ordinary citizen.
VoA quotes Masuku saying that although PUDEMO stands a chance of losing out by refusing to be part of the parliamentary election, it is ready to fight for a total regime change.
He said PUDEMO wanted people to realise that a minority would elect any government that is elected this year. It would be ‘a government that would have a parliament, or house of assembly that has no power at all when the power is vested in the King and his family. We would rather stand to our principle of respecting fundamental human rights, and that of democracy than be counted among compromises of the truth.’
The issue of whether to boycott the national election is hotting up in the Swazi media. Unsurprisingly, since all media in Swaziland have a stake in the status quo, all are urging people to partake in the election.
But there is a sizeable part of the so-called ‘progressive movement’ in Swaziland that wants a boycott. We shall see whether the media allows people in the kingdom to fully debate the issue. If the Observer is anything to go by, things are looking good in this regard at the moment.
See also
MORE BANS BY SWAZI ELECTION BOARD
Already dates have been set for people to register so that they are eligible to vote in the elections, widely expected to be in October or November 2008.
Yesterday (7 May 2008) the Swazi Observer published a special elections supplement, which among other things gave good solid information on who qualifies to be a voter and what a person has to do to register.
Some of the ‘qualifications’ look a bit strange to me. The Observer states that a person is only qualified to vote if she/he has been associated with Inkhundla for at least five years. That seems to mean that if you have moved home in the past five years you don’t get a vote. Or does it mean you have to move back to a place where you have lived for at least five years? It’s a bit confusing and seems to me that it will restrict the number of people who are entitled to vote, which is a pity because we need all the voters to participate that we can get if these elections are to be considered to be valid.
There is a lot of controversy in the Swazi media at the moment over these elections. Yesterday (7 May 2008) the Times of Swaziland went so far as to declare there was ‘an election crisis’. In an editorial comment the Times says the government is acting illegally in the way it announced the dates for voter registration.
The Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) announced the dates before a parliamentary bill was tabled that in effect gave the EBC the authority to do so. Two parliamentary bills intended to facilitate the smooth running of the election have now been withdrawn by the Swaziland Justice Minister.
There is already controversy over the way members of the EBC were selected (the inappropriate qualifications of the members has prompted many in the media to declare the ECB ‘illegal’).
The Times editorial states,
‘That the two bills have been withdrawn, while the EBC continues to educate people how to vote, only goes to prove how casual the authorities are about a very serious matter that has drastic implications for this country.
‘We subscribe to the view that while the constitution allows the existence of an EBC, it (the EBC) cannot operate without a law guiding its day to day operation.
‘If we had a parliament we did not regret, it would have moved to have the operations of the EBC suspended until Parliament had passed the law that governs its operations.’
The Observer supplement gave space to one organisation that doesn’t get much coverage in the Swazi media - the Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO).
PUDEMO is often incorrectly called in the international media the Swaziland ‘opposition party’. This isn’t true because in Swaziland all political parties are banned and there is no ‘official’ opposition in the way that democratically run countries would have a government and then have political parties that ‘opposed’ it.
Although PUDEMO is illegal in Swaziland that doesn’t stop it advocating for democracy in the kingdom.
It is because PUDEMO is illegal in Swaziland that some news media are reluctant to report its activities or comments. There is a feeling that to report on an illegal organisation might itself be illegal and therefore open up a media house to legal attack. Also, of course, in Swaziland just about the entire broadcast media are state controlled and they are not going to let PUDEMO make its case on the airwaves.
So, congratulations to the Observer for giving PUDEMO the chance to explain why it wants people to boycott the election and not cast their vote.
In an article, Mario Masuku, chairman of PUDEMO, writes that PUDEMO is ‘seeking for a constitutional multiparty democracy that is underpinned by the will of people,’ and ‘believes that unconditional respect for the fundamental people’s rights is core to any process of government, in particular that of adult suffrage.
‘National elections are a major component of the democratic process, but, however, they are not an end in themselves, and not all national elections are democratic, free and fair, and the forthcoming Swaziland ones are those one would describe as falling short of a popular democratic process.
‘The Commonwealth Expert Team that observed the Swaziland National Elections of 2003 had this to say on them: “We do not regard the credibility of these national elections as an issue; no elections can be credible when they are for a parliament which does not have power and when political parties are banned”.’
Masuku says that PUDEMO will boycott the election because the election will not give a mandate to ‘an accountable and credible government to serve the electorate’.
He adds, ‘Not only will we not take part, but will encourage people to hold on to their mandate until democratic elections are possible under a politically conducive environment.’
PUDEMO has also been getting coverage in the international media. On Tuesday (6 May 2008) the Voice of America (VoA) carried a report that PUDEMO ‘is accusing the government of King Mswati III of making a mockery of the tenets of democracy’ ahead of the election. VoA said PUDEMO ‘also reportedly described as illegal a decision by the electoral commission to open the voter’s register in preparation for the parliamentary elections’.
A report on the VoA website quotes Masuku saying that PUDEMO is determined to thwart the government’s efforts to deceive the ordinary citizen.
VoA quotes Masuku saying that although PUDEMO stands a chance of losing out by refusing to be part of the parliamentary election, it is ready to fight for a total regime change.
He said PUDEMO wanted people to realise that a minority would elect any government that is elected this year. It would be ‘a government that would have a parliament, or house of assembly that has no power at all when the power is vested in the King and his family. We would rather stand to our principle of respecting fundamental human rights, and that of democracy than be counted among compromises of the truth.’
The issue of whether to boycott the national election is hotting up in the Swazi media. Unsurprisingly, since all media in Swaziland have a stake in the status quo, all are urging people to partake in the election.
But there is a sizeable part of the so-called ‘progressive movement’ in Swaziland that wants a boycott. We shall see whether the media allows people in the kingdom to fully debate the issue. If the Observer is anything to go by, things are looking good in this regard at the moment.
See also
MORE BANS BY SWAZI ELECTION BOARD
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
SWAZI MEDIA ‘FAIL THE PEOPLE’
Journalists in Swaziland do not hold governments and powerful people to account.
Nor, do they ask questions that give people answers to why Swaziland is in crisis.
I wrote yesterday (Tuesday 6 May 2008) that journalists in Swaziland are not often reflective about the work they do. I wrote too soon, because there is an interesting article in this month’s Nation magazine (May 2008) on the very same subject.
Silekela Dlamini who correctly observes that Swaziland is faced with corruption and incompetent government goes on to say (also correctly) that journalists in Swaziland do not do enough to tell people why the kingdom is in such crisis.
Dlamini says that there are severe problems with the nation’s finances with illegal offshore banking of public funds; health and social welfare is in disarray with an underspending of its allocated budget coinciding while seriously ill Swazis are turned back by South African hospitals because bills have not been paid by the Swazi government.
Added to this, Dlamini writes, the new Swazi Constituion is being implemented ‘at a snail’s pace’ and the newly created Elections and Boundaries Commission ‘flouts every section of the very constitution that purportedly gave birth to it’.
What concerns Dlamini is that the media in Swaziland have failed to explain and analyse why these problems exist. They also allow Swazis to believe that Swaziland is a democracy when it is not.
‘While the media has always done commendably in exposing these anomalies, they have let us horribly down by failing to grind out answers from the public officials concerned,’ he writes.
‘Everybody knows something is not right in Swaziland. What everybody does not know is WHY this is so and WHY there are never any consequences for wrongdoing and sheer incompetence.
‘The role of the media is to dig for and provide the answers. Yet the media will not fulfil this mandate by adopting a gentle, pussycat approach toward complacent Tinkhundla [the system of government in Swaziland] functionaries. Corruption-riddled Tinkhundla demands robust journalism.’
Dlamini goes on to state that a vibrant and competent media play a major part in holding the powerful to account for their decisions and actions and giving voice to marginalised people in a kingdom where there is no formal political opposition to the ruling elite.
He adds, ‘What complicates this extra role is the challenge to still be seen to be maintaining a high level of objectivity. I often sense that our own journalists confuse objectivity with state friendly reporting, and this is where they lose the plot.’
Dlamini criticises the Swazi media for believing that Swaziland is a democratic nation. ‘What beats the imagination is how people for whom Tinkhundla is a daily classic case study of poor and dictatorial governance can actually be fooled this easily.’
Dlamini believes Swazi journalists are ‘abusing a proven potent peaceful weapon [journalism] for changing lives for the better. Haven’t we even had editors argue bizarrely that the king is no dictator because he has killed no one?’
He goes on, ‘Haven’t we heard the same calibre of editors claim spuriously that Swaziland is democratic because we have neither political prisoners nor exiles?’
Dlamini concludes, ‘Why should it be so difficult to work out that the king’s unopposed governance style is behind the laissez-faire public spending that has condemned more than 38 percent of the population to the HIV AIDS death row?
‘Let’s not forget that these are among the 70 percent who cannot feed themselves either, because of what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has repeatedly described as a perilously skewed economy. Does the king first have to literally spear a subject to death to qualify as a killing dictator?’
Dlamini is right about the way that people in Swaziland who should know better are saying that things aren’t so bad. I have attended two meetings this past week, one organised by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter and one forum for non-government organizations at which such sentiments were expressed.
Speakers believed that things were a bit better in Swaziland than they used to be and they’re not as bad as in some other countries (Zimbabwe often gets mentioned in this respect).
Such arguments miss the point. Swaziland is not a democracy. It becomes a democracy when people can elect and dismiss their government through an open ballot. It requires people to be able to join and to vote for political parties of their choice. It requires a separation of the political executive and the legislature and it needs a head of state that is not in control of the ‘defence’ forces and the police. When Swaziland has all of these things we can begin to think of it as a democracy.
