‘FREE POLITICAL PARTIES’ LIE EXPOSED

The Swazi Government has failed to support the Attorney-General’s assertion that political parties are not banned in Swaziland.

Majahenkhaba Dlamini, the Attorney-General, claimed to the Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, that there was no law that bars them. He said they were free to operate and dismissed claims that they were banned as untrue. He said the 2005 Swaziland Constitution ‘superseded’ the 1973 Royal Proclamation of King Sobhuza II that banned the political parties.

‘As far as I can interpret the law, political parties can exist because there is no law that bans their existence,’ he said.

But when the Times Sunday contacted Macanjana Motsa, the Swazi Government spokesperson, she said the question was political. Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister will give a verdict when he returns from an African Union meeting in Ethiopia, the newspaper was told.

As I wrote on Friday (28 January 2011), we shouldn’t take much notice of what the Swaziland Government says it does (or says it will do), we should judge it on what it actually does.

I am pleased to see that people the Times Sunday called for comment saw through the Attorney- General.

Philani Ndebele, of the Swaziland Democracy Campaign (SDC), told the paper, political parties were still banned in the country. The kingdom still operates under the 1973 Royal Proclamation.

He said, ‘If political parties are free to operate in Swaziland, then why is it that PUDEMO (the People’s United Democratic Movement) and SWAYOCO (Swaziland Youth Congress) leadership, and many other human rights activists are harassed, jailed and tortured by the Swazi police?’ he said. He said parties were still denied opportunities and space to organise marches, pickets and meetings.

‘The police always interrupt them. In September 2010, meetings and marches of the Swaziland Democracy Campaign were hijacked by the police. Activists were arrested and tortured and international activists were forcibly deported,’ he said.

‘The existence of the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA) and many others that are in the pipeline testifies that Swaziland needs an urgent fundamental socio-economic and political transformation,’ he said. Ndebele told the newspaper the STA not only banned political parties, it also criminalised all their activities.

Musa Hlophe, Coordinator of the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO), said he was happy to hear the Attorney-General formally announce that the 1973 Proclamation had been superseded.

‘We have been asking for this particular clarification for a long time.　Firstly this is an extremely important statement. It is the first time that the government and the Attorney-General have publicly, in Swaziland, conceded the point that the 1973 decree has been superseded,’ he said.

‘Superseded means replaced. In other words, the 1973 decree is dead. I hope the Attorney-General has instructed the police on this point to stop harassing our members going about their perfectly legal duties.’

He also said the Attorney-General was playing ‘fast and loose’ with words.

‘Technically and legally he is correct. There is no specific ban on political parties in the constitution. However, the legal position differs from the political reality,’ he said.

‘The ban on parties remains practically in force. In a credible democracy parties can campaign freely, mobilise without interference, put up candidates for elections, form caucuses in parliament and most importantly form a government. In Swaziland they can do none of these things.’

The Attorney-General argued in court that the freedom of association in article 25 of the constitution did not extend to political parties.

‘The government also lost a case on this very point in the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights in 2005 and have done absolutely nothing to rectify the situation,’ he said. Equally, this government has ratified many International Conventions on Political Rights but has not put them into law.

‘What the law says and what the government does are two different things,’ he said.

KING’S PAL GETS SPECIAL TREATMENT

In Swaziland, there’s one rule for the pals of King Mswati III, and another rule for everyone else.

This is confirmed by the case of Jim Gama, the ‘traditional prime minister’ of Swaziland, who has received financial support ‘from the King’ to travel to South Africa for medical treatment after he suffered a stroke.

Meanwhile, ordinary Swazi people, including cancer sufferers, have been denied treatment in South African hospitals because the Swazi Government won’t pay its bills.

Jim Gama first. He is the ‘traditional’ prime minister of Swaziland and that makes him more important than Barnabas Dlamini, the ‘real’ prime minister. It also makes Gama one of King Mswati’s most important supporters. In Swaziland, when there is a dispute over the two, cultural and traditional law trumps constitutional law. When Gama pronounces on a matter, he speaks with more authority than Barnabas Dlamini.

Gama has been sick since suffering a stroke in 2009 and Swaziland’s appalling health service hasn’t been able to treat him. So, Gama has been sent off to Johannesburg, South Africa, for treatment. He left Swaziland on Friday (28 January 2011) in a Ministry of Health ambulance, accompanied by a senior nurse.

