FEAR KEEPS SWAZILAND ‘STABLE’

I’m not the only one who thinks King Mswati III of Swaziland is talking nonsense when he says that his kingdom is at peace.

King Mswati, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, told a gathering last week to celebrate his birthday that Swaziland had been at peace since its independence from Britain in 1968.

Vusi Sibisi, a columnist for the Times of Swaziland, the kingdom’s only independent daily newspaper, reckons he knows why there is no unrest in Swaziland – people are too scared to speak out.

Writing in the Times, Sibisi reminds us of a recent ‘assessment of the current level of human rights understanding’ in Swaziland that was commissioned by the Council of Swaziland Churches and supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

It found that it was fear, more than anything else, that was responsible for the peace and stability that King Mswati keeps talking about.

Sibisi says the study ‘found out that the majority of the people are afraid of their government hence they dared not challenge it for fear of reprisals’.

The study says peace and stability are not the products of respect for a functional and popular system of governance but a product of fear of the political establishment to the extent that some believe the government has the right to punish its critics.

The study found that 74.4 per cent of the respondents who participated believe that ‘people who speak against the government must expect the government to punish them in any way it sees fit’.

In short the people would, most probably out of fear, subordinate their human rights and freedoms to government rather than cause any discomfiture by demanding the leadership to respect their fundamental human rights and freedoms.

To read Sibisi’s article in full, click here.

SWAZIS NEED HUMAN RIGHTS BODY

The Swaziland Government has been told it should set up a Human Rights Commission in the kingdom.

Musinga Bandora, of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), told a workshop in Swaziland that the kingdom signed many international treaties on human rights, but did nothing to implement them.

Bandora said government had to be taught why and how to implement its human rights obligations.

For example, it needed to support civil society organisations in reaching international human rights standards and citizens to claim their rights.

Bandora said the United Nations had an important role in defending, promoting and advocating for human rights.

Good luck to Bandora, he has his work cut out. As I reported on Wednesday (10 June 2009) in recent days the Swazi state has tightened its grip and human rights and pro-democracy advocates have been targeted.

Thulani Maseko, Swaziland’s most prominent human rights lawyer, has been arrested on a trumped-up charge of sedition, and dissident writer Mfomfo Nkhambule believes an arrest warrant is out for him and he says he is ready to go to jail.

The banned People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) thinks eight of its leaders are on a hit-list compiled by the Swazi Police and are the next to be arrested.

Legislation is being drawn up this month to make it illegal for anyone on the government’s payroll (including minor civil servants and school teachers) to publicly voice a political opinion and the media is being targeted by a draconian law that would allow government to punish media houses and journalists for publishing material it did not like.

Bandora said the government needs to understand what human rights are. I think it knows already. If there were human rights and civil liberties in Swaziland there would be no ban on political parties, King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, Barnabas Dlamini, his illegally-appointed Prime Minister, and the whole corrupt crew who presently rule in Swaziland would be turned out on their ears by the people.

SWAZI CULTURE ENCOURAGES HIV AIDS

The international outcry after news that Swazi MP Timothy Myeni has called for people who are HIV positive to be branded on the buttocks to advertise the fact, reminds me of just how much work needs to be done in Swaziland to stem the tide of AIDS.

A study of Swazi cultural practices, funded by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) http://www.unfpa.org/public/ and released earlier this year found that they made it difficult to stem the tide of HIV AIDS in Swaziland where the infection rate is as much as 45 percent among some age groups, the highest in the world.

The study found, ‘In Swazi culture, decision making has traditionally been a male prerogative. Family planning decisions, therefore, lie with the man.

‘Women report that they have been subjected to continuous child birth by their husbands or in-laws against their will.’

Another cultural factor is a preference (which is sometimes made into a demand by in-laws) for a woman to bear a boy child. Unwanted pregnancies result as the birth of a girl child is immediately followed by an effort to have a male heir who by traditional law is of the only sex that can lead a family into its next generation.

