Swaziland@Newsletter Extra
Published by Southern Africa Contact (Denmark)

Earlier issues can be read at http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/SAK
Swazinewsletter together with Documents and other materials not
included in the regular newsletter.

If you wish to subscribe to the newsletter, please send mail to:
SAK-Swazinewsletter-subscribe@...

___________________________________________


Bongani Masuku, Why Swaziland has escaped the international human
rights radar for so long!


BACKGROUND

Swaziland was, like Zimbabwe, a British colony. The persisting
problems in both countries have probably something to do with that. It
got its independence in 1968 under King Sobhuza. However, this
independence was merely a transfer of power from the British colonial
masters to a neo-colonial regime under the monarchy which has, to
date, maintained and perpetuated neo-colonial relations.

The independence of Swaziland came as a result of two critical factors;

- Struggles of the Swazi working class, particularly in the eastern
part of the country, popularly known as the sugar belt, the mainstay
of Swazi economy, with some petty-bourgeois political movements.

- British imperialism was going through a crisis period as a result of
anti-colonial struggles waged by liberation movements throughout the
world, particularly in Africa and the Second World War which had
exhausted the energy of the empire to maintain its colonies and
sustain resistance to their independence.

In this context, the British sought to re-establish or re-organize the
relations of domination and exploitation under new conditions or
through some form of legitimate rule, hence its alliance with the
royal family to reorganize the system of capital accumulation in the
interest of British capitalism. The changes of some names indicated
this wave, for instance the former Colonial Development Corporation,
changed its name to Commonwealth Development Corporation, which it
uses to date. It is still a British state company, in South Africa
running as the company ATM Solutions.


THE POST-INDEPENDENCE CHARCTER OF SWAZI SOCIETY


The independence of Swaziland was to be short-lived by the 1973 royal
proclamation to the nation, in which King Sobhuza emphatically stated
that: Now, therefore I, Sobhuza 11, king of Swaziland, hereby declare
that, in collaboration with my cabinet ministers and supported by the
whole nation, I have assumed supreme power in the kingdom of Swaziland
and that all legislative, executive and judicial power is now vested
in myself and shall, for the meantime, be exercised in collaboration
with my cabinet ministers. I further declare that to ensure the
continued maintenance of peace, order and good government, my armed
forces have been posted to all strategic places and have taken charge
of all government places and all public services- (section 3) - all
political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about
disturbances and ill-feelings within the nation are hereby dissolved
and prohibited (section 11) - Royal proclamation to the Nation, 12
April, 1973.

This decree was to shape the post-independence politics of Swaziland
for a long time. This laid the basis for the current political
architecture in Swaziland, where politics are the exclusive preserve
of the ruling royal elite. With deepening crisis in Swaziland, the
ruling royal regime keeps trying to change the form of oppression and
renew the conditions of exploitation. This has culminated in new
constitutional circus of the regime, which does not change anything
except reinforce the power of the royal family.

In 1978 the monarchy introduced a system of political rule called
tinkhundla, which sought to entrench the hegemony of royal supremacy
and deepen the character of Swazi society as a semi-feudal and
neo-colonial establishment. This system fragmented Swazis into
competing localities called tinkhundla in the name of so-called unique
and home-grown democracy. This royal version of democracy is directly
in conflict with universal democratic principles.

The interesting thing is that the role of apartheid South Africa was
conspicuous in this political development. The Afrikaaner broederbond
society played a critical role in the proclamation of the state of
emergency in 1973 to consolidate power in the hands of the monarchy.
The monarchy was also threatened by the emergence of progressive
forces, particularly organized workers and political movements, that
saw common cause with the South African liberation movement.

The afrikaaner broederbond society deployed the advocate Van Wyk De
Vries from Pretoria to advise King Sobhuza on the exact content of the
law that could proscribe political activity. Particularly, because
royal interests were also threatened by the emergence of progressive
forces and the growing activism of workers in the country. This sealed
the unholy alliance between the two forces. Economic activity and
support for the Swazi regime grew as the apartheid government
increased its incentive scheme to draw more forces into its crusade
against the liberation movement.

This saw the gradual, but steady substitution of British capital by
South African capital, as Lonrho, Tate & Lyle, CDC, Barclays Bank and
other British companies became replaced by Illovo, SAPPI, Nedbank, FNB
and others. This is why South African capital is critical in the
struggle to resolve the political crisis of Swaziland. We need to
consciously target South African capital for action in order to
increase the tempo and momentum of struggle in solidarity with the
workers and people of Swaziland.

