RIGHTS: Swazi King Braces for Reaction to Latest ‘Oppressive’ Law

By James Hall Reprint | | Print |

James Hall

MBABANE, Swaziland, Jun 14 2002 (IPS) - The British ambassador to Swaziland, David Reader, used the occasion of his speech at the kingdom’s celebration of Queen Elizabeth’s jubilee this week to caution the authorities of his host country that Britain will be reviewing a new Internal Security Act.

“We will be watching that all legislation is consistent with international standards of human rights,” he said to King Mswati’s representative, the royal brother Prince Mangaliso Dlamini.

Prince Mangaliso headed a controversial constitutional committee appointed by the palace, and delivered a report to King Mswati that said the Swazi people wish the monarchy to remain the country’s absolute authority forever, while opposition political parties should remain banned. Political groups have been outlawed by royal decree since 1973.

On the basis of his brother’s recommendations, King Mswati said a new constitution would be drafted by year’s end. Another brother, Prince David, heads the committee doing the job.

The Swaziland Democratic Alliance has rejected the six-year-old constitutional exercise as a “non-starter” because the collection of progressive labour organisations, human rights groups and banned political parties contends the process has been manipulated to stifle opinions to royal rule.

Reader seemed to agree when he said the international community would also be reviewing the new constitution. “The sense of ownership by the people of the constitution will be the key to its success, because in the end it is only the Swazi people who can decide upon their own destiny,” he said.

Both the British and U.S. governments gave financial assistance for the lengthy constitution drafting process, begun in 1996. The industrialised democracies had hoped the process would bring political reform.

King Mswati enjoys widespread support amongst his people, and respect from African leaders. Political observers familiar with the country say his position at the palace is secure even if democracy comes to Swaziland, and the Swazi king becomes a constitutional monarch like Britain’s Queen Elizabeth.

“We love our king, and we would not like to see him go. Look what happened when Lesotho lost their king? There was chaos until he returned as a symbol of national unity,” says Jan Sithole, who as secretary general of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions has led a series of nation-wide workers stay-always to press for democratic reform.

Palace counsellors like Prince Mguciso — King Mswati’s older brother who serves on the Swaziland National Committee, a powerful group of royal advisors — doubts Sithole’s sincerity. “They want democracy in order to take over the country for themselves. They want power,” he says.

A political writer and member of the Swaziland Democratic Alliance, Killison Shongwe, earned the palace’s wrath when he refused to serve on Prince Mangaliso’s constitution committee. “It became evident that I was appointed as window dressing, to show the world that all corners of Swazi society were participating. But I was ignored, and I resigned,” Shongwe says.

Shongwe is one of the kingdom’s moderate voices who believe that even in a monarchial system there can be a loyal opposition. “Just because we want democracy does not mean we want to do away with the king. African leaders must understand that their policies can be criticised, and they themselves can be criticised, but the person doing the criticising can have the greater good of the country at heart.”

Shongwe feels a citizen’s duty is to look critically at a country’s problems to find a solution, and not to blindly agree with leadership. “Too many African leaders have taken advantage of the love of their people to benefit themselves,” he says.

Reader and other envoys also have alerted government that they will be watching the progress of a new Internal Security Act announced by Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini last week. While some aspects of the bill are laudable law enforcement measures, such as weapons control and penalties for harbouring fugitives, the key elements attracting attention are clearly aimed at stifling political dissent.

The law bans the wearing of T-shirts emblazoned with political slogans, and calls for stiff penalties for disobeying police orders during public demonstrations.

The independent Swazi media has questioned the timing of the bill, which prohibits activities that might well be legal under a new constitution that is due in a few months. But Prime Minister Dlamini defends the timing as coincidental. “The drafting process began two years ago,” he told the Times of Swaziland.

Phineas Magagula, president of the Swaziland National Association of Teachers, notes, “What was happening two years ago? Swaziland was being penalised by the United States, which withdrew trade benefits because of an Industrial Relations Act that permitted people to sue the labour unions if they suffered damage during strikes, like broken windows or loss of business because the police close off streets.”

He says, “The unions have nothing to do with such vandalism. The authorities wanted to stop us from demonstrating for democratic reforms. Government was forced to amend that bill, or risk further sanctions.”

Now, Magagula says, the new Internal Securities Act reintroduces the penalties against March organisers. In Geneva this week, Swazi workers federation secretary-general Sithole protested the law before the annual meeting of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

However, the Internal Securities Act, like the new constitution, is not a completed product. The act has to be debated in parliament. Input ranging from diplomats’ concerns to possible ILO threats of economic sanctions will be weighed. No political observer cares to hazard a guess as to the measure’s outcome.

As for the constitution, King Mswati has assured the nation that the drafting committee is not done with submissions from the public, and dissenting voices may yet be heard. The king is aware the final document must be palatable to international trade partners and donor organisations as well as his loyal subjects.