Swazi Media Commentary: Occasional Paper No.

Media Coverage of the Swaziland Election 2013

By Richard Rooney

Media Coverage of the Swaziland Election 2013

By Richard Rooney

Introduction This paper reviews the media coverage of the Swaziland national election that finished its final stage on 20 September 2013. It looks at coverage within Swaziland, most notably in the only two newspaper groups in the kingdom, and at international media. It notes that generally newspapers in Swaziland ignored the real issue, that of the non-democratic nature of the election, and concentrated instead on trying to justify the governance system to their readers. International media, however, took the opposite stance and highlighted the political role that King Mswati III plays as sub-Saharan Africas last remaining absolute monarch; the banning of political parties and the powerlessness of the parliament that is eventually elected. The paper also briefly introduces some of the Swazi social media sites that offered an alternative view on the elections to the mainstream media. The election had four phases. In running order they were: (i) the registration of voters; (ii) the nomination of candidates; (iii) the primary election to select one candidate from each chiefdom to take part in; (iv) the secondary election at which the member of the House of Assembly is elected. Key dates were: voter registration 13 May to 30 June; nominations 3 to 4 August; primary election: 24 August; campaigning: 25 August to 19 September; secondary election 20 September.

Political background King Mswati III rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch. Parliament consists of the House of Assembly and the Senate. The House of Assembly has 65 members: 55 are directly elected by the people, the other ten are chosen by the king. None of the 30 members of the Senate are directly elected. The king appoints 20 senators and the other 10 are chosen by members of the House of Assembly. Under the Swaziland Constitution political parties are banned from taking part in the election. Under the tinkhundla system of governance (renamed in 2013 by King Mswati as a monarchical democracy) candidates stand as individuals and if elected are expected to represent the interests of their constituents, rather than engage in matters of national interest. (Chatham House, 2013; Freedom House, 2013).

King Mswati appoints the Prime Minister. Under the constitution the PM should be a member of the Senate, but in practice the king appoints whosoever he wants to the office and then gives him a seat in the Senate. The king also directly appoints all other senior government ministers. Although technically political parties are able to operate in Swaziland, there is no process in place for them to be registered. Many organisations, including some political parties such as the Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), the best known of the opposition groups in Swaziland, are banned as terrorist groups under the Suppression of Terrorism Act 2008. Under the Swaziland Constitution, candidates in the primary elections are not allowed to campaign for votes, so this only happens between the announcement of the primary election results and the secondary election. (Swazi Media Commentary, 13 August 2013).

Media landscape Swaziland has a relatively small media market to serve its 1.3 million population. Most of the broadcast media are government controlled. Swazi TV and the radio stations under the umbrella of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) are in effect departments of the Swazi civil service. All news broadcast on these channels is under the control of the government. There is one independent television channel, Channel Swazi, and although it is independent of the state, its journalistic policy is to support the king. There are two newspaper groups in Swaziland: the Observer Group, owned by the conglomerate Tibiyo Taka Ngwane that runs businesses and investments on behalf of the king. The groups newspapers, the daily Swazi Observer and the Weekend Observer are viewed as state-controlled newspapers. (MISA, 2011). The media freedom advocacy group, the Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland chapter, in its 2012 review of media freedom in the kingdom described the Swazi Observer as a pure propaganda machine for the royal family. (MISA, 2013). The other newspaper group is the Times of Swaziland which is owned by the Loffler family based in Namibia. It publishes the daily Times of Swaziland, the Swazi News (published Saturday) and the Times of Swaziland Sunday. These newspapers are the only major news sources in the kingdom free of government control. While independent of government the Times newspapers nonetheless exercises strict self-censorship, especially when reporting the activities of the king. On numerous occasions Times of Swaziland Newspapers has misrepresented international reports on the political situation in the kingdom in order to protect the name of King Mswati. (See for example, Swazi Media Commentary, 11 March 2013). One independent monthly pro-democracy comment magazine, the Nation Magazine, manages to continue publishing despite government opposition and a small circulation. Its editor and publisher are presently appealing a High Court conviction for scandalising the 2

court after two articles criticising the judiciary were published in 2009 and 2010. The magazine could be forced for financial reasons to close should the appeal fail. (Swazi Media Commentary, May 2013). Although the constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, the king may waive these rights at his discretion, and the government often restricts these rights. The prime minister and other officials constantly warn journalists that publishing material regarding political issues or criticising the royal family could be construed as acts of sedition of treason.

