ROYAL DECREE SHOULD STAY: SWAZI A-G

Swaziland’s Attorney-General Majahenkhaba Dlamini has said there is no need to annul a 1973 Royal Decree that bans all political parties and puts all legislative, executive and judicial power in the hands of the King.

Dlamini was reacting to a newspaper report in Swaziland that traditionalists stopped the decree being repealed when Swaziland’s Constitution came into force in 2006. He said the Constitution in effect annulled the Royal Decree.

‘Why do they [prodemocracy campaigners] want us to revoke the decree through a gazette? What if we don’t want to do that?’ the newspaper reported him saying.  

According to the Times Sunday, an independent newspaper in Swaziland, ‘influential traditionalists’ feared Swaziland ‘could become a republic if this law was repealed’.

The newspaper said preparations to abandon the Royal Decree in 2005 were far advanced and a gazette had been drawn up.

The newspaper quoted one of the traditionalists, Brigadier General Fonono Dube, who was a member of Liqoqo, an advisory council to the King, saying, ‘There was no way we could have revoked a law that establishes the country. We couldn’t have allowed the authorities of the country to annul the decree because that would have turned the country into a republic. We don’t need a president in Swaziland. We need the King.’

The Times reported, ‘The argument by the traditionalists to keep the decree in the statutes was that it was the “heart” of the country and its repeal was tantamount to killing the whole country, – the whole government machinery, thus depriving authorities of powers to govern the kingdom.’

The Royal Decree came into force in 1973 after King Sobhuza objected to his subjects electing members of a political party that was not under his control. He tore up the kingdom’s constitution that had been in place since Swaziland gained independence from Britain in 1968.

In his decree, King Sobhuza announced, ‘I have assumed supreme power in the Kingdom of Swaziland and that all Legislative, Executive and Judicial power is vested in myself.’

He added, ‘The Constitution is indeed the cause of growing unrest, insecurity, dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in our country and an impediment to free and progressive development in all spheres of life.’

He also said, ‘All political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about disturbances and ill-feelings within the Nations are hereby dissolved and prohibited.’

He said, ‘Any person who forms or attempts or conspires to form a political party or who organises or participates in any way in any meeting, procession or demonstration in contravention of this decree shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to imprisonment not exceeding six months.’

The Royal Decree was never abolished and today King Sobhuza’s son, King Mswati III, rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Political parties remain banned and the King choses all members of the government and the judiciary. He also chooses 10 members of the House of Assembly, allowing his subjects to select the other 55 members. No members of the Swazi Senate are elected by the people.

National elections were held in September 2013, but the full results of the voting have never been revealed publicly.

In April 2013, on the 40^th anniversary of the Royal Decree, armed police and state security forces in Swaziland broke up a series of events, including meetings, prayers and a rally, which had been called to debate the political situation in the kingdom.

SWAZIS WANT DEMOCRACY: SURVEY

Two thirds of Swazi people want the kingdom to become a democracy, research just published reveals.

And, they want to choose their own leaders ‘through honest and open elections’.

They also strongly disapprove of allowing King Mswati III, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, to decide on everything in Swaziland.

An opinion poll conducted by Afrobarometer asked 1,200 Swazis aged 18 or over from across the kingdom how democratic they thought Swaziland was. Only 12 percent said that at present Swaziland had ‘high levels’ of democracy. When asked where they would like the kingdom to be ‘in the future’, 67 percent said they wanted to see ‘high levels’ of democracy.

The findings contradict successive Swaziland Governments, which for years have claimed that ordinary Swazis were content with their political system. In September 2013, Swaziland held its national election: all political parties were banned from taking part and only 55 of the 65-member House of Assembly were elected by the people. The other 10 members were appointed by the King. No members of the 30-stong Swazi Senate are elected by the people.

King Mswati also appoints the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Afrobarometer reported that 75 percent of people interviewed agreed with the statement, ‘We should choose our leaders through open and honest elections.’

