The Swazi Observer newspaper has misled its
readers by reporting that Swaziland has the same political structure as
England.
The Observer, which is in effect owned by
King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, did this in an
attempt to legitimise the undemocratic system in Swaziland.
Political
parties are not allowed to contest elections and groups that advocate for
democracy in the kingdom are banned under The Suppression of ‘Terrorism
Act.
The Swazi people are only allowed to select 55 of the 65 members of the
House of Assembly, the other 10 are appointed by the King. None of the 30
members of the Swaziland Senate are elected by the people; the King appoints 20
members and the other 10 are appointed by the House of Assembly. Swaziland
is divided into 55 ‘tinkhundla’ or administrative districts. One member of
parliament represents each district.
The Swazi Observer reported on Tuesday (7
February 2017) that Mbonisi Bhembe, the Elections and Boundaries Commission
(EBC) Communications Officer, had told a group of invited guests that Swazi
people living outside the kingdom had failed ‘to explain the tinkhundla system
of governance properly’.
Bhembe
reportedly said, ‘Swaziland is not the only country that is using the
tinkhundla system of governance.’ He went on list a number of countries, he
said, had tinkhundla. He said England had 650 tinkhundla.
‘All this
proves that the system works very well because if it did. not, then all these
countries would have not adopted it,’ the Observer
reported Bhembe saying.
But it is
simply not true. The 650 figure for England stated by Bhembe presumably refers
to the number of parliamentary constituencies in
the United Kingdom, which
is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have nothing
in common with Swaziland’s undemocratic tinkhundla.
Political
parties contest the UK constituencies and the political party that gains most
seats in parliament forms the government with the party leader as prime
minister. In Swaziland, the King choses the prime minister, forms the
government and choses senior civil servants and judges.
This is
not the first time the Observer,
described by the Media Institute of Southern Africa in a report on press
freedom in Swaziland, as a ‘pure propaganda
machine for the royal family’ has misled readers about international support for
its undemocratic tinkhundla political system.
In August 2015, The Observer on Sunday, reported that neighbouring South Africa was considering adopting the kingdom’s political
system. The Observer reported that civil rights groups in South Africa were
advocating for a change in the republic’s electoral system, ‘to incorporate a
constituency-based method’.
The Observer added, ‘This is the same system of government practised in
Swaziland and described in the kingdom’s constitution.’
But it was not true. Nobody
in South Africa was calling for political parties to be banned from contesting
elections.
Unlike in Swaziland, where
people who wish to discuss the kingdom’s electoral system are harassed and arrested, in South Africa political debate is allowed.
See also
ANOTHER FALSE CLAIM OF SUPPORT FOR KING
FALSE CLAIM OF OBAMA SUPPORT FOR KING
No comments:
Post a Comment