More than ever before, the world is focusing on the tiny kingdom of Swaziland and this CAI paper discusses the recent pro-democracy protests in the country. On 12 April 2011, the Swazi people publicly protested against the country’s dire economic situation the dictatorship of King Mswati III, commonly referred to as the “last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa.” Against the background of recent pro-democracy uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, Swaziland’s citizens bravely stood up against a government that calls itself the “custodian of Swazi culture”⁽²⁾ in order to sustain and consolidate the monarchy. The protests were suppressed by government forces and international eyebrows were raised by the Government’s violent response.

Louise Redvers asserts that the king’s “undemocratic system of governance is fast losing its shine among his subjects, 69% of whom live on less than US$ 1 a day.”⁽³⁾ The country’s economic crisis has been blamed on the lavish lifestyle of the king and his wives, cronyism, economic mismanagement and the autocratic ‘iron-fisted’ rule of the monarchy and its self-appointed government. Activists claim that “Swaziland has less political freedom than Zimbabwe” and that “political parties are banned and activists are regularly imprisoned and tortured.”⁽⁴⁾ The regime’s intolerance of dissent, in both policy and practice, has been especially visible in recent violent military and police crackdowns against protest action. This has exposed the undemocratic nature of the regime and its blatant disregard for human rights and basic freedoms.

The 12 April uprisings and government clampdown

Swaziland’s main liberation movement, the People’s United Democratic Movement, was banned under the 2008 Suppression of Terrorism Act. However, “the opposition cause was taken up by a variety of organisations, including church groups, unions, and activity groups inside the country.”⁽⁵⁾ Swazis in exile have also mobilised through the Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN), which has been the “main conduit of information to the outside world.”⁽⁶⁾ Reminiscent of the recent North African revolutions, a facebook group called ‘April 12 uprising’ was set up to promote communication between pro-democracy activists. Whilst the group drew international attention to the country’s political situation, it unfortunately also informed the Government of the protestor’s plans.⁽⁷⁾

The king’s regime has responded to the recent pro-democracy protests with brutal force and harsh rhetoric through intimidation, heavy policing and military clampdown, detentions and willingness to prosecute opposition figures. The message has been clear: dissent will not be tolerated. Before the staging of protests, the Swaziland regime issued harsh warnings to protesters. Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini declared that the protests would be illegal and that anyone who took part in them would do so “at their own risk.”⁽⁸⁾ Protesters were branded “evil” by the Police Commissioner and the army and the police force were ready for a clampdown.⁽⁹⁾ On 12 April, a brutal clampdown was indeed executed, starting with the arrest of unionists at the forefront of the rally.⁽¹⁰⁾ Thereafter, crowd dispersal tactics were used to deter protesters and put an end to protest action. Buses full of protesters were stopped by roadblocks everywhere and physical violence against protestors was rampant. According to an activist, Father Magagula, “The police used water cannons and then the swinging batons.”⁽¹¹⁾

There have also been reports that the Government monitored phone calls with the help of MTN, the only cell phone network in the country, which has been accused of collaborating with the Government. Some cell phone users reported that their internet access had been blocked.⁽¹²⁾ Media reporters were subject to intimidation and detention. According to Niren Tolsi, “the ordinary liberties allowing journalists to work and people to associate freely... simply did not exist.”⁽¹³⁾ Tolsi cites a policeman who allegedly told her that “In Swaziland, we can do as we want with journalists. If we want to read your notes, we can; if we want to look at your camera and confiscate your photographs, we can. This is Swaziland not South Africa, my friend.”⁽¹⁴⁾

Government structures and the law in Swaziland

Political parties were banned in Swaziland in 1973, when a state of emergency was called by then king, Sobhuza II, and the Independence Constitution (implemented five years earlier) was repealed. To this day, the state of emergency remains and the ban on political parties is still firmly intact under the rule of his son, King Mswati III. The reason for the banning was that the opposition was gaining popularity, thus posing a threat to the aristocracy.⁽¹⁵⁾ At the time, the reason cited for the state of emergency was that a “constitutional crisis” had emerged due to political parties which “bring about disturbances and ill-feelings”⁽¹⁶⁾ and are “not deemed part of Swaziland’s social fabric.”⁽¹⁷⁾ Although trade unions were spared the fate of political parties in theory, “in practice, the state security forces interfered with their meetings,”⁽¹⁸⁾ ensuring that shop-floor issues remained the focus and that political issues were not on the agenda.

From this period onwards, ‘supreme power’ - judicial, executive and legislative - was vested in the king, which laid the basis for the current political structure of Swaziland.⁽¹⁹⁾ The tinkhundla system, seen as a system of governance based on Swazi custom, in which representatives from elected local councils become spokespeople in national parliament, replaced the political party system.⁽²⁰⁾ Despite the introduction of the new Constitution of Swaziland in 2005, multi-party democracy is still outlawed (although the legal status of political parties at present is not clear due to a “legal challenge by civil society organisations”⁽²¹⁾), and commitment to the tinkhundla system remains. Many commentators claim that this system, presented as a unique Swazi-style, grassroots, bottom-up democracy, serves to entrench and consolidate the rule of the monarchy and a ‘power elite’ made up of traditionalists loyal to the king, while severely restricting the ability of civil society organs to facilitate change.⁽²²⁾ According to Amnesty International, “The King, as Head of State and also traditional head (Ngwenyama) of the Swazi nation, has extensive powers. These include appointing the Prime Minister, the heads of the security forces, some members of parliament and the judiciary.”⁽²³⁾ Criticism has been levelled against the new constitution by organs of civil society for its failure to protect the basic freedoms of the citizens of Swaziland.

