Swaziland@Newsletter 70
Published by 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@... All correspondence to
swaziland@...

Free subscription to the newsletter will also give access to a photo
section with thirteen albums: Swaziland. Historical. Occupation,
exploitation and rebellion. Colonial times. Sobhuza. Settlers in the
colony. People of Swaziland. Images of power. Women of the land.
Children. Men of the land. The struggle for democracy. Images of a
democratic movement.
__________________________________________

Dear friends of Swaziland,

The most surprising article in this newsletter is almost certainly the
one from Ghana. An article on the inevitable demise of monarchy and
chieftaincy in the history of all peoples. Its question is: how
prepared is the nation?

When Ghana is mentioned, it can almost always be read as Swaziland,
its own history and its own future.

Other articles in the edition are in some way or another related to
this theme.

Yours sincerely
Patrick Mac Manus
Swaziland@Newsletter
Editor
__________________________________________

1. People?s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) rally brutally
dispersed by royal police in Swaziland. 11 July 2008.

2. Swazi women ?evil? update. Swazi Media Commentary 12 July 2008.

3. Government prohibits march against increased ritual killings. Media
Institute of Southern Africa (MISA). 9 July 2008.

4. How a Swazi king is made. Swazi Media Commentary 10 July 2008.

5. The inevitable demise of monarchy and chieftaincy: How prepared is
the nation? www.ghanaweb.com: 10 July 2008.
_______________________________________


1. Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) rally brutally
dispersed by royal police in Swaziland. Swaziland Solidarity Network:
Press statement, 11 July 2008.

On 5 July 2008, The People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) held
a rally in Manzini, Swaziland, to commemorate the organization's
founding day. The rally was banned and brutally dispersed by the
intolerant king and his oppressive police.

This behaviour once again demonstrates King Mswati III disdain for
democracy and the right of people to peacefully assemble. What kind of
democracy is this? The kind that bans people from assembling, because
we oppose the King? PUDEMO did not mushroom from the ground yesterday,
for us to be treated like "naughty kids". PUDEMO is a liberation
movement committed to a truly free and democratic Swaziland. The King
and his Tinkundla induna's are not committed to democracy and freedom,
but want to maintain his tyranny through undemocratic means. No
democracy can exist without the right of people to organize into
political parties and contest free and fair elections.

Violence is no means to address political problems. However, it must
be mentioned that for the oppressed people any means necessary to
defend themselves is legitimate and we fully endorse it.

To insult freedom and democracy further, Mswati has the arrogance to
try to play referee in the Zimbabwe crisis. While he bans political
parties in Swaziland, bans and intimidates PUDEMO and the democratic
forces, he wants to ensure there is free and fair multi-party
democracy in Zimbabwe - what a hypocrite!

As the Swaziland Solidarity Network, we condemn Mswati's double
standards. We further condemn SADC attempts to use this Swazi tinpot
dictator as a referee in this sensitive crisis that requires credible
people. We call on SADC to fire Mswati as a member of the security
troika, for he does not qualify to police anyone in SADC.

We want to extend our warm wishes to PUDEMO's existence for 25 years,
and wish our comrades, particularly Comrade Mario Masuku victory in
the democratic struggle of Swaziland.

We endorse PUDEMO's call to SADC, African Union, NEPAD and
Commonwealth, to stand by their resolutions to determine whether the
Swaziland elections are democratic before they are determined to be
free and fair. We know it will not be, due to political parties being
banned. We support PUDEMO's boycott of the elections and all efforts
to render it unworkable. The only way forward is a constituent
Assembly that will lead to unbanning of political parties, free and
fair elections and a constitutional monarchy.

Viva PUDEMO Viva!
Long Live the Swazi People's Democratic Struggle!