Therefore, the Swazi state inherited many trends from the apartheid
state, including the integration of the security forces into the
apartheid security strategy, hence the open collaboration between the
two states that led to the huge number of deaths of members of the ANC
liberation alliance on Swazi soil.

The abduction, kidnapping, murder and systematic persecution of
political activists belonging to both the Swazi and South African
liberation movement intensified after the secret pact of 1982 between
the apartheid regime and the Swazi monarchy regime. This was closely
followed by the extradition treaty of 1984. This is the context of the
birth of People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) in 1983 as a
force for the liberation in Swaziland, born of workers and students
struggles against both the oppressive Swazi regime 1973 decree and to
support the South African liberation movement. Many members of both
movements suffered much together, the deaths of Zweli Nyanda at
Zakhele in 1984, leading to the narrow escape of his close comrades
from PUDEMO, amongst them Gavin McFadden who is now based in London as
a representative of the Swazi movement.

THE CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE - WHO HOLDS THE BALANCE OF POWER?

The birth of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in South Africa in 1983
was closely associated with the birth of a political movement that
resembled it in Swaziland during the same year. The UDF was born a
month after People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) had been
born, underlining the deep connection that existed at the time between
the South African and Swazi progressive forces and the extent to which
both sides mutually reinforced and influenced each other.

Since that time in 1983, the Swazi political and social landscape has
never been the same. The underground political movement started a
conscious programme of building progressive forces and structures of
mass mobilization. Primarily of a trade union movement with the
slogan: Build trade unions where none exist and strengthen them where
they exist. This saw the emergence of Swaziland National Association
of Civil Servants (SNACS), the strengthening of Swaziland Agriculture
and Plantation Workers Union (SAPWU), the Swaziland Federation of
Trade Unions (SFTU) and several other unions. In his book, When the
Sleeping Grass Awakens: Land and Power in Swaziland, Richard Levin
clearly outlines the process and the actual state of forces at the time.

On the other hand, the birth of other institutions of civil society,
such as the Human Rights Association of Swaziland (HUMARAS) created a
massive forum for public debates on major issues confronting society.
This general atmosphere created a sense of a movement in action which
led to the regime feeling very insecure and intensifying its clampdown
on political activists.

That led to the now famous 1990 Treason trial of PUDEMO leadership,
where Comrade Mario Masuku, PUDEMO President, was the first accused.
This trial was historic in the sense that it, for the first time,
brought to the open the face of resistance and the massive wave
engulfing the country. While in prison, PUDEMO formed its youth wing,
SWAYOCO (Swaziland Youth Congress) which spearheaded an open campaign
and filled the streets with activism and defiance all over the country.

This general state of defiance, massive public debates and rising
militancy boosted confidence in all sectors of civil society. This
prompted other social forces to take up action around issues facing
workers and the poor. This is the context within which the Swaziland
Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) launched its offensive with 27
demands, rallying huge and popular forces around a common platform of
action, resulting in the massive 1996 ?stay away?. As Congress of
South African Trade Unions (COSATU), we supported this through various
activities, including the first border blockade of 1996.

The organic link between PUDEMO and the Swaziland Federation of Trade
Unions (SFTU) led them to the formation of the Swaziland Democratic
Alliance (SDA) in 1996. The Kwaluseni declaration was the founding
document and common platform around which the structure was to
mobilize in years to come.

All these activities created a regime under siege as the royal family
began to intensify its belligerent and brutal attitude towards
political and worker activists. This resulted in forced exile of some
of them, particularly after increased activism also generated some
bombings against government installations. The regime was ultimately
forced to make some concessions, resorting to insignificant reforms
that resulted in the current constitution which the regime parades as
a step towards real democracy. Despite the fact that it was created
under conditions of extreme hostility, intensified arrests and general
persecution of activists. It was created under conditions where
political parties and political activities remained banned and exile
still a reality.