The Weekend Observer, a newspaper in effect owned and edited by King Mswati, reported that over the past two years the King has seen to it that ‘Gama receives the best treatment from premier hospitals in the country [Swaziland] and in South Africa to heal him of the effects of a stroke he suffered’.

The newspaper said ‘the King’ also pays ‘a substantial allowance’ to Gama’s wife who looks after him. It is not clear if this money comes out of the King’s own pocket (he has a personal fortune estimated by Forbes in 2009 to be $US200 million), as the newspaper also reported that assistance came from a health fund administered by the King’s Office and another at Tibiyo TakaNgwane (which is the conglomerate of businesses that the King owns ‘on behalf of the nation’).

Bhekie Dlamini, Chief Officer in the King’s Office, told the newspaper that the King was a caring father and leader. Dlamini said there were many people from all backgrounds who had received assistance from him, be it in education, health or other challenges they may face.

‘It is just that we do not go to the roof top to pronounce to the world what the King has done to help his people,’ Dlamini said.

So, Gama, the King’s pal is well taken care of. What about the rest of the King’s subjects, seven in ten of whom live in abject poverty, earning less than one US dollar a day?

Because Swaziland’s health service is so bad, the Swazi Government administers a fund called Phalala, which allows sick Swazis to travel to hospital in South Africa for treatment, which the Government then pays for.

But, of course, this is the Swazi Government we’re talking about here, and the bills don’t get paid, so sick people get turned away at the door when they arrive at hospital.

It happens all the time. Earlier this month (January 2011), it was revealed that cancer sufferers who needed chemotherapy treatment were ‘blacklisted’ by hospitals in South Africa because the government hadn’t paid bills for treatment given to previous patients. It was reported that one hospital threatened to recover the outstanding monies from individual patients.

One estimate was that bills amount to E100,000 ($US14,000) per patient.

Some of the patients have been receiving calls allegedly from debt collectors hired by some of the doctors to track them down.

As recently as Friday (28 January 2011), it was reported that a number of patients who were transferred to different hospitals in South Africa had been turned back because government had not settled outstanding payments.

The hospitals would not do some medical procedures or admit any of the patients from Swaziland until government paid its bills.

The non-payments are not connected to the present meltdown of the Swaziland economy: the Swazi Government has a long history of incompetence in handling the Phalala fund and there have been many reports of corrupt misuse of monies.

SWAZI STUDENTS TO PROTEST AGAIN

Swaziland students are preparing to take to the streets to demonstrate against the government’s policy on the awarding of scholarships.

The Swaziland National Union of Students (SNUS) is busy organising a campaign that will probably include a mass march on 7 February 2011.

A meeting of student representatives from across the kingdom met this month (January 2011) to discuss the quality of tertiary education in Swaziland and also the controversial scholarship policy that will mean some students have to pay tuition fees and personal allowances will be slashed.

According to a statement from the SNUS, sent to members of the SNUS Facebook group, the Swaziland Government ‘is covertly planning to implement the hoggish scholarship policy which the students openly rejected last year’. The government has rejected the student’s submissions and opinions on the proposed policy.

SNUS says, ‘We want to reaffirm our stand that any document or policy that seeks to reduce education to a commodity that can be bought and sold at the behest of the wealth will be met with the strongest resistance from the courageous students of Swaziland. We declare war against the government and the policy itself. We will surely be in the streets mobilizing and organizing all the people of Swaziland, the exploited working class, the unemployed youth, labor unions, high school children and pastors to help us bury this unjust document once and for all.’

SNUS also says there are serious problems with the quality of colleges in Swaziland. Some buildings are too old and not fit for purpose. There is also overcrowding at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA), where some classes have to take place in tents that were originally erected as temporary examination halls.

SNUS says, ‘In the Southern Africa Nazarene University, the girl’s hostels [built in 1939 for missionaries] are inhuman as they are actually falling apart.’ There are also issues about the quality of libraries in tertiary institutions in Swaziland.

SNUS also says colleges are being turned into ‘farms’, where ‘the students have been intimidated not to question anything said or done by the administration. Those brave students who have justly done so, have been either hauled before the disciplinary committees or systematically failed’.

Students will have a mass meeting on 5 February 2011 to plan future action, with 7 February set aside as a possible day of mass action.