Despite King Mswati’s stranglehold on political life in Swaziland, 46 percent of respondents agreed that, ‘Members of Parliament represent the people; therefore they should make laws for the country, even if the King does not agree.’

A total of 77 percent of respondents disapproved of abolishing elections and Parliament, ‘so that the King can decide on everything’.

Meanwhile, 70 percent of people said they disapproved of the statement that only one political party should be allowed to stand for election and hold office, but 58 percent also said they felt political parties ‘create division and confusion’ and it was ‘unnecessary to have many political parties in Swaziland’.

Afrobarometer is an African-led network of survey researchers and analysts, working in up to 35 countries on the continent.

It states its goal is, ‘To give the public a voice in policy making processes by providing high-quality public opinion data to policy-makers, policy advocates and civil society organizations, academics, media, donors and investors, and ordinary Africans.’

POLITICS AS USUAL IN SWAZILAND

It was business as usual for politics in Swaziland in November 2013. King Mswati III, who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch appointed his government in this month, following the bogus national election that took place in September. More than half of the new Cabinet ministers in the Swaziland Government were not elected by the people. Out of 19 ministers King Mswati III personally appointed 11 to the House of Assembly or to the Senate.

At the national elections the people were only permitted to select 55 members of the 65-seat House of Assembly. The King chose the other 10. Political parties were banned from taking part in the election. The King also chose 20 of the 30-strong Senate House. The other 10 were elected by members of the House of Assembly. None were elected by the people.

Prior to appointing his cabinet, King Mswati demonstrated his complete control of politics in the kingdom. All the top parliamentary office holders in Swaziland were filled by people he appointed and none were elected by the people. They were the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, the President and Deputy President of Senate.

So, it was business as usual for politics in Swaziland. Human rights violations continued unabated. Police, acting without a warrant or court order raided a showing of the newly-released film The King and the People. The film, which is being shown on screens all over the world, criticises the Swazi state for, among other things, the violence it uses against its own people when they demand their rights.

As if on cue, elsewhere, armed Swazi police invaded the University of Swaziland to attack students with whips and teargas in their dormitories. Students were campaigning for better conditions and against the holding of examinations. Armed police guarded examination venues for a week as the disputed examinations went ahead.

These are some of the highlights of life in Swaziland in November 2013 brought together in the latest volume of compilations from the Swazi Media Commentary blogsite. It is available free of charge at scribd dot com. Swazi Media Commentary has no physical base and is completely independent of any political faction and receives no income from any individual or organisation. People who contribute ideas or write for it do so as volunteers and receive no payment.

Swazi Media Commentary is published online – updated most days – bringing information, comment and analysis in support of democracy in the kingdom.

Swaziland Striving for Freedom Vol 11 November 2013

HIV WONDER DRUG ‘IS BOGUS’

Claims that a ‘wonder drug’ on sale in Swaziland can cure HIV are unfounded, an investigation has uncovered.

The Times of Swaziland, the only independent daily newspaper in the kingdom, reported last month (November 2013) that a herbal product called 3H, sold by HHH Nature Health, could cure HIV in three months.

The newspaper gave details of a doctor in Manzini who was prescribing the product, which the Times called a ‘wonder drug’. It published testimonials from people (but did not give their real names) that the product ‘really worked’.

The Times reported, ‘Promoters of this product have said it only takes three months for an HIV patient using this product to get well, with the virus no longer detectable from their body.’

The Times gave a website address where readers could buy the formula. A four-month supply of the herbal product costs 2,400 euros (E34,000 or US$3,200).

Now, investigators from the Africa Check, a fact-checking website, have shown that 3H, along with other so-called HIV ‘cures’, are not what they seem.

The Times reported that the makers of the herbal formula 3H said it was ‘developed and researched by a team of German scientists and doctors’.

Responding to the Times’ report, Africa Check said, ‘This might sound impressive at first glance but means nothing, as is often the case. Having a treatment tested is not the same as having proof that it works. How it is tested and by whom is key.’

