In defence of King Sobhuza II

AUTHOR George Owen once said; “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” EmaSwati are in danger of destruction as they have allowed a few who, intentionally or due to simple ignorance, try to deny or obliterate the true political history of Eswatini. As the pro-democracy discussions continue, one cannot miss the deliberate historical distortion that seeks to make one of the greatest Pan-Africanists, King Sobhuza II, a villain who took power from the people by force. True history must be told correctly and accurately, not only for the sake of the present generation but also for the future generations.

A villain or Hero

There are two very important yardsticks or principles that we use to accurately judge King Sobhuza II. Firstly, the context of the time or political environment of emaSwati, at the time of independence. Secondly, we must judge him by the results or outcomes of his leadership, in contrast to the rest of Africa, particularly our sister countries during the same period.

The environment of the time has to be understood in its correct context given the political history of emaSwati as a kingdom nation dating back hundreds of years before colonisation; and that is very important; while appreciating that there was a political system already well-established through traditional structures. The traditional governance was well entrenched. Eswatini’s traditional government and traditional institutions were the pillars of the monarchy as are presently administered according to Swazi Law and Custom today. These are still guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.

Sibaya; The people’s Parliament. Every liSwati above the age of 18 is an automatic member of Sibaya, which constitutes the highest policy and advisory council. Meaning resolutions of Sibaya supersede all other bodies. Sibaya functions as the annual general meeting of the nation and everyone is equal and can speak freely as (libandla) of the nation. Imagine that for hundreds of years before colonisation, emaSwati were holding annual general meetings through the people’s Parliament. Elderly men freely scolded the King when he was wrong. All that was required was Sibaya to evolve, modernise into a Sibaya Policy and Elective Conference with proper national representation and held at an international conference centre.

A new political party system with its Westminster Constitution, refused to recognise this structure and thus headed directly into conflict with the traditional system. This meant that King Sobhuza II had to get a mandate from the people using a referendum that was in line with the British political system. According to the Eswatini traditional system, he would have just convened Sibaya, which I suspect he did but recognising that the British would not accept its outcome, opted for the referendum too.

A referendum on repealing the first Constitution was held in on January 19, 1964. It had been called by the King, following what he termed the imposition of a colonial Westminster Constitution by the British in 1963. He opposed it due to what he felt was its non-democratic nature, as it was imposed on the nation as part of the conditions for getting independence.

The 1964 referendum was boycotted by political parties (a trend that continued) and a result of 99 per cent in favour of repealing the Westminster Constitution was ignored by the British colonial authorities. Despite the landslide victory by the King on the repealing of the Constitution, a general election was held later in the year, according to the same Westminster Constitution that was rejected by the people through the referendum. This forced the King to form the Imbokodvo National Movement (INM) in April 1964 to contest the election, with which again he won all seats in Parliament.

The reality of the time was simply that political parties had very little support. King Sobhuza II did not have to force anyone to vote for his party because they were just not convinced about political parties. My father, Dr Sishayi Nxumalo, stood for his political party, The Swaziland Democratic Party, and lost dismally in his own supposed stronghold of Nkambeni. To now distort history and claim that King Sobhuza II had no following but stole votes by force is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Parliament moved the motion to repeal the Constitution, not the King. That reality does not necessarily mean political parties are still unpopular in 2023 but we must again go the democratic route taken by King Sobhuza II and ask the nation before we can draw conclusions.

Political stability

The second yardstick for King Sobhuza II is the kingdom’s political stability. While newly-formed political parties’ members in neighboring countries were killing each other, Eswatini remained peaceful. This is very important for the young emaSwati, who are excited about political parties, to know. Peace and the absence of violence are the direct outcome and actions of the leader; they do not come by accident. To deny King Sobhuza II his rightful honor of having steered the country away from political violence is a gross dereliction of duty in history.

Mozambique, Zimbabwe civil wars

The Mozambique civil war between RENAMO and FRELIMO political parties killed almost one million Mozambicans and left the great nation of Soshangane a laughing stock of the region. Only two years after Zimbabwe’s independence, human rights groups estimated as many as 20 000 people having died in western Zimbabwe, most of them ethnic Ndebele. Many of the victims were executed, often after being forced to dig their own graves. Others were thrown into wells or disused mine shafts. Rape, torture, mass beatings and wholesale destruction of villages were also commonplace, according to ‘Breaking the Silence’, a seminal 1997 report on the episode by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace.

EmaSwati must realise that political parties, without infusing them with elements of our traditional structures, are a recipe for disaster just like in Zimbabwe or Mozambique. Yes Botswana was an exception because they had a one political party system; even to this day. Their opposition is very weak, their king’s party ruled.

The widow of the late Thulani Maseko gave a moving rendition on Facebook, pleading for the democratic forces to stop the bickering, infighting and remain united like the Tinkhundla system. In the words of King Sobhuza II; “We need to take what is good from the white man and leave what is bad.” And we need to develop our own political systems using elements of the western systems but not lose our own.

Comment: septembereswatini@gmail.com