Swaziland Solidarity Network
For more information contact
Lucky Lukhele SSN SPOKESPERSON
Cell: 072 502 4141
Tell: 011 339 3621
____________________________

2. Swazi women "evil" update. Swazi Media Commentary 12 July 2008.

I wrote earlier this week that the Times of Swaziland had reported on
a group of chiefs who said that the Vote For A Woman campaign ahead of
this year?s Swazi election was "evil".

Yesterday (11 July 2008) the Times went one better and launched a
stinging attack on the chiefs, saying they should be thrown out of
office.

The Times says the chiefs are acting unconstitutionally and speculates
that one reason why the Shiselweni region (where the chiefs come from)
is so lacking in development is because of the backward chiefs.

It also calls for a full probe into the welfare of women in the region.

The attack comes in the regular Friday Just Thinking column. In recent
weeks this column has been unsigned, but it is usually written by the
Times managing editor, Martin Dlamini.

Although the Times does have a website, it does not have an archive so
its reports and other articles only stay online for a day. This Just
Thinking column deserves a longer life than that so I am reproducing
it in full below.


GET RID OF THESE CHIEFS - women good for nothing but cooking and
making babies for them


When the Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA) gets done with
the PM and Cabinet over the planned march against ritual murders, they
need to head down south to shake up our back¬ward chiefs.

Chiefs in the Shiselweni region are apparently against the Vote for
Women campaign. They see evil in the exer¬cise and have branded it
'unSwazi'.

These are authority figures who represent the king in their various
communities. They have the responsibility to carry though
pronouncements from the Ingwenyoma on traditional, cultural as well as
political develop¬ments.

One such development is the call by the king urging the nation to
recognise women as eligible politicians and leaders.

Defy

This call has gone as far as having the constitution give a specific
quota for the number of women required in Parliament (30 percent),
which is in line with international conventions that seek to recognise
women as equal citizens.

Not for our chiefs down south though. They are prepared to defy the
king on this one. Chief Dambuza Lukhele, a former Cabinet minister,
who one would think knows better, has been quoted; "this campaign
seems to make Swazis lose their identity and culture. It has a
foreign evil element which we can't accept."

He was supported by his colleagues. Disgraceful!

What has happened to Chief Dambuza? The last time I checked he was
serving in one of the advisory bodies to Their Majesties. He
therefore is in a better position to appreciate the wishes of the
king to rec¬ognising the significant contribution women can make in
our society. Why would he put his foot down against the king on this
one?

He must have read the constitution and the Bill of Rights which make
women equal citizens of this country. This document was presented to
the people at the cattle byre where all chiefs, including Dambuza,
were present.

Are these chiefs more concerned about losing control of their wives
more than what they could probably do for the region or the country?

To think we still have traditional leaders so divorced from reality is scary.

This warrants a full probe into the welfare of women in the Shiselweni
region where men see evil in a woman in a leadership position. There
must be frightening incidents of marginalisation. It gives a
frightening picture of a region with kitchen wives and baby making
factories and no 'women'.

Violate

Then we wonder why the Shiselweni region is so far behind in
development. It's a shame and unforgivable. These chiefs must be
called to order yesterday and forced to withdraw their statements
which violate the rights of women and deprives them of an opportunity
to be nominated and voted for. Such statements strip the women of
their dignity and worthiness.

The Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) should see to it that
women in the Shiselwni region have a free and fair election exercise
and not just serve as voters otherwise it makes the entire election
exercise under these stone age statements a sham.

To all the women in the region I urge you to vote for women in their
numbers. The men who are supposed to look after your interests have
labelled you useless for development.

We need a new group of chiefs as these have demonstrated they are not
only a threat to development, but to the king.

Pity they are not democratically elected, otherwise the women would be
voting them out of office come election day. God help us.

Link http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/swazi-women-evil-update..html

_______________________

3. Government prohibits march against increased ritual killings. Media
Institute of Southern Africa (MISA). 9 July 2008.

Freedom of expression came under threat when the government
of Swaziland prohibited a protest march organised by civic organisations
who wanted to protest against rising ritual killings in the tiny kingdom.

