Home | Feature | SAME FAULT LINES AS PREVIOUS ELECTIONS

SAME FAULT LINES AS PREVIOUS ELECTIONS

27/08/2018 09:00:00 By Vusi Sibisi

Font size:

WHILE the Kingdom of Eswatini is signatory to most, if not all, international conventions, there is little evidence on the ground to show any appetite to not only respect but also to domesticate and operationalise these.

This much could be gleaned from reports of international observer missions to successive Eswatini elections staged since the adoption of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land in 2005. As it turns out, none of the findings of these international missions was complimentary, perhaps with the exception of that of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

The Election Experts Mission, from the European Union, wrote this of the 2013 elections: “Freedom of association should be respected as provided in Swaziland’s (since renamed Eswatini) international commitments, by allowing the participation of political parties in the electoral processes as well as the adoption of national legislation for the registration of political parties.” It further added: “The existence and participation in elections of political parties can take place… without affecting the current Tinkhundla, or Monarchial democracy and electoral system.”

The African Union (AU), which is traditionally an old boys club and routinely protects and shelters despotic African leaders, was bold enough to condemn the country for proscribing political parties. Specifically, the AU Election Observer Mission (AUEOM) wrote in its report: “AUEOM recommends that the Kingdom of Swaziland (now read Eswatini) should implement the African Commission’s Resolution on Swaziland of the April 18, 2012 taken in Banjul, The Gambia, calling on the government of the kingdom to respect, protect and fulfill the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly by repealing the relevant laws restricting political party participation in the electoral process.”

As I see it, a resolution on an AU member State signifies gravity of a transgression and is not necessarily a routine action. That same was taken by the African Commission on the kingdom impresses on the severity of the transgression either caused by commission and/or omission. In the instance of the Banjul Resolution, it means the African Commission found that the kingdom was in serious violation apropos human rights of the people and needed to repeal or reform those pieces of legislation that infringed on the people’s human rights and by progression restricted political party participation in elections.

The Commonwealth observer mission was also not impressed, writing: “We considered that, in both 2003 and 2008, Commonwealth Observers had concluded that the entire process could not be deemed credible, due to major democratic deficits. As one of the 32 small States in the Commonwealth, the achievements of Swaziland’s (Eswatini) development objectives were being constrained by a system where, firstly, Parliament did not have power due to prevailing inconsistencies and contradictions … and secondly, political parties were proscribed …”

Of significance is the recognition by the Commonwealth that the obtaining political hegemony was negatively impacting the kingdom’s economic development potential. With heads apparently buried in the sand, those entrusted with the leadership of the kingdom continue to sing praises of the Tinkhundla political system in apparent disregard of the grim realities on the ground.
The fact is the country’s economy is in the doldrums and the worst performing within the SADC region and beyond. But the leadership is blind to this reality ostensibly because it is in the pound seats of and enjoying the trappings of the political economy while the majority of compatriots are wallowing in abject poverty.

But not only is the political hegemony compromising the kingdom’s development imperatives but also carries with it the burden of costly elections, since there are three phases, outside voter registration, of the process that inevitable pose logistical challenges to international observer missions. These are the nominations, primary then secondary elections when under multiparty democracy there is only one phase.

As it were, the country continues to hold elections in complete disdain to the observations and recommendations of international bodies such as the EU, Commonwealth of Nations and AU. The kingdom’s failure to comply with its international obligations as represented by international conventions it has not only signed but proceeded to ratify, speaks to the leadership’s inherent propensity to act extra-Judiciary as manifested by the rule of law crises that has beset the kingdom since when the independence constitution was overthrown by the King’s Proclamation to the Nation of April 12, 1973.

In the circumstances, international observer missions to the elections currently underway, have their jobs cut because they will simply cut and paste because nothing has changed to the obtaining Eswatini polity that warrants either subtractions and/or additions to observations made during the last elections in 2013. Political parties remain illegal and are not allowed to contest elections or even campaign for and on behalf of their members as articulated by last week’s Supreme Court judgment in the matter involving the Swaziland Democratic Party (SWADEPA) and the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC).

SWADEPA, with the backing of both the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC), had challenged the EBC to allow political parties to campaign for and on behalf of their members. The case was initially dismissed by a full bench of the High Court on a technicality, which was subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the same flows observed and recorded in the 2013 elections and before will define the current elections. Incidentally, the international organisations to which the kingdom is affiliated, do not appear to be armed with a mechanism that could force compliance with international norms and conventions to which the kingdom is a signatory.