There is no doubt in my mind that people in the free world are getting the message about how undemocratic a kingdom Swaziland is.
The latest example comes from ABC television in the United States, which has been running a series about royal families around the world and this week featured King Mswati III of Swaziland.
ABC aired a short film on the king and also published a lengthy feature article on its website. The reporter left the audience in no doubt about the reality of life in Swaziland between the royal family and ordinary folk.
The film shows the king at the 40/40 celebrations in 2008 which marked the king’s 40th birthday and also at the Reed Dance, at which tens of thousands of bare breasted maidens dance for the king.
‘Flashy cars, fancy palaces and demanded adoration [from the people] are trademarks’ of King Mswati’s rule, it says.
But, the report goes on, ‘Outside the royal parties is a country teetering on collapse,’ with the highest HIV infection rate in the world and where ‘poverty and hunger are rampant’.
King Mswati, the report says, ‘tolerates absolutely no dissent’.
It sums up Swaziland very well I think, with this phrase. ‘Critics say what he [the king] calls tradition, the rest of the world calls dictatorship’.
To see the filmed report, which lasts a little over a minute click below. To see the film and the written feature article click here.
I am not surprised to read in the Weekend Observerthat Swaziland’s latest university has failed to materialise.
Limkokwing University was supposed to be opening next month (February 2009) but the newspaper reported that when its reporter went to university campus located at the Swaziland Institute of Management and Public Administrations (SIMPA) premises in Mbabane he found there ‘was no sign of life except for the over-grown grass [and] broken windows’.
Further inquiries by the reporter failed to discover when the university would open.
Limkokwing, with headquarters in Malaysia, is a ‘private’ university (that is one not funded by government). And as I wrote in November 2008,unlike many private universities which run as charities, this one intends to be profit-making. The kingdom only has one university at present the state-run University of Swaziland.
Limkokwing advertised that it would run courses in technology, arts, communication, television and broadcasting, business, sound and music, lifestyle, creativity and innovation.
According to the Weekend Observer,Limkokwing had asked the Swazi Government to secure 1,000 scholarships at a cost estimated to be E3million (about 430,000 US dollars) for students to study within the institution. When news of this got out in December hundreds of people tried to get scholarships from the Swazi Ministry of Education.
Personally, I doubt if Swaziland can afford to make such payments for students, especially when you consider the difficulty the government has in financing students at its own University of Swaziland.
The delay in securing finance form the Swazi Government may explain why Limkokwing has yet to open in Swaziland, but if experiences in Botswana are anything to go by, the legitimacy of Limkokwing as a university may be in question.
Limkokwing officially opened in Botswana in 2007 with the same noise it has been trying to generate in Swaziland. Since then it has been beset with difficulties and complaints.
In December 2008, Permanent Secretary in the Botswana Ministry of Education and Skills Development, Ruth Maphorisa, said there were a few things that were happening at Limkokwing that the ministry found ‘questionable’.
At a press conference she said the ministry was concerned that Limkokwing staff are inadequately trained, that recently-graduated students are used to teach the remaining students and that lecturers are not based in Botswana, but also travel to other Limkokwing universities in Malaysia or Lesotho.
Doubts have also arisen about whether courses taught at the university are accredited by any official organisation
.
Maphorisa said the ministry was looking at various options, if nothing changes, including transfer of students at Limkokwing Malaysia to other institutions offering the same courses within Malaysia.
As I wrote last week, in Swaziland it is vital that there is a clear understanding about what is the purpose of university education in the kingdom. Many people cannot fathom the role of the University of Swaziland and with Limkokwing possibly joining it in the kingdom, the need for a coherent, transparent policy on university education is urgently needed.
Can we please tell the truth about the Swaziland Constitution and how it does not embody the will of the Swazi people?
Hardly a week goes by in Swaziland that some member of the Royal Family or one of its apologists claims publicly that Swaziland has a ‘unique democracy’ and this is so because it is enshrined in the constitution and the constitution was written after consulting the Swazi people.
This claim to legitimacy is particularly loud at times when democrats (especially outside of Swaziland) question the democratic credentials of the Swazi leaders. This most recently happened after Maurice Parker, the US Ambassador to Swaziland, said his embassy would support groups in Swaziland that were campaigning for more democracy.
The fact is, however, that the Swaziland Constitution does not embody the will of the people, instead it is a document written specifically to maintain the power of a small elite, centred on the Swazi monarchy.
This was recognised from the very start. In 2003 after the first draft of the constitution was published, no less a person than King Mswati III invited the International Bar Association (IBA) to comment on the document. The resulting report (click here to see it) was stark in its criticism of both the process of ‘consultation’ on the constitution and the wording of the document itself.
The report called Striving for Democratic Governance was couched in legal and diplomatic language but it nonetheless called the constitution ‘flawed’. It went so far as to report one critic who called the constitution ‘a fraud.’
One of the IBA’s main conclusions was that the ‘position and powers’ of some ‘stakeholders’ in Swaziland, ‘including the Monarchy’ are in effect ‘actually placed above the Constitution and its principles’.
The IBA studied what was going on during the drafting process, which was controlled by the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC).