None of this information about testing is supplied by HHH. Africa Check added, ‘Instead, the main “evidence” promoted by the sellers of these products is formed of unverifiable “testimonials” from people who report or claim to be progressing “very well” and praise the promoters.’

HIV scams are nothing new in Swaziland, which has the highest rate of HIV infection in the world. King Mswati III himself was caught up in one. The King endorsed a goat serum scam that was being peddled by his son Prince Lindani.

The scam was to sell goat serum that was ‘totally reliable in the cure of Aids’. It involved injecting goats with HIV and creating antibodies which were then injected into people with AIDS. The scam was set to make its promoters US$100 million.

The prince even wrote a letter that was used by the fraudsters in their publicity saying his father the King backed the project.

The prince was not at the centre of the fraud: he was just a gullible dupe who got conned.

KING, THE FIRST WORLD AND DEMOCRACY

King Mswati III has told his subjects in Swaziland that his kingdom will reach ‘First World’ status within eight years, by 2022.

But, he has declined to say what he means by this.

The King has been talking about Swaziland becoming a ‘First World’ nation for some years, but since the national election in the kingdom in September 2013 and the king’s appointment of a new government, the topic has gained momentum in Swazi media.

The King may regret that he has not defined clearly what he means by ‘First World status’ as he has left room for his subjects to advocate for democratic changes within his kingdom. 

The concept of the ‘First World’ nation is a little outdated. During the time of the Cold War, following the Second World War, the ‘First World’ nations were generally considered to be those that supported the United States, against the Soviet Union and the ‘communist bloc’. In the past 20 years or so, since the ‘fall’ of the Soviet Union, the term ‘First World’ has begun to fall into disuse.

There are many modern-day definitions of ‘First World’, but they all insist that to be included in this category a nation must be a multi-party democracy and people must be able to elect and dismiss their government.

Swaziland is not like this. King Mswati III rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, political parties are banned from taking part in elections and the king chooses the Prime Minister and government. There is no way for the people to either elect or dismiss the King’s government.

Some of King Mswati’s subjects have realised this and over the past few weeks the Times of Swaziland group of newspapers have been carrying readers’ letters and commentaries pointing out ‘First World’ status cannot be achieved without a movement towards democracy.

King Mswati has no intention of allowing this to happen and he continues to keep a firm grip on any public dissent in his kingdom. 

Another ‘definition’ of ‘First World’ speaks to prosperity and the health of the nation’s economy. But, Swaziland is nowhere close to becoming prosperous. In 2012 a report published by 24/7 Wall St in the United States, and based on data from the World Bank, identified Swaziland as the fifth poorest country in the entire world.

It said 69 percent of King Mswati’s one million subjects lived in poverty.

Its report stated, ‘[T]he country’s workforce is largely concentrated in subsistence agriculture, even though the country faces serious concerns about overgrazing and soil depletion. While these factors harm the nation’s economy, health concerns are likely one of the major factors preventing Swaziland’s population from escaping poverty. 

‘Few nations have a lower life expectancy at birth than Swaziland, where the average person is expected to live just 48.3 years. One of the reasons for the low life expectancy is the high prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS among those 15 to 49 — at 25.9% it is the highest in the world’.

King Mswati does little to address this situation. Instead, he tries to distract attention from the true dire situation in Swaziland and mislead his subjects about the prospects of achieving ‘First World’ status. However, there are some small indications in Swaziland that his subjects are not going to let him get away with it.

COCA-COLA ABANDONS SWAZI WORKERS

Coca-Cola has denied that it intends to take any lead in protecting the rights of workers in Swaziland from land-grabbing.

This follows global reports that the international drinks company had promised to stop all business dealings with subsidiaries that were involved in land grabs, where land is taken from poor people in developing countries without their consent.

Coca-Cola, under its Swazi subsidiary Conco, produces drinks concentrate using sugar. It makes up as much as 40 percent of the Swaziland’s gross domestic product (GDP), but it is said to be exempt from paying full taxes.