So strong are these beliefs, coupled with an antipathy toward condom use, that AIDS prevention efforts directed at women haven’t made much headway, according to current statistics. HIV prevalence peaks at age 25-29 amongst Swazi women, 40 percent of whom are HIV-positive in that age group, and at age 30-35 amongst men, 45 percent of whom are HIV-positive in that age group.

In the study, Swazi men strongly defended the practice of kungena, whereby a widow becomes the wife of the deceased man’s brother; a practice that health groups say spreads HIV. Swazi men also defended polygamy as a cultural necessity.

But men also lamented cultural practices they said could stop the spread of HIV, like kuhlawula, whereby men or boys who impregnate unmarried women are fined five cows by their community elders, are no longer enforced.

Several Swazi customs were once in place to ensure that young people stayed chaste until marriages. At the time, marriages were usually arranged between families as forms of alliances. Until the traditional ceremony was completed, young people were not allowed to have sex.

One taboo was the people did not engage in sex outside their age groups.

Boys were subject to ridicule by their contemporaries if they were known to sleep with older women.

Now, Sugar Daddies and Sugar Mamas are common. It is not even sexual attraction that draws the youngest of the partners to such relationships, but the lure of money.

In previous Swazi generations, girls’ sexual debuts were delayed through such customs as umcwasho, when all the nations’ girls of certain ages were forbidden to engage in sex for designated periods.

This was examined last year by a report undertaken by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). he study covered much the same ground as this year’s health ministry research.

On the subject of Swazi customs that have been forgotten, but which could if they had continued positively assisted anti-AIDS efforts, the report noted, ‘Today these social practices have degenerated as a lot of negative sexual practices are tolerated by society.’

SWAZILAND IS NOT A POOR KINGDOM

The fact that Swaziland isn’t a ‘poor’ country, even though seven in ten people live in the most abject poverty is becoming international news.

Following my report last Friday (24 October 2008) that Swaziland’s new resident United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Coordinator Musinga Timothy Bandora. reckons that if wealth were evenly distributed in Swaziland each person would be an emalangeni millionaire (about 100,000 US dollars), the news agency IRIN has returned to the subject.

IRIN reports, ‘In per capita income terms, Swaziland ranks somewhere between Armenia and Paraguay, with export earnings based on agriculture and textiles; but, in terms of the share of the national wealth, the richest 10 percent of Swazis control over 50 percent of the country’s income, a level of inequality worse than in Brazil or South Africa, and beaten only by Namibia.’

It goes on, ‘UNDP figures show that about 70 percent of Swaziland's one million people live in chronic poverty. A record 60 percent of the population relied on food assistance from the World Food Programme and other aid groups in the past year due to drought, and the country has the world’s highest HIV prevalence rate.’

IRIN adds, ‘The royal conglomerate, Tibiho TakaNgwane (wealth of the nation), owns shares in most of the significant business enterprises in Swaziland, and the king controls all mineral rights in the country.’

There is serious concern among democrats in Swaziland that poor people in the kingdom are suffering because international donor agencies do not see Swaziland as ‘poor’ (in development circles Swaziland is considered to be a ‘middle income’ nation). As a consequence less aid is sent to the kingdom than to some other countries.

The real problem is that a minority of people (mostly the Royal Family and its allies) are taking more than their share of resources, leaving ordinary people with the crumbs. The international community recognises this and doesn’t see why it should give aid when it knows that crooks are robbing the people blind.

The solution to this doesn’t rest with the donors, it rests with the people of Swaziland who need to make sure that they get their fair share and that means some people who have the most now must have less in the future.

PS After I wrote about Bandora’s ‘millionaire’ statement a reader wrote to say his arithmetic was way out. To read more click here and scroll to ‘comments’

To read more of the IRIN report, click here.


See also
ALL SWAZIS ARE MILLIONAIRES