The government says it fears the march would embarrass both the country
internationally and the king who is currently abroad on a world tour. This
has resulted in a stand-off between the government and the organizers of
the march who have vowed to continue with it despite the government
prohibition.

The march was initially scheduled for 5 July 2008 in Manzini, the country's
second major city. Its organizers have said that despite the government
prohibition they were planning to go ahead with the march on a date yet to
be announced.

Swaziland has seen a rising incidence of ritual murders over the last
couple of months. Media commentators have been quick to link this to the
forthcoming parliamentary elections to be held later in 2008. Some Swazis
still believe in traditional medicine to "strengthen themselves" in order
to gain power. Women and children have been found in the past, during
election time, murdered with their bodies mutilated for reported ritual
purposes or to "strengthen" power-hungry individuals.

More recently, more and more women and children have been reported missing
and some later were found murdered, with body parts missing.

Women's organizations, the church and other civic organizations recently
decided that "enough was enough" and resolved to stage the protest march.
However, the government moved swiftly to ban it, citing that it was trying
to avoid international embarrassment to the country and king.

Swaziland is not a democracy and uses the traditional "tinkhundla" system
of government which encourages individual campaigning for seats in
parliament. This is apparently fuelling the ritual murders as individuals
see an opportunity to gain power through ritual killings.

To protect freedom of expression, which is guaranteed in the Swazi
constitution, MISA-Swaziland has condemned the government ban and has
called for the march to be allowed to take place.

For further information, contact Kaitira Kandjii, Regional Director,
Rashweat Mukundu, Programme Specialist, or Chilombo Katukula, Media
Freedom Monitoring and Research Officer, MISA, Private Bag 13386,
Windhoek, Namibia, tel: +264 61 232 975, fax: +264 61 248 016, e-mail:
director@..., research@..., rashweat@...,
misaalerts@..., Internet: http://www.misa.org
__________________________

4. How a Swazi king is made. Swazi Media Commentary 10 July 2008.

A lot of people in Swaziland believe that God chose King Mswati III to
be king.

And because of this divine intervention, the king has special
abilities and wisdom. For that reason, his word must be obeyed. Those
who speak against the king, speak also against God.

Well that?s the theory. And it is very convenient for those close to
the power of the king to allow this falsehood to gather ground in
Swaziland. After all, some people might want to criticise a king, but
who can dare criticise a God?

Of course King Mswati was not chosen by God. A political group plotting
within the ruling elite of Swaziland chose him.

I was reminded of this by the Nation magazine this month (July 2008),
which for the second issue running has included extensive coverage of
the documentary Without the King. As regular readers to the Nation
(and this blog) know the documentary investigated the differences
between the lavish lifestyles of the Royal Family and those of
ordinary people in Swaziland.

Without the King and the Nation reveal how the present king came to
the throne ? and the manoeuvrings are positively Shakespearian.

Unlike in many societies that still have monarchs, in Swaziland the
eldest son does not simply become king once the reigning monarch dies.
The king is chosen by virtue of the rank and character of his mother
in accordance with Swazi law and custom. But the part of Swazi law
and custom relating to the selection of a successor to a king is
unknown to a majority of ordinary Swazi. It may include the mother to
the heir.

The Nation reports, In the documentary, King Mswati III shed some
light on how he got to know that he would be the next King of Swaziland.

He said then he was about 12 ½ years of age and it was after the
demise of his father, King Sobhuza II when the news were broke to him.

King Mswati III did not say anything about his mother who was then an
ordinary wife to the late king. It was not until the then Supreme
Council (Liqoqo) removed the then Queen Regent for the biological
mother to the then Crown Prince that she was appointed to office.

The act drew reprisals for the Liqoqo members who ousted the then
Queen Regent.

After the king was crowned, the Liqoqo members were charged with high
treason arising from their decision to remove the Queen Regent
Dzeliwe. Some were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment terms as
high as 15 years.