Swaziland media coverage of the election In a democracy, although this is an imperfect model, it is generally recognised that at election time the news media play an important role in informing the public about the intended policies of the political parties. They offer space for the policies to be discussed and thereby allow the electorate to make rational decisions on who to vote for. A range of pseudo -events are organised by the media and / or the political parties to facilitate this. Typically, political parties hold media conferences to announce and discuss major policies they would pursue if elected. A number of other events, including rallies, speeches, visits to shopping malls, workplaces and ad hoc photo opportunities take place. Newspapers and broadcasting organisation interrogate political party leaders and in some countries debates among party leaders are broadcast. These activities are typical in democracies at election time. But, Swaziland is not a democracy and none of the above applies to the kingdom. Very little of what would be recognised in a democracy as election campaigning takes place in Swaziland. Political parties are banned and candidates are expected, if elected, to represent only the interest of their local constituents. The consequence of this is that there is no debate about which social, political or economic policies a new government should pursue. The people in Swaziland are not appointing a government: that is the prerogative of King Mswati. Generally, political discussion in Swaziland is severely restricted and in the months running up to the election police and state security forces broke up a number of meetings designed to discuss the lack of democracy in the kingdom and to garner support for a boycott of the election. (Swazi Media Commentary, 21 August 2013). Consequently, the media in Swaziland only reported the process of the election. In the 2013 election, typically, this meant they covered the registration of voters, the nomination process, and the numbers of people turning out at the primary and secondary elections. Campaigning by candidates is outlawed until the results of the primary elections are announced. Although there was evidence that this law was not consistently enforced it meant that election campaigning proper only too k place between 24 August and 19 September 2013. 3

Broadcast media severely restricted coverage of the election and a directive from SBIS restricted access to the airwaves by candidates who had to be approved by the EBC before they were allowed on air. (Swazi Observer, 16 September 2013). Casual broadcasting audiences might be forgiven for not knowing an election was taking place. The two newspaper groups gave extensive coverage to the election in terms of space, but it was limited in scope. By far the most important aspect of the election for the newspapers was to demonstrate to readers the elections legitimacy. After previous elections, official election observers reported on deficiencies in the Swazi political system. Prominent on the list of concerns were the banning of political parties, the lack of power the parliament has and the autocracy of the Swazi monarchy. (Swazi Media Commentary, 29 May 2013). These democratic deficiencies are constantly mentioned by prodemocracy advocates as evidence of the need to change. The Swazi Government responds to such criticism by saying that the Swazi people love their king and support the present political system, which its supporters like to label, a unique democracy. However, no independent research has eve r been taken to ascertain the true feelings of the population in these matters and the states suppression of political discussion in the kingdom means we cannot know. The newspaper and broadcasting houses in Swaziland support the status-quo and it was an imperative for them to continually show support for the political system of tinkhundla / monarchical democracy. There was no subtlety in this. To the newspapers it was the duty of the people to support the election process because it was the kings will. On the eve of the secondary election, an editorial in the kings own newspaper, the Swazi Observer put it this way: It is the measure of the faith of the Swazi people on their system, and on their right to choose their candidate and usher them straight to parliament. This remains the eighth wonder of the world! . As His Majesty has said countless times, we need to vote for the right people tomorrow. The right people, he has advised, are the selfless individuals who can transform the fortunes of this country by bringing change. (Swazi Observer, 19 September, 2013). Earlier in the election process, the Times of Swaziland reported Chief Maloyi of Ensingweni, who told his subjects it was compulsory for them to vote in the elections. He said participating in the upcoming national elections was compulsory for them because it was the Kings order that the country should go to elections this year. He said he had heard that some people thought that registering and participating in the elections was by choice.