A national election is due in Swaziland this year, let the media fulfil one of their roles (that of informing the public) about such things and let’s campaign for a proper democratic election.
See also
ROLE OF SWAZILAND’S JOURNALISTS
Nor, do they ask questions that give people answers to why Swaziland is in crisis.
I wrote yesterday (Tuesday 6 May 2008) that journalists in Swaziland are not often reflective about the work they do. I wrote too soon, because there is an interesting article in this month’s Nation magazine (May 2008) on the very same subject.
Silekela Dlamini who correctly observes that Swaziland is faced with corruption and incompetent government goes on to say (also correctly) that journalists in Swaziland do not do enough to tell people why the kingdom is in such crisis.
Dlamini says that there are severe problems with the nation’s finances with illegal offshore banking of public funds; health and social welfare is in disarray with an underspending of its allocated budget coinciding while seriously ill Swazis are turned back by South African hospitals because bills have not been paid by the Swazi government.
Added to this, Dlamini writes, the new Swazi Constituion is being implemented ‘at a snail’s pace’ and the newly created Elections and Boundaries Commission ‘flouts every section of the very constitution that purportedly gave birth to it’.
What concerns Dlamini is that the media in Swaziland have failed to explain and analyse why these problems exist. They also allow Swazis to believe that Swaziland is a democracy when it is not.
‘While the media has always done commendably in exposing these anomalies, they have let us horribly down by failing to grind out answers from the public officials concerned,’ he writes.
‘Everybody knows something is not right in Swaziland. What everybody does not know is WHY this is so and WHY there are never any consequences for wrongdoing and sheer incompetence.
‘The role of the media is to dig for and provide the answers. Yet the media will not fulfil this mandate by adopting a gentle, pussycat approach toward complacent Tinkhundla [the system of government in Swaziland] functionaries. Corruption-riddled Tinkhundla demands robust journalism.’
Dlamini goes on to state that a vibrant and competent media play a major part in holding the powerful to account for their decisions and actions and giving voice to marginalised people in a kingdom where there is no formal political opposition to the ruling elite.
He adds, ‘What complicates this extra role is the challenge to still be seen to be maintaining a high level of objectivity. I often sense that our own journalists confuse objectivity with state friendly reporting, and this is where they lose the plot.’
Dlamini criticises the Swazi media for believing that Swaziland is a democratic nation. ‘What beats the imagination is how people for whom Tinkhundla is a daily classic case study of poor and dictatorial governance can actually be fooled this easily.’
Dlamini believes Swazi journalists are ‘abusing a proven potent peaceful weapon [journalism] for changing lives for the better. Haven’t we even had editors argue bizarrely that the king is no dictator because he has killed no one?’
He goes on, ‘Haven’t we heard the same calibre of editors claim spuriously that Swaziland is democratic because we have neither political prisoners nor exiles?’
Dlamini concludes, ‘Why should it be so difficult to work out that the king’s unopposed governance style is behind the laissez-faire public spending that has condemned more than 38 percent of the population to the HIV AIDS death row?
‘Let’s not forget that these are among the 70 percent who cannot feed themselves either, because of what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has repeatedly described as a perilously skewed economy. Does the king first have to literally spear a subject to death to qualify as a killing dictator?’
Dlamini is right about the way that people in Swaziland who should know better are saying that things aren’t so bad. I have attended two meetings this past week, one organised by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter and one forum for non-government organizations at which such sentiments were expressed.
Speakers believed that things were a bit better in Swaziland than they used to be and they’re not as bad as in some other countries (Zimbabwe often gets mentioned in this respect).
Such arguments miss the point. Swaziland is not a democracy. It becomes a democracy when people can elect and dismiss their government through an open ballot. It requires people to be able to join and to vote for political parties of their choice. It requires a separation of the political executive and the legislature and it needs a head of state that is not in control of the ‘defence’ forces and the police. When Swaziland has all of these things we can begin to think of it as a democracy.
A national election is due in Swaziland this year, let the media fulfil one of their roles (that of informing the public) about such things and let’s campaign for a proper democratic election.
See also
ROLE OF SWAZILAND’S JOURNALISTS
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
ROLE OF SWAZILAND'S JOURNALISTS
Media houses in Swaziland are often criticised for not being very reflective about the work that they do.
However, at regular intervals you will find Swazi journalists criticising media people abroad for the way they write or broadcast about Swaziland. Usually, the Swazi journalists are unhappy about the way King Mswati III is portrayed (i.e. as a lavish spender who is out of touch with his people).
It is a great pity that the Swazi media do not give over more time and space to reflect on what they think their role should be in Swaziland (beyond being cheer leaders for the king).
I was reminded of this at the breakfast meeting organised by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter for World Press Freedom Day last Friday (2 May 2008). One speaker said that it was all right trying to teach people how to be journalists but there was nothing better than learning ‘on the job’ what it means to be a journalist in Swaziland. It was the bit about ‘journalist in Swaziland’ that struck me, as if there were something special about Swaziland.
People often like to think about Swaziland as being unique. Some people even go so far as to believe that Swaziland has been specifically singled out by God (in a good way, I hasten to add. With all the suffering in the kingdom, one could be excused for thinking God was punishing the place.)
I don’t think Swaziland is that unique, and especially the journalism in the kingdom. Journalists do face problems in Swaziland, especially when you consider that it is not a democracy, but journalists in other countries also have their problems.
Having said that, I’d like to draw your attention to an article that appeared in the Namibian newspaper in Windhoek, Namibia (7 March 2008). It was headlined ‘The Role of Journalism in Namibia’ and written by a university lecturer, Robin Tyson.
What struck me about the article was that if you deleted the word ‘Namibia’ and replaced it with ‘Swaziland’ what Tyson has to say about Namibia would apply very much to Swaziland.
Tyson wrote (of Namibia), ‘Unfortunately, after 17 years of independence, there remains a gap between the “freedom of speech” espoused in the Constitution, and the application of antiquated laws’.
Tyson also made reference to a move by the Namibian government to introduce a Government Media Council (something that the Swazi Government also from time to time threatens to do). Namibia’s Minister of Information and Broadcasting said when introducing the Media Council, ‘the media has the power to contribute to our nation building and socio-economic development’.
However, Tyson points out, that in an editorial responding to these comments Gwen Lister, editor of The Namibian, reminded people that while the media have rights and responsibilities, those responsibilities ‘are towards the people and not towards the Government of the day’.
A former Namibian Prime Minister Dr Hage Geingob himself often used to say, the Namibian nation is a house built with bricks. Remove one brick (by publishing ‘damaging’ stories, for instance) and the entire structure might fall. Some media therefore resort to what the late Zimbabwean journalist William Musarurwa called ‘minister and sunshine journalism’. Following this model, ministers opening clinics, schools or shopping centres would dominate the headlines. (Any regular viewer of Swazi TV News or listener to SBIS radio would immediately recognise ‘sunshine journalism’ as the dominant news agenda for both these state-owned news organisations).
But media have a duty to probe and to ask difficult questions and to provide a platform for democratic debate and a ‘vent’ for people’s opinions.
In Namibia, NBC radio introduced a PM’s Question Time, which allowed listeners to hear the Prime Minister and to give him feedback on what they thought. What Swazi Prime Minister would have the courage to do such a thing? The nearest we have is a monthly breakfast meeting attended by senior journalists and the PM and other Cabinet ministers. But if you look at the journalism that results from these meetings you can see that they are very tame affairs. Certainly, there are no journalists holding the government to account at these meetings.
In his article, Tyson refers to a new book from UK journalist Nick Davies (Flat Earth News, 2008) in which Davies says that media are no longer strong and vibrant searchers after that elusive ‘truth’. Instead, they often fail to check the most basic of untruths (or incomplete truths) given by a company, industry or even minister. They are susceptible to spin of the most blatant nature.
Rather, and often because of understaffing and time pressures, they simply grab the press release or speech and publish verbatim.
There also seems to be confusion about what news actually is. News should be, objective, honest, accurate, balanced, and, within all possible degrees, true.
Tyson reminds us that journalism codes of ethics in Namibia (and, of course, also in Swaziland) highlights all of these factors, also encouraging fair treatment of minorities such as children, gays and the disabled.
Tyson says no media editor in their right mind would tolerate ‘lies’ to be published, for, in the long term, it would lead to the publication losing all credibility and, thus, sales. The existing laws on defamation provide ample recourse to those aggrieved by ‘untrue’ reporting.
Because of this, all media publish or broadcast corrections where errors are made. After all, journalists are also human. But, Tyson says, the ‘untruths’ that media are being accused of are, in the vast majority, not news at all. They are letters to the editor, editorial comments, columns by writers, analysis pieces, or other items of a subjective nature.
Tyson says this needs to be seen as opinion rather than fact, subjective rather than objective writing. In other words, when reading a newspaper, we need to understand the clear difference between fact (news stories) and opinion (editorials, columns, letters, SMS messages, etc).
Tyson leaves us with a rallying call, which I support. ‘We must empower ourselves to become involved in the debate. We need to […] become active voices in these debates. If we disagree with a caller, phone in to the radio show. If we don't agree with a letter writer or columnist, write to the newspaper.
‘Let us use the existing media platforms, not as propaganda machines of “sunshine journalism”, but as communication marketplaces where we can meet, talk, and, finally perhaps, agree to disagree.’
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
However, at regular intervals you will find Swazi journalists criticising media people abroad for the way they write or broadcast about Swaziland. Usually, the Swazi journalists are unhappy about the way King Mswati III is portrayed (i.e. as a lavish spender who is out of touch with his people).