The king subsequently pardoned them.¨

Link http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-swazi-king-is-made.html

_______________________________

5. The inevitable demise of monarchy and chieftaincy: How prepared is
the nation? www.ghanaweb.com: 10 July 2008.

Whenever I think of Chieftaincy in Ghana, my mind conjures up images
of the Shakespeare Macbeth. In the interposed images, I see everything
from equivocation, intimidation, mysterious rituals, witchcraft, and
usurpation of power to the employment of desperate measures (like
murder) as a means of gaining or holding on to traditional power. Just
as the narrative of Macbeth presents readers or audience with a sense
of a ticking time bomb, we Ghanaians, audience of the ongoing real
life drama called Ghanaian Chieftaincy are perceiving similar
sensations on our national stage as stool after stool, skin after
skin, get engulfed in senseless endless squabbles, litigations and I
WILL SHOW YOU WHERE POWER LIES......

Chieftaincy (monarchy), the first form of governance in almost every
nation of the world, has served us well for centuries but at this
point in our national history, it has very little relevance in our
daily lives and absolutely no place in our democracy. We now see and
hear the ticking hands of the CLOCK OF CHANGING TIMES as more and more
Ghanaians call for the abolition of the institution. Time has run out,
chieftaincy is living on borrowed time.

Chieftaincy has survived fifty-one post-independent Ghana years and
this has prompted some folks to chant the resiliency of chieftaincy.
Beloved Ghanaians, make no mistake, the institution is on its way out.
It is not a question of when but how. Worldwide, the pattern is the
same, democracy comes into a country/state and monarchy (chieftaincy)
goes out. In some states, it goes out quietly, in others, it goes out
with a bang. In France, it went out with a revolution.

HOW WILL CHIEFTAINCY LEAVE OUR NATION? Will it go quietly or with fireworks?
The country of Nepal has recently voted to abolish monarchy (their
version of chieftaincy). CAN WE GHANAIANS TAKE A CUE?

Unlike any other nation in the world, the Ghana bottom heavy institution
of village chief, sub-village chiefs and sub-sub village chiefs is
numerically too large and organizationally too ingrained in the fabric
of our society to be abolished with one mighty stroke of the pen.
However, we cannot keep pretending and allow this cankerworm of
chieftaincy to gnaw right through the fabric of our democracy. We
cannot as a nation practice separation of powers (executive -
president, legislative - parliament, judiciary - courts) at the top of
government only to concentrate all three powers in the hands of some
village chief at the grassroots level.

Although all chiefs have concentrated power, some paramount chiefs
with such power also control very large areas - case in point the
Ashanti region. Before proceeding the reader must understand that this
is an academic exercise to advance an argument. Ashanti region is not
singled out for ethnocentric reasons. It simply provides the best
example. The territorial sphere of influence of the Ashanti regional
minister is almost the same size as that of Asantehene - the king. It
is actually smaller if towns outside the region that swear the oath of
allegiance to Asantehene is added to the mix. While the minister can
only enforce laws passed by the parliament and interpreted by the
courts, Otumfuo (the king) makes his own laws, enforces them and can
prosecute or punish any subject who disobeys laws from his Manyhia
palace / court.

Some modern attitudes question the royal power to effectively punish
recalcitrant subjects. While this is true to some extent, nothing has
taken that power away from him. The anti-chieftaincy camp looks at
situations like this and calls for action but every call for the
abolition of the institution results in a more entrenched
pro-chieftaincy support.

Can we as a nation afford to sit idle as tension between the two sides
builds to a crescendo? Are we oblivious to the insults that follow
every Ghanaweb article on the issue? Can we openly discuss this issue
on the streets of any Ghanaian village, town or city without resulting
to fists, cutlasses, machetes, spears, bows and arrows or shot guns?

