Rights violations abound as Africa’s last absolute monarchy, Eswatini, enforces vicious crackdown
IN DECEMBER 2018, the streets of Eswatini were filled with billboards proclaiming “Fifty years of peace, stability, and progress”.
While the king and a few others were in celebratory mood, a large portion of the population was not. The reality was that 63% of the population lived below the poverty line, 28% were unemployed, while 200 000 people were dependent on global food aid to survive.
The country has banned political parties since 1973 and has been criticised for the unhealthy working conditions of its sugar industry, poverty wages and violent suppression.
Over the years, the polygamous King Mswati III banned divorce and revealing apparel, while increasing the number of traditional rituals, of which the Umhlanga (the Reed Dance) is the most popular. During the ritual, young women perform for the court, some of whom would catch the king’s eye.
It is worth noting that Mswati III owns 60% of the country’s land, in addition to shares in the country’s major luxury hotels, real estate, transport, mining, brewery, sugar and dairy products. He lives in ostentatious luxury with his 15 wives. His personal wealth is estimated at R2.8 billion. This is in stark contrast to the R30 per day that 60% of the population live on daily.
The conflagration in the kingdom follows the death of a 25-year-old law student who was allegedly killed by the police. The unrest increased and eventually resulted in calls for the abolishment of the monarchy and replacing it with a democratic system of government.
It is alleged that 60 people have been killed by memthe bers of Royal Swazi Police Service and the Umbutfo Eswatini Defence Force, while billions of rand in damages have been inflicted during the current vicious crackdown. There are also allegations that journalists and pro-democracy activists are being tortured and abducted in the country.
The wave of repression is not new to Eswatini, as journalists, trade unionists and other activists have been subjected to persistent repression under Mswati III. Under his rule, freedom of speech, assembly and association have been limited, while dissidents have been arrested, tortured and imprisoned.
Through all this, the Southern African Development Community and South Africa have remained silent. The SADC is, unfortunately, unable to intervene, given its own internal challenges – or even unwillingness.
Years ago, the AU’s standby arrangements tasked the SADC with creating a 3 000-strong rapid intervention force. It is safe to say that it did not do so and has been unable to intervene during the numerous previous crises in Eswatini.
Southern Africa has failed to learn an obvious lesson regarding conflict. It is much safer, cheaper and more effective to resolve small conflicts before they gain momentum.
The lower-level protests in Eswatini should have been resolved before they turned into riots, damaging government buildings, shops, banks and vehicles. The damage is estimated at R3 million.
Instead of operating a multiparty system, the country insists on remaining an absolute monarchy.
Pro-democracy activists in the country have vowed to intensify demonstrations until democratic reforms take place and all opposition parties are unbanned.
On a more positive note, South Africa has the ability to assist Eswatini get out of its morass.
It can intervene in the country, given its economic leverage that ranges from business to trade interests. Moreover, the intertwined marital ties between the Zulu and Swazi monarchies could assist with a Track 2 diplomacy to push the feudal kingdom to embrace a constitutional monarchy. Feudal despotism has no place in the 21st century.
For corporates such as MTN, there needs to be an understanding that putting profits above people is a recipe for further political instability, which will ironically undermine profits.
What is desperately needed is a new social contract in the kingdom that brings together the Royal House, the political opposition and civil society, as well as the corporate sector.
South Africa has a vested interest in securing such an outcome, as there is a strong likelihood that refugees will cross the border into South Africa should the conflict dynamics escalate.
This is exactly what happened when Pretoria chose to pursue a policy of “quiet diplomacy”, in effect ignoring the crisis in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, which resulted in millions of its citizens seeking refuge in South Africa.
Given the unfolding humanitarian tragedy, South Africa should partner with UN agencies and the international donor community to first bring about a cessation of hostilities, second, to provide humanitarian assistance, and third, to broker a long-term political solution to break the impasse.
South African civil societies, such as Gift of the Givers, could assist with humanitarian assistance, while South African corporates could examine ways with their Swazi counterparts to kickstart the moribund Swazi economy.