In Swaziland, King Mswati III, who rules as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, controls all publically-owned land, and his chiefs do his bidding in ejecting people from the land they live on and cultivate if they disobey him or them in any way.

Manqoba Khumalo, General Manager of Conco Limited (trading as Coca-Cola Swaziland), told the Sunday Observer, a newspaper in Swaziland in effect owned by King Mswati, that Coca-Cola was taking a leadership role across the world in protecting land rights of farmers and communities, but this did not apply to Swaziland.

Khumalo told the newspaper that Coca-Cola was targeting ‘top’ markets and Swaziland has not been taken into consideration. ‘Our plan to address the land rights issue starts with the assessment of our top markets and outlines concrete actions in support of sustainable agricultural practices around the world.’

Khumalo also denied that Coca-Cola influenced King Mswati and the way he ruled his kingdom.

Asked by the Observer, ‘Does royalty benefit in any way from Coca-Cola’s operations in Swaziland?’ he responded, ‘No’.

He added, ‘Coca-Cola has not provided any personal gifts to either the King or his family beyond customary gifts presented at local ceremonies.’

Coca-Cola’s role in Swaziland has been under scrutiny for many years. Swaziland has been indebted to Coca-Cola ever since it allowed the company to use it in its fight against workers’ interests in other countries. In 2009, Coca-Cola closed its concentrate supply plant in Nigeria, citing an ‘unfriendly manufacturing environment’ in that country.

Coca-Cola also has an impact on the international standing of Swaziland’s economy. The money generated by Coca-Cola is what largely accounts for the kingdom being classified as a ‘lower-middle income developing country’ (and therefore not eligible for certain types of international aid), even though seven in ten of Swaziland’s one-million population live in abject poverty, earning less than US$2 a day.

Peter Kenworthy, of Africa Contact, writing in 2011, said, ‘The real point, though, is that Coca-Cola is probably in Swaziland because it is a dictatorship that oppresses its unions and population. This allows wages to be kept low and unemployment high.’

Kenworthy visited one of the sugar cane fields in Eastern Swaziland, which produces sugar for Coca-Cola.

He wrote, ‘The area that I visited, Vuvulane, is managed by the Vuvulane Irrigated Farms (VIF) but the sugar cane fields are under the auspices of the Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise and the Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation who lease them to individual farmers, who in turn employ casual labourers.

‘In a small village in Vuvulane, most of the adults worked in the sugar fields as casual labourers for between 400 and 550 Rand (US$40-55) per month. “This is not enough to pay for medicine, proper food or school fees for our children,” one villager told me. “Sometimes we do not eat for days. We used to have our own vegetable gardens but these were confiscated by the sugar company. We sometimes fish in the nearby dam in the evening, when it is dark. If we are caught we will be arrested as the dam is owned by the sugar cane company,” another villager said.

‘Practically none of the children in the village, who were clad in dirty and ripped clothes and looked underfed, attended school and many of the villagers, receive food aid. In addition to this, the water supply is controlled by a privately owned company that readily closes the water supply form the village if they are not paid on time.’

In 2012, the prodemocracy group the Swaziland Democracy Campaign called on Coca-Cola to leave Swaziland immediately.

 

See also

SWAZILAND, SPONSORED BY COCA-COLA

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/swaziland-sponsored-by-coca-cola.html

SWAZI ELECTION RESULTS NOT RELEASED

More than two months after the national election in Swaziland took place the final results have not been published.

On several occasions the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC), which ran the election, has promised to release the full results, but they have not been forthcoming.

The EBC announced the names of the winners at each of the 55 constituencies in the House of Assembly promptly after voting took place on 20 September 2013, but only gave the number of votes cast for 45 of them. No figures were given for the losing candidates and the total number of voters taking part in the election has never been revealed.

Elections in Swaziland are generally considered by observers outside the kingdom to be undemocratic. Political parties are banned from taking part and only 55 members in the 65-seat House of Assembly are elected by the people. None of the kingdom’s 30 senators are elected by the people.