It is a great pity that the Swazi media do not give over more time and space to reflect on what they think their role should be in Swaziland (beyond being cheer leaders for the king).
I was reminded of this at the breakfast meeting organised by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter for World Press Freedom Day last Friday (2 May 2008). One speaker said that it was all right trying to teach people how to be journalists but there was nothing better than learning ‘on the job’ what it means to be a journalist in Swaziland. It was the bit about ‘journalist in Swaziland’ that struck me, as if there were something special about Swaziland.
People often like to think about Swaziland as being unique. Some people even go so far as to believe that Swaziland has been specifically singled out by God (in a good way, I hasten to add. With all the suffering in the kingdom, one could be excused for thinking God was punishing the place.)
I don’t think Swaziland is that unique, and especially the journalism in the kingdom. Journalists do face problems in Swaziland, especially when you consider that it is not a democracy, but journalists in other countries also have their problems.
Having said that, I’d like to draw your attention to an article that appeared in the Namibian newspaper in Windhoek, Namibia (7 March 2008). It was headlined ‘The Role of Journalism in Namibia’ and written by a university lecturer, Robin Tyson.
What struck me about the article was that if you deleted the word ‘Namibia’ and replaced it with ‘Swaziland’ what Tyson has to say about Namibia would apply very much to Swaziland.
Tyson wrote (of Namibia), ‘Unfortunately, after 17 years of independence, there remains a gap between the “freedom of speech” espoused in the Constitution, and the application of antiquated laws’.
Tyson also made reference to a move by the Namibian government to introduce a Government Media Council (something that the Swazi Government also from time to time threatens to do). Namibia’s Minister of Information and Broadcasting said when introducing the Media Council, ‘the media has the power to contribute to our nation building and socio-economic development’.
However, Tyson points out, that in an editorial responding to these comments Gwen Lister, editor of The Namibian, reminded people that while the media have rights and responsibilities, those responsibilities ‘are towards the people and not towards the Government of the day’.
A former Namibian Prime Minister Dr Hage Geingob himself often used to say, the Namibian nation is a house built with bricks. Remove one brick (by publishing ‘damaging’ stories, for instance) and the entire structure might fall. Some media therefore resort to what the late Zimbabwean journalist William Musarurwa called ‘minister and sunshine journalism’. Following this model, ministers opening clinics, schools or shopping centres would dominate the headlines. (Any regular viewer of Swazi TV News or listener to SBIS radio would immediately recognise ‘sunshine journalism’ as the dominant news agenda for both these state-owned news organisations).
But media have a duty to probe and to ask difficult questions and to provide a platform for democratic debate and a ‘vent’ for people’s opinions.
In Namibia, NBC radio introduced a PM’s Question Time, which allowed listeners to hear the Prime Minister and to give him feedback on what they thought. What Swazi Prime Minister would have the courage to do such a thing? The nearest we have is a monthly breakfast meeting attended by senior journalists and the PM and other Cabinet ministers. But if you look at the journalism that results from these meetings you can see that they are very tame affairs. Certainly, there are no journalists holding the government to account at these meetings.
In his article, Tyson refers to a new book from UK journalist Nick Davies (Flat Earth News, 2008) in which Davies says that media are no longer strong and vibrant searchers after that elusive ‘truth’. Instead, they often fail to check the most basic of untruths (or incomplete truths) given by a company, industry or even minister. They are susceptible to spin of the most blatant nature.
Rather, and often because of understaffing and time pressures, they simply grab the press release or speech and publish verbatim.
There also seems to be confusion about what news actually is. News should be, objective, honest, accurate, balanced, and, within all possible degrees, true.
Tyson reminds us that journalism codes of ethics in Namibia (and, of course, also in Swaziland) highlights all of these factors, also encouraging fair treatment of minorities such as children, gays and the disabled.
Tyson says no media editor in their right mind would tolerate ‘lies’ to be published, for, in the long term, it would lead to the publication losing all credibility and, thus, sales. The existing laws on defamation provide ample recourse to those aggrieved by ‘untrue’ reporting.
Because of this, all media publish or broadcast corrections where errors are made. After all, journalists are also human. But, Tyson says, the ‘untruths’ that media are being accused of are, in the vast majority, not news at all. They are letters to the editor, editorial comments, columns by writers, analysis pieces, or other items of a subjective nature.
Tyson says this needs to be seen as opinion rather than fact, subjective rather than objective writing. In other words, when reading a newspaper, we need to understand the clear difference between fact (news stories) and opinion (editorials, columns, letters, SMS messages, etc).
Tyson leaves us with a rallying call, which I support. ‘We must empower ourselves to become involved in the debate. We need to […] become active voices in these debates. If we disagree with a caller, phone in to the radio show. If we don't agree with a letter writer or columnist, write to the newspaper.
‘Let us use the existing media platforms, not as propaganda machines of “sunshine journalism”, but as communication marketplaces where we can meet, talk, and, finally perhaps, agree to disagree.’
See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
Monday, 5 May 2008
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM ON HOLD
Media freedom is not improving in Swaziland.
That will come as no surprise to observers of the media scene in the kingdom, but this is the only conclusion that can be reached after reading a new report officially launched on Saturday (3 May 2008) to coincide with World Press Freedom Day that details the state of media freedom in Swaziland.
So This Is Democracy 2007? The State of Media Freedom in Southern Africa, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) looks at media freedom throughout the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region. The section on Swaziland identifies ‘an air of unreality surrounds media freedom in Swaziland. On the one hand a new Swazi Constitution enacted in 2006 enshrines freedom of expression and freedom of the press, while on the other hand independent news media continue to be hounded by the kingdom’s authorities whenever they publish material that the ruling elites do not like.
‘Swaziland is not a democracy and the kingdom is effectively ruled by King Mswati III. A new constitution that underpins the position of the monarch, and on paper allows freedom of expression and freedom of the press (but leaves political parties banned), came into force in February 2006. There is no evidence that the constitution has made any appreciable change to freedom in the kingdom.’
The section on Swaziland (which I wrote for MISA) continues:
Media Government relations
Government continues to harass journalists. This was evident when the Swazi House of Assembly set up a Select Committee to investigate Mbongeni Mbingo, the editor of the Times Sunday, following a commentary piece he wrote in his newspaper criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom’s Constitution. The House of Assembly said the editor was in contempt of Parliament.
In October 2007, the Select Committee cleared the editor, citing his rights under the constitution to freedom of expression. But at the same time the committee showed it had no real commitment to freedom of expression when it recommended two measures that would further restrict press freedom in Swaziland.
The first measure was a recommendation that all journalists who cover Parliament should be accredited; effectively meaning that the government would choose which journalists should be allowed to cover and which should not.
It also means the government could decide to withdraw accreditation from journalists whose reporting upsets it.
The second measure was a recommendation from the Select Committee for the hated Media Council Bill to be reintroduced by Parliament. The Media Council Bill is designed to force statutory regulation on the media. This move ignores work that the media houses themselves have made to form a Media Complaints Commission (MCC) to monitor standards.
The Swaziland National Association of Journalists, with the support of MISA Swaziland, launched the MCC in March but it was not until November 2007 that media owners agreed to fund the commission’s operations and also fund setting up the MCC as a Trust.
The attack on the Times Sunday editor should not be seen in isolation. Earlier in the year the Swazi parliament had turned up the heat on dissenting journalists by increasing fines on journalists and media houses who publish articles deemed to be critical of or offending against Parliament or MPs. MISA Swaziland called these measures blatant discrimination “likely to scare the already docile Swazi press which cannot freely report on issues due to a litany of restrictions, laws and constant intimidation from authorities.”
In June 2007, the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo Mabuza, banned health workers from talking to the media in response to a number of stories that had been published highlighting the impact in the kingdom of a critical drug shortage.
On June 23, the Times of Swaziland experienced the effects of the minister’s censorship order when its photographer, Albert Masango, was denied access to the hospital. Hospital security harassed and pulled Masango out of the premises and carried him out to the gate.
Constitution
The new Swazi constitution has left King Mswati III in overall control of the kingdom and the media are harassed if they try to publish anything critical of him.
The most striking example of this harassment happened in March 2007 when the Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers was forced into publishing an abject apology to Swaziland’s King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News which blamed the king for many of the kingdom’s economic ills.
Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming.
This is not an isolated incident of censorship by the king. In February 2007, the king’s chief executive officer Bheki Dlamini barred journalists at a press conference from asking the king questions relating to the recently-formed Swaziland Police Union, whose formation had shaken the Swazi establishment.
Defamation
People in prominent positions, including Parliamentarians, continue to use the law courts as a way to harass journalists. Often, after the initial threat, no court case actually takes place. However, the threat of action is often enough to quieten troublesome journalists. In 2007 the Times of Swaziland had one lawsuit from the Minister of Education dismissed by the High Court on a technicality only to be sued by the Minister of Health and Social Welfare over an article about HIV/AIDS.
The Swazi Observer was sued by an MP over a report of an alleged assault. What is common to all the defamation cases is the unrealistically high damages that are claimed.
Access to Information
Information continues to be restricted in Swaziland, although in 2007 a draft Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill was published as one of seven new media-related bills.
The Times of Swaziland drew a blank in October 2007 when it tried to discover the cost of a trip funded by the Swazi taxpayer the Swaziland Prime Minister and his wife had made to the Bahamas in the Caribbean. The Times was told that the information was ‘classified’. The Times has also been trying without success to get information about how government tenders are awarded. It is estimated that about 40 million Rand is lost each month to corruption in Swaziland.
