Above image: King Mswati III who has been in power since 1986, succeeding Sobhuza II.
Absolute Monarchy : Swaziland’s Elections Are Absolutely Insignificant, 2013
Swaziland, the long-standing absolute monarchy situated in sub-Saharan Africa, is set to hold national elections by October, 2013. King Mswati III has been on the throne for 27 years, after succeeding his father, King Sobhuza II in 1986. Sobhuza had been at the helm of the throne for 61 years, and traditionally had plentiful wives. In 1973, the Swaziland Constitution was dissolved and the previously democratic country was turned into the absolute monarchy, as a result of the 40 years royal decree introduced by Sobhuza II. According to the BBC News report, Sobhuza ‘scrapped the constitution in 1973 and banned political parties’. The reigning King Mswati III is following on his father and predecessor’s footsteps, and shows no interest in unbanning political parties, releasing political prisoners and allowing exiles’ return, and reinstating a democratic rule.
Swaziland is a landlocked country in southern Africa; bordered to the north, south, and west by South Africa, and to the east by Mozambique. It has a population size of just over a million; with the appalling status of poverty, economy, health, and political rule. King Mswati’s rule led to the conception of Swaziland as ‘ an island of dictatorship in a sea of democracy.’ This argument is accurate in the sense that Swaziland will remain a lost island in a politically emancipated and economically progressing southern African region, if democracy is not reinstalled.
The perception that Swaziland is such an island can be attributed to the fact that Swaziland is today encircled by full-fledged democracies, and is faced with a mammoth task of returning to democracy or tolerating criticism and pressure from pro-democracy forces— given King Mswati’s reluctance to introduce political and economic reforms. From colonial expansion to decolonization process, many southern African countries became the last to achieve independence and this subsequently saw the dawn of democracy and economic progression.
In retrospect, it is on record that Namibia attained its independence from South Africa in 1990 and South Africa itself became a democratic country after independence from the apartheid rule at the behest of the white minority in 1994. Prior to that, however, Mozambique and Angola had already gained their independence from Portuguese rule in the mid-1970s, at the culmination of long fought civil wars. All these countries are the most immediate neighbours to Swaziland and are—as could have been expected— justly concerned with the political, and socio-economic status quo in that kingdom under King Mswati’s dictatorship.
Swaziland is set to hold parliamentary elections in October, 2013; however, there are already soaring calls by pro-democracy activists and supporters for the boycott of elections. The powers vested in King Mswati III enable him to influence most of the decisions— whether sound or not— that the parliament and other stakeholders have to make. Opposition leaders (of banned political parties), unions, and pro-democracy forces have already lamented the forthcoming elections as ‘ undemocratic and a mere rubber-stamping of the autocratic rule of King Mswati III.’ Elections are therefore considered as unworthy, and definitely never credible in the eyes of those who would like to see radical change in the political landscape of Swaziland. As put forward by Tania Page, ‘…there are elections and there is a constitution in Swaziland, but the King can overrule both, prompting opponents to describe them (elections and the constitution) as pointless’. Therefore, the king is undoubtedly the law unto himself and all his subjects. Democracy does not exist in the lexicon of the kingdom of Swaziland. King Mswati’s rule diverges from the western perspective by Thomas Paine, who observed in Common Sense, that “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” This actually entails that the law is supreme (law is king) in America; and in absolute government like Swaziland, the king himself is the law and can override any legislation at his discretion (king is law).
If the King wields excessive power and control over government policies, any fundamental changes that ought to thwart or threaten the King’s extravagant lifestyle would, unfortunately, be dismissed outrightly. This is compounded by no accountability whatsoever over king’s ruler; owing to the limited political opposition, and not so influential civil society organisations. Most of the federations, democratic fronts, trade unions, and coalitions do exist physically, albeit not legally recognised by the government.
On the economic front, Swaziland’s economy is said to have been fairly diversified since the mid-1980s, with sugar and wood pulp as major foreign exchange earners; but the wood pulp producer closed in 2010, now sugar remains the main export earner; and mining lost its significance with only coal and quarry stone mines remaining active. Trade relations between South Africa and Swaziland have always been disproportionate, with Swaziland dependent on more than 90 % of its imports from South Africa, to which it sends about 60 % of its exports (mostly in raw/primary resources form). It is important to note the existence the southern African integration scheme— the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) — which seeks to contribute, financially with its revenues, to the upliftment undeveloped and developing economies within the SADC-region and elsewhere. By virtue of its membership in SACU, Swaziland depends on regular revenue injection to keep its economy adrift. The 2008 world economic downturn impacted negatively on many African economies, including the Kingdom of Swaziland. Many of the above stated sources of income were not spared by the sweeping global recession, leading to the 2011 fiscal crisis encountered by Swaziland.