The parliament has no real powers and King Mswati III rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

In the run up to the vote prodemocracy groups urged a boycott of the election and there has been speculation within the kingdom that this was effective.

It is important for King Mswati that there is seen to be a high voter turnout. Only weeks before the election, he announced that Swaziland’s tinkhundla system of democracy would in future be known as a ‘monarchical democracy’. He said this would be a partnership between himself and the people. 

The turnout at the election might be seen as a referendum on how much his subjects support him.

At the previous election in 2008 only 47.4 percent of the estimated 400,000 Swazi people eligible to vote did so. The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) in its report on that election attributed the low turnout to a campaign for a boycott of the election by progressives in Swaziland.

It reported on the 2008 election, ‘The best indication we have of whether the boycott was a success or not is the voter turnout rate.’

Following the 2013 election, the Weekend Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, reported the turnout of people on election day was ‘about 400,000’. However, official figures from the EBC stated that only 411,084 Swazis living in Swaziland had registered to vote, which would have meant if the newspaper was correct the turnout would be 97.3 percent.

In the week following the election the Swaziland Democratic United Front suggested the turnout might be as low as 80,000. The Swaziland Communist Party put the figure at 100,000.

The Swazi EBC has given no explanation why the full results cannot be released.

POLICE RAID FILM CRITICAL OF KING

Swaziland police broke up a screening of a documentary critical of King Mswati III and detained the owner of the studio.

Swazi police, acting without a warrant or court order, broke up the screening of The King and the People at a studio at the Christian Media Centre in Manzini.

The screening had been organised by the Swaziland United Democratic Front, an organisation campaigning for democracy in the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

About 50 people had gathered to watch the documentary when police arrived and closed down the screening. They detained the owner of the studio and questioned him for about three hours, according to reports from Swaziland.

The King and the People, made by Simon Bright, is a recently-released documentary that investigates the present situation in Swaziland. It has been shown across the world.

In a preview of the movie, the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) said, ‘The film shines a light on a crisis forgotten or misunderstood by many and unravels the reality of the existence, in the 21st century, of a governing system that is based on royal supremacy, greed, power and zero tolerance to fundamental human rights.’

Percy Zvomuya, who reviewed the documentary for OSISA, said, ‘In the movie, there are gritty, frenetic close-up shots of activists on strikes and state thugs beating them up. The grit is placed side by side with the rather drowsy shots of talking heads: an academic, a teacher, an activist and a politician deconstructing the crisis.’

He added, ‘But connecting all of this is a sad story of a country (or half a country?) presided over by an elite that controls the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, business and the media. A scene in which the king is seen having 'consultations' with his subjects gives new meaning to the phrase “bootlicking”.’

The breaking up of the public gathering is not the first of its kind in Swaziland. In April 2013 armed police physically stopped people from entering a public meeting at a restaurant that was called to discuss the undemocratic nature of the impending national election. Police said it ‘presented a threat to national security’.

In March 2013, riot police with batons halted a prayer meeting in Manzini because it had been organised by the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA), an unregistered organisation in the kingdom.  

In February 2013 about 60 armed police broke up another prayer meeting, this time at the Our Lady of Assumption Catholic cathedral in Manzini.  Police said the prayer was a political meeting, organised to disrupt the election that was later held in September.

See also

POLICE SAY PRAYERS WERE POLITICAL

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/02/police-say-prayers-were-political_823.html

RIOT POLICE FORCE HALT TO PRAYER

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/03/riot-police-force-halt-to-prayer.html

POLICE BLOCK PUBLIC MEETING

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/04/armed-police-block-public-meeting.html

DIVORCE ‘BAN’ FOR SWAZI MPs

Swazi parliamentarians have been instructed not to get divorced during the next five years as this would embarrass King Mswati III.

Gelane Zwane, the president of the Swazi Senate, also told them not to have sexual affairs with Parliament staff.