Legislative Environment
The Swazi government is keen to give the impression that it is committed to reforming the 30-plus restrictive media laws that currently exist in the kingdom, but media stakeholders doubt its sincerity.
In 2007 the government introduced seven parliamentary bills, including the, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, Swaziland Media Commission Bill, Swaziland Public Broadcasting Corporation Bill, Swaziland Broadcasting Bill and the Books and Newspapers Bill.
What all these bills have in common is that they purport to place the interests of the media at their centres and they have not originated from within Swaziland. A Commonwealth Secretariat consultant was engaged to draft the bills, relying for inspiration on bills that presently exist in democratic countries. The fact that Swaziland is not a democracy was apparently overlooked.
In Swaziland, customary law, which has equal status with the Roman Dutch Common Law and statutes, continues to restrict freedom of the media and freedom of expression. For instance, there are cultural dictates that prevent people from criticising or questioning those in authority. Although, in theory, the Constitution is supreme over all other laws, unwritten customary law wields enormous power in practice and because Swazi Law and Custom is not codified, it cannot be tested against the Constitution.
Members of a workshop held for media stakeholders to discuss the bills before they were piloted in Parliament saw the unreality of the approach taken by the consultant and concluded that their own input was irrelevant because ‘traditional authorities’ in the kingdom had not been consulted on the bills’ contents. Since nothing happened in Swaziland without the consent of these ‘traditional authorities’ the bills as presently written had no value, they said.
Broadcasting
In June 2007 MISA Swaziland organized a workshop to advocate for the kingdom’s state controlled television and radio stations to adopt a system of public service broadcasting (PSB) which would provide greater access to the airwaves to a wide range of people to share information and ideas.
At present broadcasting in Swaziland is strictly controlled and only news and information that supports the monarchy and government can be aired.
The workshop was told by the Ministry of Information and Public Service that the kingdom’s radio stations were close to implementing a PSB model. Participants heard that the stations’ collective mission statement committed them to be fully under PSB by the year 2000. This deadline has already been missed by seven years which tells the truth about the government’s commitment.
The ruling elites have nothing to gain by giving up their control of the airwaves and will therefore not do so willingly. Instead, they placate media freedom advocates with fine words and promises of good intentions.
Media Diversity
The media environment in Swaziland remains static. The media market is small with broadcasting dominated by the government. There are two newspaper publishers. The African Echo group owns the Times of Swaziland and its companion newspapers. Tibiyo TakaNgwane, a conglomerate effectively controlled by the Swazi Royal family, owns the rest. There is one independently owned national magazine. Circulation figures for newspapers are not publicly available but it is estimated that the Times of Swaziland sells about 35 000 copies per day and the Swazi Observer between 5 000 and 15 000 per day.
Media fraternity
Media fraternity remains weak in Swaziland. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists is not well respected (even by its members) and its main contribution to Swazi journalism, its code of ethical conduct, remains largely ignored.
The new trade union Media Workers Union of Swaziland made some headway but its membership split over the conduct of a proposed strike at the Times group of newspapers. By the end of the year it was difficult to see whether this union would be able to establish itself as a credible force in the kingdom.
MISA and other NGOs continued to hold workshops to help develop the skills and knowledge of working journalists, but there remains a general lack of commitment by media houses to training,
Conclusion
There was no significant change in the media environment in 2007. The constitution which on paper allows freedom of speech and freedom of the media has made no appreciable impact. This has not stopped some media practitioners and media freedom advocates from continuing to challenge ruling elites, but the sad truth is that in Swaziland traditional authorities effectively rule and there is no indication that they want to give up their powers by granting freedom to anyone, the media included.
That will come as no surprise to observers of the media scene in the kingdom, but this is the only conclusion that can be reached after reading a new report officially launched on Saturday (3 May 2008) to coincide with World Press Freedom Day that details the state of media freedom in Swaziland.
So This Is Democracy 2007? The State of Media Freedom in Southern Africa, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) looks at media freedom throughout the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region. The section on Swaziland identifies ‘an air of unreality surrounds media freedom in Swaziland. On the one hand a new Swazi Constitution enacted in 2006 enshrines freedom of expression and freedom of the press, while on the other hand independent news media continue to be hounded by the kingdom’s authorities whenever they publish material that the ruling elites do not like.
‘Swaziland is not a democracy and the kingdom is effectively ruled by King Mswati III. A new constitution that underpins the position of the monarch, and on paper allows freedom of expression and freedom of the press (but leaves political parties banned), came into force in February 2006. There is no evidence that the constitution has made any appreciable change to freedom in the kingdom.’
The section on Swaziland (which I wrote for MISA) continues:
Media Government relations
Government continues to harass journalists. This was evident when the Swazi House of Assembly set up a Select Committee to investigate Mbongeni Mbingo, the editor of the Times Sunday, following a commentary piece he wrote in his newspaper criticising the House Speaker for not allowing a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom’s Constitution. The House of Assembly said the editor was in contempt of Parliament.
In October 2007, the Select Committee cleared the editor, citing his rights under the constitution to freedom of expression. But at the same time the committee showed it had no real commitment to freedom of expression when it recommended two measures that would further restrict press freedom in Swaziland.
The first measure was a recommendation that all journalists who cover Parliament should be accredited; effectively meaning that the government would choose which journalists should be allowed to cover and which should not.
It also means the government could decide to withdraw accreditation from journalists whose reporting upsets it.
The second measure was a recommendation from the Select Committee for the hated Media Council Bill to be reintroduced by Parliament. The Media Council Bill is designed to force statutory regulation on the media. This move ignores work that the media houses themselves have made to form a Media Complaints Commission (MCC) to monitor standards.
The Swaziland National Association of Journalists, with the support of MISA Swaziland, launched the MCC in March but it was not until November 2007 that media owners agreed to fund the commission’s operations and also fund setting up the MCC as a Trust.
The attack on the Times Sunday editor should not be seen in isolation. Earlier in the year the Swazi parliament had turned up the heat on dissenting journalists by increasing fines on journalists and media houses who publish articles deemed to be critical of or offending against Parliament or MPs. MISA Swaziland called these measures blatant discrimination “likely to scare the already docile Swazi press which cannot freely report on issues due to a litany of restrictions, laws and constant intimidation from authorities.”
In June 2007, the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo Mabuza, banned health workers from talking to the media in response to a number of stories that had been published highlighting the impact in the kingdom of a critical drug shortage.
On June 23, the Times of Swaziland experienced the effects of the minister’s censorship order when its photographer, Albert Masango, was denied access to the hospital. Hospital security harassed and pulled Masango out of the premises and carried him out to the gate.
Constitution
The new Swazi constitution has left King Mswati III in overall control of the kingdom and the media are harassed if they try to publish anything critical of him.
The most striking example of this harassment happened in March 2007 when the Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers was forced into publishing an abject apology to Swaziland’s King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News which blamed the king for many of the kingdom’s economic ills.
Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). The publisher was summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming.
This is not an isolated incident of censorship by the king. In February 2007, the king’s chief executive officer Bheki Dlamini barred journalists at a press conference from asking the king questions relating to the recently-formed Swaziland Police Union, whose formation had shaken the Swazi establishment.
Defamation
People in prominent positions, including Parliamentarians, continue to use the law courts as a way to harass journalists. Often, after the initial threat, no court case actually takes place. However, the threat of action is often enough to quieten troublesome journalists. In 2007 the Times of Swaziland had one lawsuit from the Minister of Education dismissed by the High Court on a technicality only to be sued by the Minister of Health and Social Welfare over an article about HIV/AIDS.
The Swazi Observer was sued by an MP over a report of an alleged assault. What is common to all the defamation cases is the unrealistically high damages that are claimed.
Access to Information
Information continues to be restricted in Swaziland, although in 2007 a draft Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill was published as one of seven new media-related bills.
The Times of Swaziland drew a blank in October 2007 when it tried to discover the cost of a trip funded by the Swazi taxpayer the Swaziland Prime Minister and his wife had made to the Bahamas in the Caribbean. The Times was told that the information was ‘classified’. The Times has also been trying without success to get information about how government tenders are awarded. It is estimated that about 40 million Rand is lost each month to corruption in Swaziland.
Legislative Environment
The Swazi government is keen to give the impression that it is committed to reforming the 30-plus restrictive media laws that currently exist in the kingdom, but media stakeholders doubt its sincerity.
In 2007 the government introduced seven parliamentary bills, including the, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, Swaziland Media Commission Bill, Swaziland Public Broadcasting Corporation Bill, Swaziland Broadcasting Bill and the Books and Newspapers Bill.
What all these bills have in common is that they purport to place the interests of the media at their centres and they have not originated from within Swaziland. A Commonwealth Secretariat consultant was engaged to draft the bills, relying for inspiration on bills that presently exist in democratic countries. The fact that Swaziland is not a democracy was apparently overlooked.
In Swaziland, customary law, which has equal status with the Roman Dutch Common Law and statutes, continues to restrict freedom of the media and freedom of expression. For instance, there are cultural dictates that prevent people from criticising or questioning those in authority. Although, in theory, the Constitution is supreme over all other laws, unwritten customary law wields enormous power in practice and because Swazi Law and Custom is not codified, it cannot be tested against the Constitution.
Members of a workshop held for media stakeholders to discuss the bills before they were piloted in Parliament saw the unreality of the approach taken by the consultant and concluded that their own input was irrelevant because ‘traditional authorities’ in the kingdom had not been consulted on the bills’ contents. Since nothing happened in Swaziland without the consent of these ‘traditional authorities’ the bills as presently written had no value, they said.
