By Richard Rooney
The court has yet to give
the reason for its decision against the Swaziland Democratic Party (SWADEPA)
but at the heart of the matter is a Royal
Proclamation made in 1973 by King Sobhuza II. He tore up the
constitution, banned political parties and took all power to himself. Swaziland
has been ruled by an absolute monarch (presently King Mswati) ever since.
A lot of hot air is
generated in Swaziland about political parties.
To some people they are the Devil’s work and part of a dark plot to destroy
Swaziland and the Swazi way of life.
This is even though every First
World country and parliamentary democracy in the world has them and they would
be of great benefit to Swaziland if they were allowed to operate properly.
There is nothing sinister
about political parties. A political party is simply a collection of people who
come together because they have roughly the same set of views and opinions.
But they don’t just meet
for a ‘talking shop’; they aim to get political power. In a parliamentary
democracy this is done by getting people to elect your party into government.
In a parliamentary
democracy you can have as many political parties as you want. After an
election, the leader of the political party that wins the majority of seats in
parliament becomes prime minister and appoints the government. If no single
party wins a majority, two or more parties in parliament would usually join
together to form a coalition government.
Whether there is a majority
or a coalition government, there would also be at least one party in parliament
that was the ‘opposition’ to the government. This means that there is always an
alternative government available to the one in power. If the people don’t like
the one in power, they can vote it out at the next election and put another
party in government.
And that’s why the ruling
elite in Swaziland doesn’t want political parties – the people can throw out a
government they don’t like and replace it.
A major benefit of
political parties for Swaziland is that parties not only allow people to choose
alternative governments, they allow people to discuss alternative policies.
There are so many problems in Swaziland at present that a succession of
unelected governments has been unable to solve, and because political parties
don’t exist, no alternative policies have been brought forward.
Governments
have clearly failed on poverty alleviation, corruption in every fabric of Swazi
public life, jobs creation, attracting foreign investment into Swaziland, the
HIV pandemic and so on.
Since political parties
were banned by King Sobhuza II’s Royal
Proclamation, there has been no way for people to create and debate
different policies or strategies for Swaziland: and then to choose the path
that the kingdom ought to follow.
The present Swazi
Government is led by Barnabas Dlamini,
the Prime Minister who was elected by nobody, but instead was appointed in contravention
of the 2005 Swaziland Constitution by King Mswati III,
sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.
Dlamini was not elected for
the policies he would pursue while in office. He therefore has no mandate from
the people to do anything. And because he has never set out his policies there
is no way that people can collectively disagree with him.
Take the example of the
present economic crisis in Swaziland that has been dragging on for more than 10
years. In October 2010, Dlamini took to the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
a Fiscal Adjustment Roadmap (FAR) of
financial measures to try to save the economy. But there had been no debate
with the Swazi people about what the FAR should contain, nor were alternative
policies put forward and debated before it was finalised.
All we got was Dlamini’s
plan. And that plan fell at the first hurdle when the foreign investment market
refused to buy Swaziland Government Bonds,
which Dlamini needed so the government could pay public sector salaries.
With the FAR in shreds
there is no alternative economic plan. If Swaziland had political parties that
alternative would already be ready and with the consent of the people could be
implemented.
Political parties also
allow leaders to come through. People can develop their leadership skills
within political parties and while part of the parliamentary ‘opposition’,
prior to taking office in government. One great weakness of Swaziland politics
at present is the very low calibre of most people in parliament. Many have
minimal education and few obvious skills. If political parties existed they
could attract people of high calibre who knew that they had the opportunity of
contributing to the future of Swaziland. No present day member of the Swazi
parliament or senate could honestly say that about themselves.
In the case of Swaziland
where there is not democracy at present, we cannot have political parties
without changes to the political system. To begin with all seats to the House
of Assembly and the Senate must be open to election with none in the patronage
of King Mswati, as now.
Second, the Swaziland Constitution must
be respected. The constitution on paper only allows for all of the following,
and if political parties are to operate properly we must have them: freedom of
organisation; freedom of speech and assembly; provision of a fair and peaceful
competition; everyone to be included in the electoral process; media access and
fair reporting and transparent and accountable financing of political parties.
Monarchists and
traditionalists in Swaziland are dishonest about political parties. They say
they bring division and chaos, but that does not stop them accepting charity
and aid from nations that are multi-party democracies.
As recently as this month (August
2018) the media in Swaziland praised India for pumping in E240
million towards one of the King’s pet projects, the Royal Science and Technology Park at Phocweni.
During
his visit to Swaziland in April 2018, Indian President Shri Ram Nath Kovind
confirmed a number of loans running into tens of millions of US dollars his
country would make available to Swaziland. He also made a donation of US1
million toward feeding starving children in Swaziland. King Mswati then threw
the President a banquet.
What the Swazi people were
not told was that India is known as the largest democracy in the world (because
of the size of its population) and has a multi-party system.
Taiwan, which set up
numerous businesses in Swaziland to exploit the kingdom’s special trading
relationship with the United States, is a multi-party system.
South Africa, Swaziland’s
neighbour and largest trading partner, is a multi-party democracy. Without the
support of South Africa, Swaziland would not have an
economy.
King Mswati gladly receives
charity for his kingdom from the European
Union, an economic bloc that consists entirely of multi-party
democracies. The United States –
another multi-party democracy – also provides aid and charity in
abundance.
It is the economic and aid
support from multi-party democracies that keeps Swaziland functioning. But
traditionalists refuse to openly discuss why it is that all these multi-party
democracies have such successful political systems that they can afford to be
charitable to Swaziland, while Swaziland, where parties cannot contest
elections, cannot support itself.
In the Swazi system the
people elect only 59 of the members of
the House of Assembly; the King appoints another 10. No members of the Senate
are elected by the people. King Mswati choses the Prime Minister and Government
members
There is nothing the people
in Swaziland can do. It makes no difference who they vote for. Whoever they
elect into parliament, the decision-making remains with the King and nothing
will change. Freeing political parties so they can operate openly would be the
first step on a long road for Swaziland.
See also
U.S. Ambassador supports parties
One in three want political parties
Swazis want democracy - survey
EU tells King: ‘free parties’
UK calls for parties to be un-banned