The 2008 Suppression of Terrorism Act has further drawn the attention of civil society and has raised serious human rights concerns. Although the act was implemented after an attempted bombing, it has been criticised for being “sweeping and imprecise.”⁽²⁴⁾ Redvers points out that “Under the 2008 legislation, any criticism of the king or Government is treated as an act of terror, a law that has been liberally applied to human rights activists and union members.”⁽²⁵⁾ The definition of ‘terrorism’ or an ‘act of terrorism’ under the act is vague and grants the Government power to determine what and who can be defined as a terrorist act or group. “Not only is the property of the group subject to seizure and forfeiture, but membership of the group also becomes a criminal offence. Other organisations and individuals who have virtually any kind of contact with the group, risk being caught up in very broadly defined criminal offences,”⁽²⁶⁾ states Amnesty International. The act threatens “freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, rights which were already compromised under Swaziland’s legal system.”⁽²⁷⁾

Concluding remarks

The Swazi regime successfully demobilised the 12 April protest action, resulting in Swaziland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation calling the protests a “failure.”⁽²⁸⁾ “The whole world has seen that we do not live in a free society. They’ve seen how the king and his government have no regard for our lives and our rights. This is still a victory,”⁽²⁹⁾ said Remember Msibi, a pro- democracy activist.

Protesters are feeling defiant and have vowed to continue their struggle against the (discredited) regime. Increased exposure to Swaziland’s ‘political hardships’ has drawn international attention and South Africa’s ruling party, the ANC, has been pressuring the Swazi regime to “lift a ban on political parties.”⁽³⁰⁾ This is a significant move, given the ANC’s historical silence on the topic and the fact that South Africa is a major trading partner of Swaziland. Concerns over human rights political freedoms have also led to statements by representatives from the US and the EU.⁽³¹⁾ Perhaps the revolution is on hold for now, but the seeds are planted and democratic change in Swaziland is certainly still within reach.

NOTES:

(1) Contact Carrie Byrne through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Rights in Focus Unit ( rights.focus@consultancyafrica.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).
(2) Simelane, X. 2008.The making of the Swazi working class: Challenges to the emergence of a countermovement in Swaziland. Masters Thesis : University of the Witwatersrand.
(3) Louise Redvers, ‘Economic meltdown may be just the fuse Swaziland needs’, Mail & Guardian Online, 18 February 2011, www.mg.co.za.
(4) Davis Smith, ‘Anger over Swazi king’s plans for UK royal wedding’, Guardian, 22 April 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(5) Andrew Macdonnell, ‘Swaziland: The facebook revolution that wasn’t… for now, at least’, Caledonian Mercury, 21 April 2011, http://world.caledonianmercury.com.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid.
(8) ‘Police disperse Swaziland protesters’, Aljazeera.net, 12 April 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Barry Bearak, ‘Police prevent democracy protest in Swaziland’, New York Times, 12 April 2011, www.nytimes.com.
(11) Ibid.
(12) Ilham Rawoot, ‘MTN Swaziland ‘helping state to monitor calls’’, Mail & Guardian, 15 April 2011.
(13) Niren Tolsi, ‘The jackboot beaten by the bra’, Mail & Guardian, 15 April 2011.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Simelane, X. 2008. The making of the Swazi working class: Challenges to the emergence of a countermovement in Swaziland. Masters Thesis : University of the Witwatersrand.
(16) Address by Zwelinzima Vavi, Cosatu General Secretary, to the preparatory meeting for the Trade Union And Civil Society International Solidarity Conference, Trade Union Congress, 15 July 2008, www.tuc.org.uk
(17) Swaziland Election Dossier 2003, no 1, October 2003, Electoral Institute of Southern Africa, www.eisa.org.za.
(18) Simelane, X. 2008.The making of the Swazi working class: Challenges to the emergence of a countermovement in Swaziland. Masters Thesis : University of the Witwatersrand.
(19) Gumedze, S. 2005. Human rights and the rule of law in Swaziland. African Human Rights Law Journal, 5(2), http://www.chr.up.ac.za.
(20) Ibid.
(21) ‘An atmosphere of intimidation: Counter-terrorism legislation used to silence dissent in Swaziland’, Amnesty International, 10 June 2009, www.amnesty.org.
(22) Ibid.
(23) Ibid.
(24) ‘Swaziland: Suppression of terrorism act undermines human rights: public statement’, Amnesty International, 8 January 2009, www.amnesty.org.
(25) Louise Redvers, ‘Economic meltdown may be just the fuse Swaziland needs’, M&G Online,18 February 2011, www.mg.co.za.
(26) ‘An atmosphere of intimidation: Counter-terrorism legislation used to silence dissent in Swaziland’, Amnesty International, 10 June 2009, www.amnesty.org.
(27) Ibid.
(28) Andrew Macdonnell, ‘Swaziland: The facebook revolution that wasn’t…for now, at least’, Caledonian Mercury, 21 April 2011, http://world.caledonianmercury.com.
(29) Niren Tolsi, ‘Defiant protesters speak out’, Mail & Guardian, 15 April 2011, www.mg.co.za.
(30) John Woods, ‘How long can Swaziland resist reform?’, Guardian, 21 April 2011, www.guardian.co.uk.
(31) Ibid.

Written by Carrie Byrne ⁽¹⁾