Broadcasting
In June 2007 MISA Swaziland organized a workshop to advocate for the kingdom’s state controlled television and radio stations to adopt a system of public service broadcasting (PSB) which would provide greater access to the airwaves to a wide range of people to share information and ideas.
At present broadcasting in Swaziland is strictly controlled and only news and information that supports the monarchy and government can be aired.
The workshop was told by the Ministry of Information and Public Service that the kingdom’s radio stations were close to implementing a PSB model. Participants heard that the stations’ collective mission statement committed them to be fully under PSB by the year 2000. This deadline has already been missed by seven years which tells the truth about the government’s commitment.
The ruling elites have nothing to gain by giving up their control of the airwaves and will therefore not do so willingly. Instead, they placate media freedom advocates with fine words and promises of good intentions.
Media Diversity
The media environment in Swaziland remains static. The media market is small with broadcasting dominated by the government. There are two newspaper publishers. The African Echo group owns the Times of Swaziland and its companion newspapers. Tibiyo TakaNgwane, a conglomerate effectively controlled by the Swazi Royal family, owns the rest. There is one independently owned national magazine. Circulation figures for newspapers are not publicly available but it is estimated that the Times of Swaziland sells about 35 000 copies per day and the Swazi Observer between 5 000 and 15 000 per day.
Media fraternity
Media fraternity remains weak in Swaziland. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists is not well respected (even by its members) and its main contribution to Swazi journalism, its code of ethical conduct, remains largely ignored.
The new trade union Media Workers Union of Swaziland made some headway but its membership split over the conduct of a proposed strike at the Times group of newspapers. By the end of the year it was difficult to see whether this union would be able to establish itself as a credible force in the kingdom.
MISA and other NGOs continued to hold workshops to help develop the skills and knowledge of working journalists, but there remains a general lack of commitment by media houses to training,
Conclusion
There was no significant change in the media environment in 2007. The constitution which on paper allows freedom of speech and freedom of the media has made no appreciable impact. This has not stopped some media practitioners and media freedom advocates from continuing to challenge ruling elites, but the sad truth is that in Swaziland traditional authorities effectively rule and there is no indication that they want to give up their powers by granting freedom to anyone, the media included.
Sunday, 4 May 2008
SWAZILAND ARMY ‘PREPARES FOR WAR’
Is the Swazi army preparing for war?
This is an obvious question to ask after news emerged yesterday (Saturday 3 May 2008) that the Swaziland Government is to purchase ‘hundreds of guns and millions of ammunition’, as well as ‘security gadgets’.
The Swazi News reported yesterday that a total of E25 million (about 3.5 million US Dollars) is to be spent on the equipment.
The official line is that assault rifles worth E1 million, pistols worth E500,000, bullets worth E14 million and E5 million of ‘security gadgets’ such as mine detectors are needed to protect the eight heads of state and other overseas’ dignities who are expected to attend Swaziland’s 40/40 celebrations in September 2008. (The celebrations are to mark the 40th birthday of King Mswati III and the 40th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from Britain, both of which occur in 2008).
It only takes a moment to see that the amount of equipment to be purchased is far in excess of that needed to protect ‘dignitaries’ for a couple of days during a double birthday celebration. Why on earth does the army need millions of bullets to protect a small number of people?
And, from whom exactly does the army think it is protecting the dignitaries?
An army would only purchase millions of bullets if it were about to go to war. And whom is Swaziland going to fight? There are no external enemies of Swaziland at the moment, so one can only assume that the bullets will be stockpiled for future use, possibly even to use against Swazis. There are fewer than one million people living in Swaziland so there will be enough bullets to go round, with some left over.
The news of the army purchases comes just as the army started to deploy troops all over Swaziland in what it described as an attempt to cut down on crime in the kingdom and round up illegal items such as guns, weapons, cars and smuggled goods.
There is a heightened level of mistrust in the kingdom at the moment regarding the ruling elite. The deployment of the army against its own people is just one fear. The unconstitutional way in which an Elections and Boundaries Commission was selected to oversee the national election expected in November 2008 has also raised suspicions that the election will not be free and fair.
The Swazi News refused to divulge full details of the arms purchase although it claims to have them. The newspaper said it would not publish details ‘as it’s a national security matter’.
Actually, it is not a security matter; it is a matter of public interest. It is clear to anyone who stops to think for a moment that the amount of weaponry that the army is too much simply for ‘protection of dignities’.
The Swazi government is telling lies about this purchase and the media need to expose those lies now – before it is too late.
See also
SWAZILAND ‘TO BE MILITARY STATE’
This is an obvious question to ask after news emerged yesterday (Saturday 3 May 2008) that the Swaziland Government is to purchase ‘hundreds of guns and millions of ammunition’, as well as ‘security gadgets’.
The Swazi News reported yesterday that a total of E25 million (about 3.5 million US Dollars) is to be spent on the equipment.
The official line is that assault rifles worth E1 million, pistols worth E500,000, bullets worth E14 million and E5 million of ‘security gadgets’ such as mine detectors are needed to protect the eight heads of state and other overseas’ dignities who are expected to attend Swaziland’s 40/40 celebrations in September 2008. (The celebrations are to mark the 40th birthday of King Mswati III and the 40th anniversary of Swaziland’s independence from Britain, both of which occur in 2008).
It only takes a moment to see that the amount of equipment to be purchased is far in excess of that needed to protect ‘dignitaries’ for a couple of days during a double birthday celebration. Why on earth does the army need millions of bullets to protect a small number of people?
And, from whom exactly does the army think it is protecting the dignitaries?
An army would only purchase millions of bullets if it were about to go to war. And whom is Swaziland going to fight? There are no external enemies of Swaziland at the moment, so one can only assume that the bullets will be stockpiled for future use, possibly even to use against Swazis. There are fewer than one million people living in Swaziland so there will be enough bullets to go round, with some left over.
The news of the army purchases comes just as the army started to deploy troops all over Swaziland in what it described as an attempt to cut down on crime in the kingdom and round up illegal items such as guns, weapons, cars and smuggled goods.
There is a heightened level of mistrust in the kingdom at the moment regarding the ruling elite. The deployment of the army against its own people is just one fear. The unconstitutional way in which an Elections and Boundaries Commission was selected to oversee the national election expected in November 2008 has also raised suspicions that the election will not be free and fair.
The Swazi News refused to divulge full details of the arms purchase although it claims to have them. The newspaper said it would not publish details ‘as it’s a national security matter’.
Actually, it is not a security matter; it is a matter of public interest. It is clear to anyone who stops to think for a moment that the amount of weaponry that the army is too much simply for ‘protection of dignities’.
The Swazi government is telling lies about this purchase and the media need to expose those lies now – before it is too late.
See also
SWAZILAND ‘TO BE MILITARY STATE’
Saturday, 3 May 2008
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY
The media cannot be free in Swaziland because the kingdom itself is not free.
I was reminded forcefully of this at a meeting held in the Swazi capital Mbabane to mark World Press Freedom Day yesterday (Friday 2 May 2008).
Journalists who believe in media freedom and the need for people in Swaziland to have access to information from their rulers outlined the problems they faced working in a non-democracy. Swaziland has been ruled by a decree for 34 years and cannot be considered to be a free country, they said.
I have to agree. The recently enacted Swazi Constitution has done very little to improve freedom of expression or freedom of association in Swaziland. With an expected national election only months away, political parties remain banned in the kingdom and much of the media is under strict control.
Although some participants at the debate felt there had been some improvements recently and Swaziland was a bit more free than it used to be and some other countries are today (for example, Zimbabwe) every speaker agreed that many improvements were needed before Swaziland could be considered to have a genuinely open media.
Top of the list of concerns was the attitude of the media towards the monarchy. It is impossible to have a reasoned debate about the role of the monarchy in Swaziland, participants felt. Since 1973, Swaziland, presently headed by King Mswati III, has been an absolute monarchy and, I believe, the new constitution does nothing to change this fact.
The main ‘no-go’ area with the king was how he spent the money he was allocated in the national budget. It is estimated that the king takes five percent of the total national budget. It has also been widely reported by Forbes Magazine in New York (and carried in the international media) that King Mswati III himself has a net worth of 200 million US Dollars (about 1.4 billion emalangeni).
A documentary film called Without the King, which is being shown across North America, but not in Swaziland, stated that the Swazi royal family owns a majority of the country’s wealth, with the king owning seven royal residences, a fleet of luxury cars and a large stake in the country’s real estate, and the media and sugar industries.
But none of this can be discussed in the Swazi media.
One speaker felt that the king was isolated from ordinary people in Swaziland and did not really understand what was going on in the kingdom. The media could help inform him of the realities of life, it was said.
Some participants felt that the Swazi media were too meek when it came to reporting about the king. Media houses in Swaziland should decide for themselves what could and should be reported about the king and if they all stuck together it would be difficult for them to be attacked. There is a history in Swaziland of newspapers and magazines being forced to close down and of journalists being sacked from their jobs because they were deemed to have offended the monarchy.
Personally, I think the media should take a united stand, but it will never happen. Media houses in Swaziland have no sense of solidarity and often revel in the discomfort of their rivals. For example, on the same day of the debate, the Swazi Observer ran a news report about its rival, the Times of Swaziland, being accused by an alleged rapist of defamation.
The Observer is also in effect owned by the king and journalists (even those who work for the newspaper and its companion, the Weekend Observer) openly call it ‘The King’s Newspaper’. Even though he doesn’t take a ‘hands-on’ interest in the paper’s day-to-day running it is known that if he is unhappy about a report in the newspapers, he will let it be known.