SWAZI GOVERNMENT TO BLAME FOR CRISIS

We can now put to rest any suggestion that Swaziland’s present economic crisis is a result of the so-called global financial meltdown of 2008. Successive Swazi Governments are to blame.

Barnabas Dlamini, Swaziland’s illegally-appointed Prime Minister, and Majozi Sithole, who has been Finance Minister for the past 10 years, constantly try to kid us that the kingdom’s economic mess is none of their fault and is all down to a mixture of the ‘global crisis’ and a cut in income from the Southern Africa Customs Union (SACU).

But, they are exposed by the latest of an increasing number of reports from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) about Swaziland’s economic mess. The report, published this week (24 January 2011), contains ample, damning, evidence about the consequences of economic mismanagement by successive governments chosen by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The 59-page IMF report reveals that the government is responsible for wasting resources by creating and sustaining a too-large public sector. IMF says the size of the public sector may actually stop activity in the private sector. ‘The Swazi government participates in the economy in a wide range of areas (transportation and telecommunication being prominent ones) and often in a proportion, which theoretical and empirical studies would suggest are detrimental to a healthy and sustainable long term growth and development path,’ the report states.

It goes on to say that government consumption as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – everything produced in the kingdom - is relatively high in Swaziland, when compared to other similar nations, or when compared to the fast growing Asian region.

In addition, far too much of the government’s spending goes on public sector wages. ‘In 2010 the cost of the civil service wage bill added up to 17.8 percent of GDP, which is more than half of the overall expenditure. Budget expenses on the wage bill are much higher in Swaziland than in many parts of the world.’

Despite the problems of the private sector, even when businesses do want to operate in Swaziland, government ’red tape’ prevents it.

The IMF reveals that Swazi authorities request in excess of 15 percent more documents prior to export than the sub-Saharan Africa average, and twice as many documents prior to export than the Euro Area.

The IMF goes on, ‘On the time required to enforce a contract the picture is even worse. The World Bank Doing Business database also shows that over time various indicators have been stagnant for Swaziland, while they have improved in the majority of other countries.’

It adds, ‘This means that the Swazi competitiveness has been deteriorating compared to other regions of the world.’

There are also huge disadvantages for business by having the Lilangeni (Swaziland’s currency) pegged in value to the South African Rand.

‘While the Lilangeni has been pegged to the South African Rand, the Swazi currency has been appreciating in real terms against the Rand, especially in the second half of the last decade, suggesting a loss of competitiveness against South African producers.’ Which, in plain English means Swaziland would be able to sell goods in the international market at a cheaper price than its South African competitors if its currency wasn’t pegged to the Rand.

The IMF says the main factor behind the overvaluation lies in the public sector wage policy, which has given consistent wage increases over the years, while productivity did not improve. ‘Moreover, despite comparative advantages in some export-oriented sectors (e.g., sugar, cassava, fruit juices), the private sector is still in dire need of further development, being held back by the high cost of doing business, as assessed by the World Bank.’

Present government policies are unsustainable. The IMF describes as ‘unfortunate’ (diplomatic-speak for ‘crazy’) ‘that the government moved forward with a supplementary budget [in December 2010] on a nonpriority capital project in the midst of a fiscal crisis’. That would be the E350 million extra it allocated to Sikhuphe Airport, King Mswati’s vanity project.

Furthermore, against IMF advice, cuts were proposed on [unspecified] pro-poor spending projects.

The IMF also says that if the government is unable to pay public service wages it would have ‘dire consequences for the rest of the economy, including the banking system’.

Banks would find that there could be a ‘rapid increase’ in the number of people defaulting on their loans. ‘As the government continues to draw down its deposits at the central bank, the gross official reserves of the central bank will be further depleted, calling into question external stability.’

In conclusion, the IMF says, The sharp decline of SACU revenue this year and the steady ratcheting up of the wage bill over the last decade have led to a fiscal crisis. The treasury balances have been depleted, the gross international reserves have fallen dramatically, and the government is starting to accumulate large domestic arrears on all expenditure items, except wages and utilities. Continuing on the same trend will lead to higher domestic arrears, including on civil service wages, a spreading of the crisis to the financial sector, and possibly social upheaval.’

See also

SWAZILAND FACES FISCAL CRISIS: IMF

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-01-28-swaziland-faces-fiscal-crisis-imf/