I have been told that some of you thought that participating in the upcoming national elections is for those who like it. That is not true; it is for every Swazi citizen. The only people who have a choice of participating are foreigners, not you, he said. (Times of Swaziland, 13 June 2013). Newspapers confused readers about the nature of the elections: constantly claiming that they were to elect a government, when they were not. The media extolled the virtue of tinkhundla / monarchical democracy, emphasising that this unique democracy placed the individual non-aligned candidate at the centre of the political process, but at the same time asserted that in some never-defined way that these individuals would also work collectively once elected to parliament and form a government. In fact, King Mswati appoints government ministers and he is not obliged to choose from among the elected members of parliament when doing so. (See for example: Times of Swaziland, 27 August 2013; Weekend Observer, 14 September, 2013). The media did at times criticise the efficiency of the election process. Mostly, this was the shortcomings of the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) which ran the election. The criticisms were always framed in terms of the EBC commissioners letting down the king by their inefficiencies. No mention was made of the fact that the king appointed the EBC and one his half-brothers chairs the commission, even though, in terms of the requirements of the Swaziland Constitution, he does not have the credentials to do so. (See for example: Swazi News, 14 September 2013; Times of Swaziland, 4 September 2013; Swazi Observer, 26 August 2013; Times Sunday, 1 September 2013; Weekend Observer, 1 June 2013). But, by the day of the secondary election both newspaper groups uncritically reported the EBCs assertion that all would be well on the day of the secondary elections. (See for example: Swazi Observer, 19 September 2013). Newspaper coverage of the campaign itself was sparse. Almost certainly a lack of resources prevented journalists from travelling to all 55 constituencies across the kingdom. However, in the coverage they did, they showed bias towards favoured candidates. This meant that they would extol virtues of their favourites, but make no mention of the other candidates standing against them. A typical case was Lutfo Dlamini, the outgoing Minister of Labour and Social Security who had also held other posts in government, and is known to be a close personal friend of the Queen Mother Ntombi. He received fawning coverage in the newspapers and many constituents were quoted in his support. (See for example: Swazi Observer, 26 August 2013; Times of Swaziland, 27 August 2013). However, in Swaziland, the support of the newspapers is not enough: Dlamini lost at the secondary election. (Times Sunday, 22 September 2013; Times of Swaziland, 25 September 2013). Observers, even from within the local media industry, have for many years reported that journalists in Swaziland have low capacity and this was notable during the election coverage. 5

(Swazi Media Commentary, 23 August 2007). Even outside of the election period, media in Swaziland are partisan, inaccurate and generally unprofessional and they are turning into an irrelevant vehicle in public discourse. Journalists lack credibility. Content in the Swazi newspaper is compromised by a lack of professionalism in writing and editing. Interesting news stories are watered down by the incomprehensible way they are written, leaving the reader confused and bewildered. (Global Media Journal, 2007). Comment articles expose readers to un-researched opinion pieces that have compromised journalistic standards and some journalists willingly work as propagandists, especially at the SBIS radio. (Swazi Media Commentary, January 2013). All the above was in evidence in the election coverage. Journalists sensationalised news and often reported as facts, pure conjecture. The day after the election, the Weekend Observer, for example, reported, about 400,000 voters braved the scorching sun and went straight to the voting centres to cast their ballots as early as possible. (Weekend Observer, 20 September 2013). This was clearly untrue: the total number of people registered to vote in Swaziland at the election was 411,084. If 400,000 had voted, the turnout would have been about 97 percent, an extraordinary figure for an election and even more so when it is known that at the last election in 2008, the turnout was only 54 percent. In fact, the real story about the election turnout is that the EBC has not released the figure and the Swazi people have not been told how many people voted at the election. The newspapers made the same mistake after the primary election, reporting it as a success, with overwhelming turnouts. (Swazi Observer, 26 August 2013; Times of Swaziland, 29 August 2013). But, no complete statistics for voter turnout at the primaries was available to the media when these stories were written (and are still not publicly available), so the reporting was probably based on a mixture of speculation and wishful-thinking. After the secondary election, newspapers were unanimous that the people had voted for change. This was based on information that six of eight government min isters standing in the election were defeated and of the 55 members of the House standing for re-election, 43 lost. Newspapers reported the election result as if it were a vote of no-confidence against the outgoing government. (Swazi Observer, 23 September 2013; Times of Swaziland, 23 September 2013). But, they provided no evidence for this. The media in Swaziland want it both ways. On the one hand they say that under Swazilands tinkhundla / monarchical democracy system of government the people elect MPs as individuals who support their constituencies and on the other they say the people have elected a group of MPs who they believe collectively will bring them change. In fact, we cannot know what the people want, because there is nowhere in Swaziland for them to freely debate the strengths and weaknesses of the present system of governance and 6

discuss possible alternatives. Certainly, the media do not provide that space. (Swazi Media Commentary, 24 September 2013). No media outlet in the kingdom has suggested that if people have voted for change it might be a change in the political system and a move to democracy that they seek.