The possibility that the Observer would join forces with other media houses to debate the role of the king is a non-starter.
Also at the debate, which was organised by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter, Radio Swaziland, part of the Swaziland Broadcasting and information Services (SBIS), was heavily criticised for its lack of journalistic integrity. Radio is for the government and it will not say anything that puts the government in a bad light, one speaker with enough personal knowledge to know, stated.
Some people wanted to defend the reputation of the Swazi Observer, declaring that it is not a ‘government paper’. Technically this is true, but the Observer is such a close supporter of the status quo that it doesn’t have to be ‘controlled’ by the government, the journalists on the paper exercise so much self-censorship that it doesn’t matter that it is not ‘officially’ controlled by the government. One speaker said that self-censorship was ‘killing’ the paper. Whatever the journalists themselves believe there is definitely a perception in Swaziland at large that the Observer is biased in favour of those who are in power.
As someone who comments on the media scene in Swaziland I found the meeting quite energising. If these meetings serve no other purposes, they remind participants that they are not alone. There are a sizeable number of media practitioners who genuinely want change and are not scared to say so. That is commendable in a kingdom that has an elite who believe they have a divine right (sometimes literally) to rule and that no one else should dare question them.
But, as the meeting itself recognised, it is one thing to have breakfast meetings and seminars and workshops it is quite another to enact real change.
That is the challenge for us all.
I was reminded forcefully of this at a meeting held in the Swazi capital Mbabane to mark World Press Freedom Day yesterday (Friday 2 May 2008).
Journalists who believe in media freedom and the need for people in Swaziland to have access to information from their rulers outlined the problems they faced working in a non-democracy. Swaziland has been ruled by a decree for 34 years and cannot be considered to be a free country, they said.
I have to agree. The recently enacted Swazi Constitution has done very little to improve freedom of expression or freedom of association in Swaziland. With an expected national election only months away, political parties remain banned in the kingdom and much of the media is under strict control.
Although some participants at the debate felt there had been some improvements recently and Swaziland was a bit more free than it used to be and some other countries are today (for example, Zimbabwe) every speaker agreed that many improvements were needed before Swaziland could be considered to have a genuinely open media.
Top of the list of concerns was the attitude of the media towards the monarchy. It is impossible to have a reasoned debate about the role of the monarchy in Swaziland, participants felt. Since 1973, Swaziland, presently headed by King Mswati III, has been an absolute monarchy and, I believe, the new constitution does nothing to change this fact.
The main ‘no-go’ area with the king was how he spent the money he was allocated in the national budget. It is estimated that the king takes five percent of the total national budget. It has also been widely reported by Forbes Magazine in New York (and carried in the international media) that King Mswati III himself has a net worth of 200 million US Dollars (about 1.4 billion emalangeni).
A documentary film called Without the King, which is being shown across North America, but not in Swaziland, stated that the Swazi royal family owns a majority of the country’s wealth, with the king owning seven royal residences, a fleet of luxury cars and a large stake in the country’s real estate, and the media and sugar industries.
But none of this can be discussed in the Swazi media.
One speaker felt that the king was isolated from ordinary people in Swaziland and did not really understand what was going on in the kingdom. The media could help inform him of the realities of life, it was said.
Some participants felt that the Swazi media were too meek when it came to reporting about the king. Media houses in Swaziland should decide for themselves what could and should be reported about the king and if they all stuck together it would be difficult for them to be attacked. There is a history in Swaziland of newspapers and magazines being forced to close down and of journalists being sacked from their jobs because they were deemed to have offended the monarchy.
Personally, I think the media should take a united stand, but it will never happen. Media houses in Swaziland have no sense of solidarity and often revel in the discomfort of their rivals. For example, on the same day of the debate, the Swazi Observer ran a news report about its rival, the Times of Swaziland, being accused by an alleged rapist of defamation.
The Observer is also in effect owned by the king and journalists (even those who work for the newspaper and its companion, the Weekend Observer) openly call it ‘The King’s Newspaper’. Even though he doesn’t take a ‘hands-on’ interest in the paper’s day-to-day running it is known that if he is unhappy about a report in the newspapers, he will let it be known.
The possibility that the Observer would join forces with other media houses to debate the role of the king is a non-starter.
Also at the debate, which was organised by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter, Radio Swaziland, part of the Swaziland Broadcasting and information Services (SBIS), was heavily criticised for its lack of journalistic integrity. Radio is for the government and it will not say anything that puts the government in a bad light, one speaker with enough personal knowledge to know, stated.
Some people wanted to defend the reputation of the Swazi Observer, declaring that it is not a ‘government paper’. Technically this is true, but the Observer is such a close supporter of the status quo that it doesn’t have to be ‘controlled’ by the government, the journalists on the paper exercise so much self-censorship that it doesn’t matter that it is not ‘officially’ controlled by the government. One speaker said that self-censorship was ‘killing’ the paper. Whatever the journalists themselves believe there is definitely a perception in Swaziland at large that the Observer is biased in favour of those who are in power.
As someone who comments on the media scene in Swaziland I found the meeting quite energising. If these meetings serve no other purposes, they remind participants that they are not alone. There are a sizeable number of media practitioners who genuinely want change and are not scared to say so. That is commendable in a kingdom that has an elite who believe they have a divine right (sometimes literally) to rule and that no one else should dare question them.
But, as the meeting itself recognised, it is one thing to have breakfast meetings and seminars and workshops it is quite another to enact real change.
That is the challenge for us all.
Friday, 2 May 2008
SWAZILAND NEEDS FREE INFORMATION
The need for freedom of information is one of the themes of this year’s World Press Freedom Day that is marked to0morrow (Saturday 3 May 2008).
And nowhere is this more needed than in Swaziland. Swaziland is not a free country and even though the kingdom has a new constitution that enshrines freedom of expression, people are not able to discuss openly many topics. Nor are people able to hold their government to account. One reason for this is that the people are not entitled to get information from government, public bodies and suchlike institutions.
The Times of Swaziland has tried several times over the past months to force the Swazi government to reveal information about how it awards its contracts. There is a suspicion that the way tenders for goods or services are awarded is not above board. The dreaded C-word ‘Corruption’ is everywhere to be seen.
The Times’ efforts have been rebuffed by the government that believes that information is ‘classified’. Or to put it in plain language: ‘secret’. The government doesn’t want to tell the people what it is doing, because, I suspect to do so would expose that it is corrupt, but also expose the general incompetence of government that many people suspect lies at the heart of Swaziland’s many problems.
In 2007, the Swazi Parliament issued a draft bill on freedom of information. The first objective of this bill is to ‘Encourage a culture of openness, transparency and accountability in public bodies by providing for access to information held by these bodies in order to enable every citizen to fully exercise and protect their constitutional right of freedom of expression.’
There are, however, major flaws with the draft bill. One is that it doesn’t require governments to disclose information as a matter of routine. Instead, it wants people who seek information to jump through a number of hoops before the information will be released. This is not only time consuming, it is costly. The effect of the bill if it became law would be to in theory make information available, but in practice it would make very little difference because people would find it nearly impossible to get at the information because of the huge bureaucratic wall that will be built to stop them.
I notice that there has been very little public discussion on the draft bill since a stakeholders’ workshop took place in March 2007 – more than a year ago. I suspect like so many ‘reforms’ in Swaziland, this one has been quietly shelved because the ruling elite doesn’t really have a commitment to it. Who knows it may never see the light of day again.
In Swaziland it is easy to bury unwanted change. Remember, the Swazi Constitution took 10 years to write so that in the end the traditionalists got their way and no real change has been forthcoming.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) which drives the World Press Freedom Day has published some ‘background’ information on the main issues of the event. To view all the information click here.
This is what Unesco says about access to information.
Access to information
Information can change the way we see the world around us, our place in it, and how to adjust our lives in order to maximize the benefits available through our local resources. Fact driven decision-making can significantly alter our political, social and economic perspectives. The right to access information can be interpreted within the legal frameworks that support Freedom of Information as it applies to information held by public bodies, or in a wider sense to encompass both access and circulation of information held by other actors, where it becomes intrinsically linked to Freedom of Expression.
Freedom Of Information and the transparency it promotes, has a direct consequence on fighting corruption, which in turn has a tangible impact on development. Former World Bank president James Wolfensohn often identified government corruption as the primary hindrance to development and an independent media sector as the number one tool to fight public corruption.
The Basis of informed decision-making
Information is power. Freedom of Information and Freedom of Expression work against the concentration of information within the hands of a few. Of course, all information is subject to interpretation. For this reason, the clearinghouse function of an open and pluralistic media sector is critical to a better understanding of any issue. In terms of encouraging the empowerment of citizens, Freedom Of Information is at the heart of a participatory democracy.
Consider the consequences of an uninformed electorate going to the polls; consider the consequences when information flows are curbed or manipulated in times of political crisis or ethnic strife. Freedom of Information promotes a true sense of ownership within society and therefore gives meaning to the concept of citizenship.
The practicalities of access
Freedom of Information does not guarantee access. Even if governments were to become models of disclosure through e-governance by putting their information online, without a means to access that information people would not be more empowered. Internet connectivity and IT resources have become crucial to unhindered access to information. This is also true for accessing national or international news or even simply to provide a plurality of media options.