This article is intended as the first of a series that seek to prepare
the nation for the ultimate demise of the institution. Although my
viewpoint is anti-chieftaincy, I am very, very aware of the historical
importance of the institution and respectfully ask the government to
build a Museum of Culture to protect this wonderful relic after its
demise. In these series, I will answer questions related to the
history of the institution, its cultural, social, religious, and
political
roles in Ghana as well as the rest of the world. My analysis will
include popular assumptions and theoretical arguments that advocate,
that can modernize and keep the institution intact with all its
paraphernalia.

WILL THE DEMISE OF CHIEFTAINCY IN GHANA SIGNIFY THE END OF GHANAIAN
CULTURE?

No - Culture is defined by Merriam-Webster Online as the
customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial,
religious, or social group; also: the characteristic features of
everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life. Culture therefore
is not a single aspect of our life but the sum of all the individual
little things we do everyday. It is the summary of how we as a people
cope with our environment. It is not static but dynamic; evolving all
the time as we drop certain practices and adapt new ones to suit our
changing circumstances.

Modern Ghana origin is traced to the 12th century with the movements
of the Gonja, the Guam and the establishment of the Bono kingdom.
Along the way, we have made some remarkable cultural changes although
the lack of written records makes it impossible to chronicle them all.
Since the breadth of culture is so wide, I will concentrate on
something distinguishably Ghanaian - our clothing and textile industry
and use it as a metaphor to advance this argument. Less than a hundred
years ago, some of our indigenous people made cloth from tree barks.
We have given up that practice and have replaced the Tree Bark cloth
with KENTE, ADINKRA, BUBU, SMOCK, KABA etc.

ARE ADVOCATES FOR CHANGE CULTURAL SELLOUTS? WHO EMBRACE EUROPEAN
CULTURE TO THE DETRIMENT OF OUR RICH HERITAGE?

No - We Ghanaians take special pride in our traditional wear. We wear
our eight, ten or twelve yard cloth under one armpit and over the
opposite shoulder with or without a Tee Shirt as dictated by the
tradition of our particular locality proudly. We know we have a chip
on our shoulder when we don our Smock, Bubu, Tie and Dye, Adinkra
cloth, or clown it all with our vividly coloured Kente. Our women are
just perfect in Kaba and so some of us get carried away; point
accusatory fingers at our country folks in shirts or a pair of
trousers and shout: followers of the white man!

We forget that our cloths are either adaptations from or are made in
the white mans world. The Calico cloth, we use in our Tie and Dye as
well as in our Adinkra prints, is also a product of that civilization.
The coloured threads for our Kaba and Kente, the needles and
crotchets, the sewing machine and the loom we weave on are also
products of the industrial revolution that occurred years ago in the
world some of us love to hate. Indeed, we have successfully adapted or
have seamlessly imported the very fabric of our Ghanaian identity.

IS CHIEFTAINCY UNIQUELY GHANAIAN? DOES IT EMBODY THE GHANAIAN OR
AFRICAN CULTURE AS SOME CLAIM?

No - The institution predates modern Ghana or ancient Ghana for that
matter. It is found in ancient civilizations on all the continents
except unpopulated Antarctica - from the southern tip of the Americas
to Siberia in North Eastern Europe. Zulu land, Ethiopia, Egypt,
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Italy, Britain other countries of
feudal Europe, India, China, Japan, native American tribes all had
kings, queens, chiefs long before our nation was founded. We might
have adapted chieftaincy from some earlier civilization. Some argue
that our forebears stumbled onto chieftaincy without outside
influence. After all historical records show monarchy in Egypt
(Africa), Mesopotamia (Middle East), Peru (South America) and China
(Asia) around the same time period. They say no group invented the
institution. Fair argument, but the presence of the institution on
other continents also negates claims that it is exclusively Ghanaian
or the embodiment of African culture. It shows that we Ghanaians are
late adapters of a system of government or social organizational
structure that was tried by others before us.


IF WE ARE LATE ADAPTERS THEN WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE WHO PRACTICED
CHIEFTAINCY / MONARCHY BEFORE US?