The regime had always argued that political parties and trade unions
were part of the constitutional process because some of their leaders
were included in the Constitutional Review Commission. Indeed, the
President of PUDEMO, Mario Masuku and the then Deputy President of
SFTU, Themba Msibi were invited by the king to be part of the
Commission. But after their organizations, united under Swaziland
Democratic Alliance (SDA), tried to engage the king on certain basic
conditions for their participation they withdrew. The king failed
completely to meet those conditions despite Themba Msibi remaining and
acting as Minister to date. Mario Masuku withdrew and experienced
subsequent frequent arrests. Even three other non-political
associates, academics and professionals, also withdrew in protest at a
process that was undemocratic, besieged by intensified arrests and a
state controlled media and judiciary.


THE SITUATION IN SWAZILAND TODAY AND WHAT SOULD BE DONE


We have always argued that the world has conveniently remained silent
and allowed the ruling royal regime to get away with murder. Even when
intensified brutality against activists has been so naked. As we talk
today, several activists of PUDEMO are appearing at the magistrate
court in Manzini for holding a peaceful rally last year. Several
others remain out on bail for a treason trial that has not being
concluded.

Amnesty International raised, on several occasions, the issue of
extreme police brutality in Swaziland, after several deaths in jail
due to police torture. Examples here include Mathousand Ngubeni who
died in police custody. Amnesty International then sent a fact-finding
mission to Swaziland whose report was terribly damning on Swazi
security forces. Further, after the PUDEMO treason trial the judge
ordered that the allegations of heavy torture be investigated. This
was also adding weight to European Union (EU) concern over increasing
torture of activists. Its commission is now pursuing its work, though
we are unsure of its independence and access to critical state
information.

Therefore, Swaziland has indeed been able to escape the international
human rights and democracy radar for far too long. There is an urgent
need to ensure that it is put back in the international spotlight.
There is no explanation of the world being silent for this long. The
regime has been allowed to enforce a state of emergency for more than
35 years and the world still remains silent. In the context of the
African Union (AU) peer review mechanism and provisions of NEPAD (New
Partnership for African Development), surely, the role of multiparty
democracy or diverse civil society formations has been acknowledged
and clarified to the extent that it has been agreed that political
parties must be part of the broad forces strengthening democracy and
actively participating in the country?s political life.

The most daunting question is why Commonwealth and Britain would apply
double standards when it comes to Swaziland. They have been forthright
in other countries about the need to apply sanctions against stubborn
regimes. Why would the Commonwealth find it fit to support and heap
praises on a constitution that entrenches the power of the ruling
aristocracy and affirms a state of emergency decreed in 1973 by the
late king Sobhuza. What is the role of the British M16 in Swaziland,
particularly as regards stabilizing the current regime and protecting
the interests of the monarchy against allegations that the king has
personal hidden accounts overseas, to a large extent in Great Britain?
Could this be the reason for the confusing role of Commonwealth and
the British government? Including the allegations that they objected
to the application of smart sanctions against the Swaz royal family?
These are questions we should grapple with as we engage in the Swazi
question.

However, even more than that, the issue of unity of the forces of
struggle in Swaziland is very central. We must do everything we can to
raise the issue of Swaziland in all international forums, as well as
assist with all at our disposal to the building of a strong and
sustainable wave towards democracy in the country.

We have a regime that has become a liability to the development of
Africa and a burden to the people of Swaziland.

The poor are on the receiving end of its viciousness, more and more
Swazis are being forced to cross the borders into South Africa in
search for greener pastures. Yet the country is so well endowed with
abundant natural resources that have become a preserve of a tiny
ruling minority. We cannot sit back and fold our arms.

We must call on the government of South Africa, the United Nations,
the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
and the Africa Union (AU) to take decisive action and stop this
tragedy. If we are serious about development, peace and democracy in
Africa this must be done.


- This paper will be presented at a workshop on Zimbabwe and Swaziland
to be held before the March 7, 2008 Campaign for free elections and
democracy in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Swaziland.

__________________________________________


Swaziland Newsletter is published by Africa Contact (Denmark) and
distributed to more than 1200 national and international
organisations, research institutes, universities, trade unions and
labour movements, political parties, church organisations, print and
electronic media, governments, diplomatic missions, members of
parliament, parliamentary committees and private individuals in
Southern Africa, Europe and the United States of America.

Support the democratic movement in Swaziland: MANDELA FUND: BG
Bank,Norre Voldgade 68, 1358 Copenhagen K, Denmark. SWIFT-BIC:
DABADKKK. Registration Number: 0274. Account Number: 3327000. The
MANDELA FUND is a registered national collection in Denmark.





----- Slutning af videresendt besked -----