If the absence of connectivity or equipment can highlight the digital divide and the ensuing knowledge gap that separates developing and developed countries, groups within a country can also become further marginalized by their inability to access information on the Internet. We must not underestimate the importance of access to technologies and infrastructure, which are still cruelly lacking in many parts of the world. What can the concepts of “digital revolution” or “information society” effectively mean to 80% of the world’s population who still have no access to basic telecommunication facilities, or to approximately 860 million illiterate individuals, or to the 2 billion inhabitants of the planet who still have no electricity?
The priority given to narrowing the digital divide in every respect is therefore fully justified. Learning to use new technologies or, in other words, building media and information literacy must be a primary objective as these advancements are coming in the area of information access and sharing.
Conclusion
Ensuring freedom for the media around the world is a priority. Independent, free and pluralistic media are central to good governance in democracies that are young and old. Free media can ensure transparency, accountability and the rule of law; they promote participation in public and political discourse, and contribute to the fight against poverty. An independent media sector draws its power from the community it serves and in return empowers that community to be full a partner in the democratic process.
Freedom of Information and Freedom of Expression are the founding principles for open and informed debate. New technology will continue to evolve and allow citizens to further shape their media environments as well as access a plurality of sources. The combination of access to information and citizen participation in media can only contribute to an increased sense of ownership and empowerment.
See also
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FIGHT
And nowhere is this more needed than in Swaziland. Swaziland is not a free country and even though the kingdom has a new constitution that enshrines freedom of expression, people are not able to discuss openly many topics. Nor are people able to hold their government to account. One reason for this is that the people are not entitled to get information from government, public bodies and suchlike institutions.
The Times of Swaziland has tried several times over the past months to force the Swazi government to reveal information about how it awards its contracts. There is a suspicion that the way tenders for goods or services are awarded is not above board. The dreaded C-word ‘Corruption’ is everywhere to be seen.
The Times’ efforts have been rebuffed by the government that believes that information is ‘classified’. Or to put it in plain language: ‘secret’. The government doesn’t want to tell the people what it is doing, because, I suspect to do so would expose that it is corrupt, but also expose the general incompetence of government that many people suspect lies at the heart of Swaziland’s many problems.
In 2007, the Swazi Parliament issued a draft bill on freedom of information. The first objective of this bill is to ‘Encourage a culture of openness, transparency and accountability in public bodies by providing for access to information held by these bodies in order to enable every citizen to fully exercise and protect their constitutional right of freedom of expression.’
There are, however, major flaws with the draft bill. One is that it doesn’t require governments to disclose information as a matter of routine. Instead, it wants people who seek information to jump through a number of hoops before the information will be released. This is not only time consuming, it is costly. The effect of the bill if it became law would be to in theory make information available, but in practice it would make very little difference because people would find it nearly impossible to get at the information because of the huge bureaucratic wall that will be built to stop them.
I notice that there has been very little public discussion on the draft bill since a stakeholders’ workshop took place in March 2007 – more than a year ago. I suspect like so many ‘reforms’ in Swaziland, this one has been quietly shelved because the ruling elite doesn’t really have a commitment to it. Who knows it may never see the light of day again.
In Swaziland it is easy to bury unwanted change. Remember, the Swazi Constitution took 10 years to write so that in the end the traditionalists got their way and no real change has been forthcoming.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) which drives the World Press Freedom Day has published some ‘background’ information on the main issues of the event. To view all the information click here.
This is what Unesco says about access to information.
Access to information
Information can change the way we see the world around us, our place in it, and how to adjust our lives in order to maximize the benefits available through our local resources. Fact driven decision-making can significantly alter our political, social and economic perspectives. The right to access information can be interpreted within the legal frameworks that support Freedom of Information as it applies to information held by public bodies, or in a wider sense to encompass both access and circulation of information held by other actors, where it becomes intrinsically linked to Freedom of Expression.
Freedom Of Information and the transparency it promotes, has a direct consequence on fighting corruption, which in turn has a tangible impact on development. Former World Bank president James Wolfensohn often identified government corruption as the primary hindrance to development and an independent media sector as the number one tool to fight public corruption.
The Basis of informed decision-making
Information is power. Freedom of Information and Freedom of Expression work against the concentration of information within the hands of a few. Of course, all information is subject to interpretation. For this reason, the clearinghouse function of an open and pluralistic media sector is critical to a better understanding of any issue. In terms of encouraging the empowerment of citizens, Freedom Of Information is at the heart of a participatory democracy.
Consider the consequences of an uninformed electorate going to the polls; consider the consequences when information flows are curbed or manipulated in times of political crisis or ethnic strife. Freedom of Information promotes a true sense of ownership within society and therefore gives meaning to the concept of citizenship.
The practicalities of access
Freedom of Information does not guarantee access. Even if governments were to become models of disclosure through e-governance by putting their information online, without a means to access that information people would not be more empowered. Internet connectivity and IT resources have become crucial to unhindered access to information. This is also true for accessing national or international news or even simply to provide a plurality of media options.
If the absence of connectivity or equipment can highlight the digital divide and the ensuing knowledge gap that separates developing and developed countries, groups within a country can also become further marginalized by their inability to access information on the Internet. We must not underestimate the importance of access to technologies and infrastructure, which are still cruelly lacking in many parts of the world. What can the concepts of “digital revolution” or “information society” effectively mean to 80% of the world’s population who still have no access to basic telecommunication facilities, or to approximately 860 million illiterate individuals, or to the 2 billion inhabitants of the planet who still have no electricity?
The priority given to narrowing the digital divide in every respect is therefore fully justified. Learning to use new technologies or, in other words, building media and information literacy must be a primary objective as these advancements are coming in the area of information access and sharing.
Conclusion
Ensuring freedom for the media around the world is a priority. Independent, free and pluralistic media are central to good governance in democracies that are young and old. Free media can ensure transparency, accountability and the rule of law; they promote participation in public and political discourse, and contribute to the fight against poverty. An independent media sector draws its power from the community it serves and in return empowers that community to be full a partner in the democratic process.
Freedom of Information and Freedom of Expression are the founding principles for open and informed debate. New technology will continue to evolve and allow citizens to further shape their media environments as well as access a plurality of sources. The combination of access to information and citizen participation in media can only contribute to an increased sense of ownership and empowerment.
See also
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FIGHT
MORE BANS BY SWAZI ELECTION BOARD
More proof that in Swaziland only the ruling elite are allowed to speak on matters of national importance.
News is beginning to filter out that the Swazi Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) has decided that it is the only one to be allowed to engage in ‘civic education’ about the forthcoming national election in Swaziland.
This means that no other person or organisation will be permitted to inform the public about the process of the election.
The ECB chair Chief Gija Dlamini told the Swazi Observer newspaper (30 April 2008) that this was the ‘sole prerogative’ of the ECB. He particularly said that local chiefs had no right to ‘usurp the powers of the ECB’.
Chief Gija and his board at the EBC were selected under controversial circumstances. It is widely believed that he is not sufficiently qualified for the post. The constitution states that the ECB chair should be a judge, but Chief Gija is variously described as an ‘electrician’ or an ‘electrical engineer’. The law courts have been asked to rule the chief’s appointment illegal.
In an interview with the Observer, Chief Gija is reported saying that chiefs were not allowed to conduct civic education on the elections, as this was the sole perogative of the EBC.
‘I believe every chief knows this. We recently held a get together with chiefs where we informed them that the EBC would be visiting their communities shortly to conduct civic education on the elections,’ he is quoted saying.
The Observer further reports him saying, ‘Logic dictates that the chiefs communicated this message to their subjects, to avoid surprises when the EBC comes along.’
Chief Gija added, ‘It would be unfortunate for any chief to usurp the powers of the ECB and start teaching people about the elections.’
The role of the ECB since its inception has been heavily criticised by the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO).
Bishop Meshack Mabuza, Chairperson of SCCCO, in a media statement, criticised the ECB’s ‘stunning lack of respect for civil rights’.
He added, ‘The Board was set up on 10 March and in its first six weeks of operation has already trampled on our constitution and our rights to due legal process, an independent judiciary, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and good practice in interpreting statutory law.
‘So far it has banned reporters from public meetings solely because it does not like the way they report – how very thin-skinned from people who are constitutionally supposed to show “demonstrable competence in the conduct of public affairs”. A competent authority would understand the role, nature and workings of the press and get its message across - professionally.’
Bishop Mabuza added, ‘Much has been made of the former Deputy Attorney General’s professional qualifications and the government’s opinion that his advice will be the legal bedrock on which the commission can stand. This is most worrying since this is the self same “legal eagle” who imagines that the Commission’s constitutional duty to “facilitate civic or voter education” gives it the right to curtail our freedoms of speech and of assembly that are in the constitution. Its recent pathetic attempt to ban anyone other than it from providing civic education is not only repugnant to those of us who respect constitutionalism and human rights but shows the true nature of the commission’s attitude to those rights – it doesn’t know or it doesn’t care.’
The Bishop added, ‘The Coalition will continue with its programme of civic and voter education and it will defend its right to do so robustly. Any interference with this programme will be taken as an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the perpetrators will personally find themselves answering to a judge.’
That’s fighting talk from the SCCCO. But the Bishop does have a point about the way the ECB is conducting itself. We still do not have a date for an election. An announcement was promised in April, but was not forthcoming. The Observer (30 April 2008) reported Chief Gija saying there were still some loose ends to be tied up before an announcement could be made, but it was not reported what these loose ends might be.
It is now May and the election must be held by the end of the year. The fact that the ECB is not even able to announce a date for the poll does not inspire confidence that it is fully in control of events. The suspicion must be that the election, when it comes (or maybe even ‘if’ it comes) will be a mess and we cannot be sure that any result that comes from it will be reliable.