Zwane gave her instructions during a two-day workshop to orientate members of parliament and senators on their role. This follows the recent national election.

Zwane told the members of parliament and senators on Monday (25 November 2013) to forget about divorce now that they were in parliament as it was embarrassing not only to themselves but to the King as well, the Swazi Observer, a newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati reported.

Zwane directed most of her comments to women parliamentarians, the newspaper reported.

The Observer reported, ‘Speaking during the orientation workshop of the parliamentarians yesterday, Zwane said if they had problems with their spouses, they should find alternative ways of avoiding embarrassing situations such as divorce. 

‘She said if anyone of them was already in the middle of a divorce process, they should just stall and wait until their term of office was over.’

She added it was bad to associate the King with people who are seen to be leaving their spouses once they get into leadership positions such as those in parliament.

She added, ‘Such things are embarrassing to come from parliamentarians. Do it for the King at least for the next five years, then sort your personal issues after the end of your term.’

King Mswati himself has at least 14 wives (the exact number is a state secret). One had a very public affair with a serving cabinet minister before being expelled from the Royal Household. Another two of his wives reportedly fled the King and are now in exile. 

Zwane also warned MPs not to have ‘intimate relationships’ with parliamentary staff.

The Observer reported her saying, ‘You are going to find very beautiful ladies in parliament offices. Don’t you dare get intimate with them, no matter how tempting.

‘We would have to discipline these people because once they get intimate with honourables, they feel important and it becomes very difficult to work with them. We would have to discipline them, or even fire them, and this could cause problems for parliament.’

See also

KING’S WIFE THROWN OUT OF PALACE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/11/kings-wife-thrown-out-of-palace.html

PM TELLS MPs THEIR DUTY IS TO KING

Swaziland’s Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini told parliamentarians their duty was to the king above all else.

This is the latest twist in the national election that took place in Swaziland in September 2013. King Mswati III rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, and political parties were banned from taking part in the election.

Dlamini, who was directly appointed Prime Minister by the King, gave his instructions to parliamentarians at a workshop on their role on Monday (25 November 2013).

He told them, ‘We are here working on the instruction of the King and the nation.’ He said that Swaziland had a ‘unique democracy.’

He added, ‘This is because we were voted into power through the various methods permitted by our exclusive Constitution.’

However, in fact few parliamentarians were elected. Swaziland’s political system is known as tinkhundla, or a monarchical democracy. Under this system only 55 members of the 65- strong House of Assembly are elected by the people. The King directly appoints 10 members.

No members of the 30-stong Senate are elected by the people. The King appoints 20 senators and the other 10 are elected by members of the House of Assembly.

All cabinet ministers were appointed by King Mswati. Following the election he appointed nine princes and princesses to the House of Assembly and the Senate. He also appointed another 16 members of his Royal Family to top political jobs; effectively carving up public life in the kingdom in his favour.

Shortly before the election, King Mswati announced he had received a vision during a thunderstorm which told him that henceforth the political system in his kingdom should be known as a ‘monarchical democracy’. He said this would be ‘a system formed by merging the will of the people with the monarch’.

He went on to say in this system, people cast votes on a ballot box to decide leaders from community level. These leaders then work with the monarch in governing the country.

However, the appointments after the election were overwhelmingly of people who did not stand for election.

The power wielded by King Mswati was criticised by two independent international groups which observed the Swazi election. Both the African Union and the Commonwealth Observer Mission suggested the kingdom’s constitution should be reviewed to allow political parties to contest elections.

The Commonwealth Observer Mission added that, ‘The presence of the monarch in the structure of everyday political life inevitably associates the institution of the monarchy with politics, a situation that runs counter to the development that the re-establishment of the Parliament and the devolution of executive authority into the hands of elected officials.’

See also

NO TOP PARLIAMENTARIANS WERE ELECTED

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/10/no-top-parliamentarians-were-elected.html

 

KING APPOINTS SIX OF HIS FAMILY TO SENATE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2013/10/king-appoints-6-of-his-family-to-senate.html