During that same year, a bailout plea was made to the South African government by Swaziland. South Africa was fairly keen to aid the kingdom with about R2.4 billion; however, under stringent conditions to which the government of Swaziland never showed intentions of adhering to, let alone, make concessions in that regard. The conditions included political (democratic) and fiscal (economic) reforms but the deal was never concluded for some reasons. Apart from economic factors (or in relation these factors), the kingdom of Swaziland has had a high unemployment rate; exacerbated by poverty, the lack of political accountability, and heightened communicable as well as non-communicable diseases.
In spite of the kingdom’s socio-economic woes, Mswati III continues to live a lavish lifestyle at the detriment of his so-called ‘subjects’. Every year, Mswati throws massive birthday celebrations for himself, and sometimes his subjects are compelled to contribute cattle to be slaughtered, maybe as a way of indicating admiration for the King and his style of rule. In a traditional practice known as the ‘Reed Dance’, the polygamist Swati King is spoilt for choice in as far as women and marriages are concerned. He is endowed with the authority to select, among young women, a wife, and as such can have as many wives as he desires. The most recent birthday celebrations were held on April, 2013, where a whopping overall expenditure of R33 million was revealed.
In light of the stated socio-economic confrontations, King Mswati’s uncurbed style of rule and his economic self- preservation remain questionable. One can deduce that the far-reaching implications of economic dependence hurdle both political and socio-economic advancements. By maintaining a negative balance of trade with South Africa; being over-dependent on the SACU revenue, which fluctuates time and again; and being reliant on few commodities as the main source of government revenue are major challenges faced by Swaziland and its people. These challenges also manifest themselves in democratic countries but with little impact. In comparison, the same cannot be said with authoritarian/absolute governments like in Swaziland. The prospects (if any) of Swaziland’s economy are unlikely to benefit the ordinary people but will continue to be the profitable for the king and his loyalties, aides, and supporters alike.
On the question of the forthcoming national elections scheduled for October, 2013, I prefer not to differ in perspective with Swaziland pro-democracy supporters. I am of the view that Africa has long gained political independence and it is high time that African leaders become largely preoccupied with socio-economic growth and development issues than focusing on political issues–mostly concentrated on questions such as: (i) Who should rule? (ii) How should they rule?, and (iii) When should they rule? This is so because, times have changed and the world is highly globalised; socio-economic issues affect and determine political outcomes than the other way round.
I suppose that the general populace (or the electorate) are the major force that could probably bring about peaceful transition in every country. And in the case of Swaziland, the transition from dictatorship to democracy can chiefly be articulated and influenced by the people, for the people, and complemented by the international community as the effort to consolidate any widely accepted positive changes. However, if the people Swaziland (deliberately) do not become vocal against King Mswati’s leadership (or dictatorship), it then becomes irrelevant of external forces to act as voices for the voiceless. In the same breath, if banned opposition political parties, civil society organisations, and (most imperatively) the ordinary citizens can vehemently but calmly pressure the current rule to reform to democracy, then the international community’s involvement can have a reasonable and justifiable ground to intervene for the benefit of the majority. In concert with the international community, the pro-democracy forces can agitate for political transformation in Swaziland. After all, common goals can effortlessly be achieved if parties speak with a common voice. Conversely, asymmetric approaches in finding a solution for one particular problem usually worsens a situation.
In a nutshell, I also am quite not in favour any repressive form of rule; I mean, traditional practices have to be exercised with due regard to the ever shifting economic, political, and social dynamics across the globe. I also see no valid reason to take to the polls, while it is widely known that the king has the power to veto decisions or outcomes which may otherwise blunt his authority. Transformation can be a reality only if, inter alia, (i) the constitution is amended and is made the supreme law of the land (ii) political parties are unbanned and political prisoners released (iii) a multiparty democracy is introduced and (iv) regular and fair elections are held.
These are but just some of the democratic norms and values embodied in the constitutions of many countries and in line with the work of the United Nations (UN) and like-minded organisations . If we (non-Swaziland descendant) feel that the Swazi people need change, we therefore need to start pondering our own countries’ ruling governments first. Then we can put ourselves in Swazi peoples’ shoes. We are all unaccustomed to fundamental changes, particularly, government leadership changes. I can attest on behalf of myself and many other South Africans that we(the majority) remain the support base of the long-standing ruling (former liberation movement) African National Congress (ANC), despite its failures here and there. And it is inconceivable that change in leadership would bring change in the livelihood of the electorates. Likewise, Zimbabwe is ruled by a former liberation movement, that many African countries have strong historical and political ties. Hence, little or no pressure (and the quiet diplomatic approach) is imposed on Zimbabwe to hold free and fair elections, not rigged in any way. Perhaps Zimbabweans like South Africans, share the sentiment of being comfortable under the current rule by President Robert Mugabe, who has been in power since independence in 1980.
To the people of Swaziland,Mahatma Gandhi once said : “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” As such, if the people of Swaziland wish to see changes in their kingdom, they should start showing that by actions as nationalists with the aim of achieving full democracy. This also goes to other countries elsewhere.
T.M WRITES 