See also
SWAZI ELECTION BOARD BANS REPORTERS
News is beginning to filter out that the Swazi Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) has decided that it is the only one to be allowed to engage in ‘civic education’ about the forthcoming national election in Swaziland.
This means that no other person or organisation will be permitted to inform the public about the process of the election.
The ECB chair Chief Gija Dlamini told the Swazi Observer newspaper (30 April 2008) that this was the ‘sole prerogative’ of the ECB. He particularly said that local chiefs had no right to ‘usurp the powers of the ECB’.
Chief Gija and his board at the EBC were selected under controversial circumstances. It is widely believed that he is not sufficiently qualified for the post. The constitution states that the ECB chair should be a judge, but Chief Gija is variously described as an ‘electrician’ or an ‘electrical engineer’. The law courts have been asked to rule the chief’s appointment illegal.
In an interview with the Observer, Chief Gija is reported saying that chiefs were not allowed to conduct civic education on the elections, as this was the sole perogative of the EBC.
‘I believe every chief knows this. We recently held a get together with chiefs where we informed them that the EBC would be visiting their communities shortly to conduct civic education on the elections,’ he is quoted saying.
The Observer further reports him saying, ‘Logic dictates that the chiefs communicated this message to their subjects, to avoid surprises when the EBC comes along.’
Chief Gija added, ‘It would be unfortunate for any chief to usurp the powers of the ECB and start teaching people about the elections.’
The role of the ECB since its inception has been heavily criticised by the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO).
Bishop Meshack Mabuza, Chairperson of SCCCO, in a media statement, criticised the ECB’s ‘stunning lack of respect for civil rights’.
He added, ‘The Board was set up on 10 March and in its first six weeks of operation has already trampled on our constitution and our rights to due legal process, an independent judiciary, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and good practice in interpreting statutory law.
‘So far it has banned reporters from public meetings solely because it does not like the way they report – how very thin-skinned from people who are constitutionally supposed to show “demonstrable competence in the conduct of public affairs”. A competent authority would understand the role, nature and workings of the press and get its message across - professionally.’
Bishop Mabuza added, ‘Much has been made of the former Deputy Attorney General’s professional qualifications and the government’s opinion that his advice will be the legal bedrock on which the commission can stand. This is most worrying since this is the self same “legal eagle” who imagines that the Commission’s constitutional duty to “facilitate civic or voter education” gives it the right to curtail our freedoms of speech and of assembly that are in the constitution. Its recent pathetic attempt to ban anyone other than it from providing civic education is not only repugnant to those of us who respect constitutionalism and human rights but shows the true nature of the commission’s attitude to those rights – it doesn’t know or it doesn’t care.’
The Bishop added, ‘The Coalition will continue with its programme of civic and voter education and it will defend its right to do so robustly. Any interference with this programme will be taken as an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the perpetrators will personally find themselves answering to a judge.’
That’s fighting talk from the SCCCO. But the Bishop does have a point about the way the ECB is conducting itself. We still do not have a date for an election. An announcement was promised in April, but was not forthcoming. The Observer (30 April 2008) reported Chief Gija saying there were still some loose ends to be tied up before an announcement could be made, but it was not reported what these loose ends might be.
It is now May and the election must be held by the end of the year. The fact that the ECB is not even able to announce a date for the poll does not inspire confidence that it is fully in control of events. The suspicion must be that the election, when it comes (or maybe even ‘if’ it comes) will be a mess and we cannot be sure that any result that comes from it will be reliable.
See also
SWAZI ELECTION BOARD BANS REPORTERS
Thursday, 1 May 2008
JUDGE BACKS SWAZI POLICE UNION
The Swazi police officers’ fight to form their own trade union received a boost when a High Court judge ruled that they had a constitutional right to do so.
The judge urged the Swaziland Government to amend the law so that a union could be formed.
Judge Qinisile Mabuza said that existing regulations that banned trade unions were inconsistent with the new Swazi Constitution, which allowed for freedom of association. She also said Swaziland laws need to conform to international standards and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions.
The ruling, which was a dissenting judgment, (the High Court ruled against the police earlier this year) received widespread coverage in the Swazi media. Unexpectedly, even state television and the Swazi Observer (the newspaper that is in effect owned by the king) gave a lot of space to the ruling.
The Times of Swaziland yesterday (30 April 2008) quoted the judge saying Swaziland needed ‘to conform to modern trends in a democratic society in meeting the [union’s] expectations and fulfilling their constitutional rights’.
The Times further reported that the judge said that denying officers their ‘fundamental rights’ to form a union were ‘repugnant to good governance and the rule of law, and particularly that the sanction for forming a union is dismissal, which is a disciplinary measure’.
She called the existing laws banning the union ‘old discriminatory and oppressive’. She went on, ‘They are inconsistent with Chapter III of the constitution. They should be declared null and void. They have no place in a democratic society.’
She is, of course, correct that they have no place in a democratic society. But Swaziland is not a democracy and this judgement proves it. The judgment makes no difference to the law as it stands, because Judge Mabuza is in the minority, even among judges.
This is of great concern, because if Swazis cannot rely on judges to uphold the constitution, who can they depend upon?
The original judgment is being appealed. The Times quoted the union’s lawyer Thulani Maseko saying they had ‘100 percent prospects of success in their appeal’. I wish this were true. Right is on their side, but in Swaziland, where judges wilfully refuse to uphold the constitution, power is not.
See also
SWAZI POLICE REFUSE TO ARREST COLLEAGUES
The judge urged the Swaziland Government to amend the law so that a union could be formed.
Judge Qinisile Mabuza said that existing regulations that banned trade unions were inconsistent with the new Swazi Constitution, which allowed for freedom of association. She also said Swaziland laws need to conform to international standards and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions.
The ruling, which was a dissenting judgment, (the High Court ruled against the police earlier this year) received widespread coverage in the Swazi media. Unexpectedly, even state television and the Swazi Observer (the newspaper that is in effect owned by the king) gave a lot of space to the ruling.
The Times of Swaziland yesterday (30 April 2008) quoted the judge saying Swaziland needed ‘to conform to modern trends in a democratic society in meeting the [union’s] expectations and fulfilling their constitutional rights’.
The Times further reported that the judge said that denying officers their ‘fundamental rights’ to form a union were ‘repugnant to good governance and the rule of law, and particularly that the sanction for forming a union is dismissal, which is a disciplinary measure’.
She called the existing laws banning the union ‘old discriminatory and oppressive’. She went on, ‘They are inconsistent with Chapter III of the constitution. They should be declared null and void. They have no place in a democratic society.’
She is, of course, correct that they have no place in a democratic society. But Swaziland is not a democracy and this judgement proves it. The judgment makes no difference to the law as it stands, because Judge Mabuza is in the minority, even among judges.
This is of great concern, because if Swazis cannot rely on judges to uphold the constitution, who can they depend upon?
The original judgment is being appealed. The Times quoted the union’s lawyer Thulani Maseko saying they had ‘100 percent prospects of success in their appeal’. I wish this were true. Right is on their side, but in Swaziland, where judges wilfully refuse to uphold the constitution, power is not.
See also
SWAZI POLICE REFUSE TO ARREST COLLEAGUES
A SWAZI LIFE AFTER HIV
After I wrote last month (10 April 2008) about Sanele Mdluli and his weekly column, ‘My Life With AIDS’, in the Times Sunday, I got quite a few comments.
Many of them were very supportive of Sanele who has to cope with HIV in a society that doesn’t really want to get involved. He had written, ‘We live in a world of stigma where we are discriminated against because of HIV.’
In his columns he also told of how bleak life could be with HIV and how his life was empty and devoid of colour.
I think it was this seemingly hopeless state of mind that worried people who spoke to me. Sanele even wrote, ‘People are waiting for our [HIV positive people] funeral dates.’
Which brings me rather neatly to his latest column (27 April 2008). Sanele is setting a new date, not for his death, but for his wedding.
He writes about his wife-to-be,
‘Many a times I have been jilted and many a times the same has happened to her. The most amazing part is that of an HIV negative woman wholly accepting an HIV positive man like me.
‘To confound matters, I am one outspoken guy about my status, as I go about with the quest of having an HIV free generation. All over the country, wherever I am invited as a motivational speaker and at workshops, I never stop without drumming it clear to my audience that I am HIV positive and love my virus.
‘It’s one hell of a big surprise that I am really loved for who I am.’
So there you are – proof positive of life after HIV.
See also
A SWAZI LIFE WITH AIDS
Many of them were very supportive of Sanele who has to cope with HIV in a society that doesn’t really want to get involved. He had written, ‘We live in a world of stigma where we are discriminated against because of HIV.’
In his columns he also told of how bleak life could be with HIV and how his life was empty and devoid of colour.
I think it was this seemingly hopeless state of mind that worried people who spoke to me. Sanele even wrote, ‘People are waiting for our [HIV positive people] funeral dates.’
Which brings me rather neatly to his latest column (27 April 2008). Sanele is setting a new date, not for his death, but for his wedding.
He writes about his wife-to-be,
‘Many a times I have been jilted and many a times the same has happened to her. The most amazing part is that of an HIV negative woman wholly accepting an HIV positive man like me.
‘To confound matters, I am one outspoken guy about my status, as I go about with the quest of having an HIV free generation. All over the country, wherever I am invited as a motivational speaker and at workshops, I never stop without drumming it clear to my audience that I am HIV positive and love my virus.
‘It’s one hell of a big surprise that I am really loved for who I am.’
So there you are – proof positive of life after HIV.
See also
A SWAZI LIFE WITH AIDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)