The CRC did not allow the judiciary or NGOs to contribute to the drafting process and ensured that individual Swazi people were interviewed in the presence of their chiefs. As a result the ‘overwhelming’ majority wanted the King to keep all his powers and wanted the position of traditional advisers to the King to be strengthened. They also wanted Swazi customs to have supremacy over any international rights obligations.
The IBA report states, ‘The terms of reference of the Commission did not allow expressly for group submissions, and as apparently they were not entertained, NGOs per se were effectively prevented from commenting. The IBA panel considers that, unfortunately, this in itself deprived the CRC of much valuable input.’
The IBA report goes on, ‘The CRC also faced a number of practical problems. There were disputes between local chiefs, collecting views during the rainy season in Swaziland was difficult, and several Commission members resigned.
‘The extent to which individual Swazis were consulted has also been questioned. The CRC did not keep records of the submissions it received and media coverage of submissions was apparently banned.
‘There is therefore no formal record of how Swazi citizens presented their views and of what in fact they said to the CRC.
‘Furthermore, information was elicited in a highly charged atmosphere. Individuals were reportedly asked, in the presence of chiefs, whether they wanted to retain the King and whether they preferred political parties.
‘The CRC report states that “there is a small minority which recommends that the powers of the monarchy must be limited” and continued that “an overwhelming majority of the nation recommends that political parties must be banned”.
‘The report concludes that “an overwhelming majority recommends that the system of Government based on the Tinkhundla must continue” and, as well as the ban on political parties being maintained, that the executive powers of the King should be maintained, the position of traditional advisers to the King strengthened, and Swazi customs have supremacy over any contrary international rights obligations.’
I have to say that under the circumstances in which the ‘consultation’ took place it is no surprise that ‘the Swazi people’ said they wished to keep the monarchy and the present traditional system.
In November 2007 the Swaziland High Court ruled that documents pertaining to the drafting process could not be made available for public scrutiny, thereby allowing the ruling elite to maintain the fiction of full consultation.
Under the constitution the monarchy remains above the law and political parties are banned. This is a very ‘unique democracy’ indeed.
It seems Swazi dissident Mfomfo Nkhambulehas at last been silenced by the kingdom’s dictators.
This follows an ultimatum from traditional leaders in the area in which Nkhambule lives. First he was told that he should stop criticising King Mswati III. Now, he has been told he must either stop his politics or quit the local traditional regiment to which he belongs.
Writing in the Times yesterday (Monday 26 January 2009), Nkhambule, who is also chair of the Inhalva Forum political party, said he was summonsed to Engabezweni Royal residence to be told he would be kicked out of the traditional regiment Balondolozi BakaLozitha Ligezii if he didn’t stop criticism the king and advocating for democracy in Swaziland.
Nkhambule wrote, ‘I was told to choose between multi-partyism and being a member of the traditional regiments. It is either Umbutfo or Inhlava. It is unSwazi to talk politics and be a member of the traditional regiment..
‘This was a difficult order for me and I politely asked for time to consult with Inhlava membership. I like being part of the Swazi warriors and I also like politics because in Swaziland without someone carrying a torch light for the majority of His Majesty’s subjects, my fellow countrymen are perishing in their numbers and from the bottom of my heart I had to do something to bring this to a halt.’
He said he was still considering what to do next.
The pressure on Nkhambule is typical of how social control works in Swaziland. Chiefs and ‘traditionalists’ have the real power in the kingdom. This they get from the monarch. People who speak out of turn or in any other way displease the authorities can find themselves banished, sometimes literally when people are forced out of their homes by chiefs.
Chiefs and traditionalists can also determine whether people have jobs, get scholarships for education, or receive food aid from international donors. In Swaziland if you speak out of turn you and your family can starve.
According to a report in the Times Sunday(25 January 2009),‘Nkhambule went to the royal residence to honour summons that was announced through national radio. He went there in the company of his father and younger brother. The deliberations were chaired by Chomentanyeni Magagula, the leader of the regiment, but were also attended by members of the Inyatsi regiment. About 20 members of the regiment attended the meeting. The leaders of the regiment were allegedly intent on confiscating his Liqhuzu, an artefact that is given to a warrior who has been admitted to a particular regiment.
‘“I was given an ultimatum; to choose between my role in Inhlava and my membership with the regiment,” said Nkambule, whose regiment name is Veni. He has been a member since 1980.
‘“They told me that culturally, members of regiments do not get involved in politics. They insisted that no member is expected to criticise the king. An example they used to illustrate my position was that one cannot ride two horses at the same time. They suggested I choose one horse,” he said.
‘He said the leaders of the regiment told him that his articles, published in the Times on Mondays, had brought shame and disrepute to regiments and the King.
‘Nkambule, who is a former cabinet minister, said he told the meeting of his undying love for his regiment, and the king in particular.’
Despite the threat from the traditional authorities, it seems Nkambule can’t resist pointing out the lack of respect King Mswati has for his people.
In the Times yesterday he wrote that the king and his ‘messengers’ don’t believe Swazi people have the brains to decide on how to run their own lives for themselves.
‘There has not been one person in authority who has ever asked us to justify the decisions we take on a daily basis because no one person, from the king down to the last of his messengers, is ever interested in the reasoning of an ordinary Swazi because they have drawn the conclusion that we have nothing in between our two ears or if we have, we often do not make sense at all,’ he wrote.