About ninety-five percent of the world?s population had monarchs
/chiefs at some point of their history then moved on to other forms of
governance.

Currently Britain, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Brunei,
Bahrain, Thailand, Japan, Swaziland and Native American Reservations
in the USA (to name a few) still maintain some form of chieftain or
monarch. Monarchs of the world are usually grouped into two broad
categories depending on type of power they wield - ceremonial or
absolute. Future articles of the series will expand further on
absolute and ceremonial monarchs. Ceremonial monarchs only represent
their country at functions that require no executive decisions.
Absolute monarchs have executive, legislative and judicial powers.
They also control the pulse or revenue of the country. Almost all
ceremonial monarchs began as absolute monarchs with executive power.
At some point in their history, ordinary people of the realm stood up,
demanded and got change.

DO CHIEFS IN GHANA HAVE CEREMONIAL OR ABSOLUTE POWER?

The Ghanaian story is an enigma. Historically, chiefs in Ghana have
had absolute power in the areas of their influence. They make the laws
for the people - legislative power; they interpret the laws - judicial
power and they enforce the law - executive power. Although the various
constitutions of Ghana have ascribed each of these powers to a
separate branch of government on the national level, none has
specifically striped chiefs of any of these powers.

Usually when a country becomes a republic, it does away with monarchy
and all its entrapments. Ghana became a republic in 1960, got rid of
the queen who lived miles and miles across the ocean but did nothing
about local chiefs whose activities permeates our daily lives. Future
articles of this series will explore this enigma; the various post
independence constitutions and the pandering of our politicians on the
issue. The viability of ceremonial chieftaincy in Ghana will also be
tackled.

SHOULD GHANAIANS DITCH THE TRADITIONS OF OUR FATHERS FOR WESTERN WAYS OF LIFE?

No, not summarily but we should not accept everything old as gospel
either. The realities of Ghana today are far different from the
Ghana of our forebears. We should go through our traditional ways with
a sieve, preserve what is worth preserving in our daily lives and
consign others to museums or history books. As we go along, we should
remember what Marcus Garvey said: people without a history are like a
tree without roots. Chieftaincy is our history, not our future and we
should make provision to preserve it as such.

We should remember that westerners did not arrive at democracy by
chance. They went through periods of tribulation, wars and strive just
as we did. They had chiefs /kings and queens just like we do. Who
knows what we would have come up with if we have been left alone to
develop at our own pace without the interference of the white man?

History tells us that for centuries the Greek City States practiced
some rudimentary democracy while the rest of Europe languished in
serfdom. It took years of efforts by English and French philosophical
writers as well as American pragmatists to put democracy on the map.

IS CHIEFTAINCY SET IN OUR TRADITIONS?

Yes, it is. However, we can practice most of our good traditions
without chiefs. For example, we can always pour libations in our
homes, at our meetings or functions. And we don not need a chief to
preserve our forest. We will still have our family heads, extended
family elders and community leaders. That is stratified family system
and not chieftaincy. A chief is dependant on that structure and not
vice versa.

WHAT DO WE DRAW FROM THIS ARTICLE?

This article has shown that we are at the twilight of the chieftaincy
system.

The institution is part of our culture and not our culture.
The word culture simply means our way of life. Over the years, our
way of life has been changing with our natural and human environment.
We have adjusted to earlier changes and will adjust very well to
having no chiefs.

While the death of the chieftaincy is not yet upon us, it is
imperative that we make provisions for its inevitable demise and be
prepared to:

MARCH ON INTO FULL DEMOCRACY FOR ALL AND STOP THIS PARTIAL DEMOCRACY
FOR THE EDUCATED, VERY RICH OR POLITICALLY CONNECTED FEW.

_____________________________________

Swaziland@Newsletter is published by Africa Contact (Denmark) and
distributed to more than 1600 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: Den Danske
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.