Social media The 2013 election was the first election in which social media was used extensively to share information and comment. To counter the restriction imposed on information in Swaziland, a number of social media sites have emerged in recent years. In many cases the sites describe themselves in some way as disseminating information and / or commentary that advocates for change in Swaziland. Among the organisations with a Facebook and / or Twitter presence are the Swaziland Solidarity Network, Swaziland United Democratic Front, Swaziland Diaspora Platform, Swaziland Communist Part y and the Peoples United Democratic Party. In addition, Swazi Media Commentary is a blogsite, independent of any political faction, which carries information and comment in support of human rights in Swaziland. Its posts are also carried by the news aggregator, AllAfrica dot com. None of the sites are run-full time in opposition to the mainstream media in Swaziland. All of them appear to have relatively small, but seemingly highly committed, participants as originators and / or readers. During the election period, in contrast to the mainstream media, the social network sites carried material in opposition to the political status quo, critiquing the present tinkhundla / monarchical democracy system and advocating for democracy. Social media popularised the term selections as an alternative to elections to describe the political process taking place. Some, but not all, social media sites also advocated for a boycott of the election because political parties were banned from taking part, the parliament that was selected had no power and King Mswati ruled as sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch. Social media probably had limited influence within Swaziland. The number of people using the Internet in Swaziland is growing but totals are low at around 7 percent of the population. This is partly because the cost of telecommunications in the kingdom is too expensive for most Swazis to afford and that many Swazi people do not have digital media literacy skills. In May 2012 there were estimated to be 63,760 Facebook users in Swaziland, but this number is increasing: the number of Facebook users grew by 16,080 in the previous six months. (Ecquid Novi, 2013). It is impossible to measure the impact these sites had on the political process, but there is at least prime facie evidence to suggest they had some influence on international perceptions of 7

the election. Major figures in the opposition movement were used by international media organisations as witnesses and commentators to election events in Swaziland.

International media The International media were not very interested in the voting in Swaziland until the eve of the secondary election. This was not surprising as little about the kingdom gets reported at other times. Swaziland has no mineral wealth to speak of and is not strategically placed and is therefore of no interest to developed countries. This does sometimes change when something the media considers exotic happens in Swaziland. By a coincidence one such thing happened in the run up to the election when it was announced that the 45-year-old King Mswati would take an 18-year-old beauty pageant contestant as his next bride. International media could not agree whether this was to be the kings 14th or 15th wife. This is excusable since in Swaziland the number of wives the king has is considered a state secret and something the Swazi people are not allowed to know. In Swaziland it is considered un-Swazi to openly discuss the kings polygamy. More media outlets across the world covered news of the kings bride than covered the election. The election was of little interest also, because, unlike in democracies, no power could change hands as a result of the voting. Political parties are banned from taking part and no government is being elected. Even if all 55 of the sitting members of parliament were replaced, power would still rest with the king. However, major international and regional media organisations, including the BBC, Aljazeera, Associated Press, AFP, and the Independent group in South Africa did publish at least one story each as a preview to the election. Unlike the media in Swaziland they highlighted the opposition view that the election was a fraud, that no government was to be elected and that power would stay with the king. Echoing social media sites, some international media described the process as selections, rather than elections. The AFP news agency said the election was, dismissed by critics as a rubber s tamp for King Mswati III's absolute rule. It quoted a recently-released report from Freedom House, a human rights group, saying, Although the Swazi government boasts trappings of a modern state. The monarch, King Mswati III, chooses and controls all significant office bearers. These must obey his commands at all times. (AFP, 20 September 2013). Aljazeera TV reported, Mswati holds ultimate sway over the government: he can veto new laws, dissolve parliament and may not be sued or charged. (Aljazeera, 20 September 2013). The Associated Press (AP) news agency quoted the Southern African Peoples Solidarity Network, a civil society group, which described the polls as a ploy to delay genuine 8

democracy. There is no political change we can expect as a result of these elections, Dr Collins Magalasi, general secretary of the network, told AP. The traditional system in place supports the king. (AP, 20 September 2013). Closer to home, the media in South Africa, Swazilands closest neighbour and political and economic ally, also highlighted the non-democratic nature of the election. Business Day reported, While the Swazi system of Tinkhundla allows for political parties, candidates for parliament are allowed to stand for election only in an individual capacity and are banned from campaigning. Rising pro-democracy voices are being heard on the sideline but that is where they will remain for now, as the nonparty elections will not change King Mswatis position as ruler. (Business Day, 20 September 2013). The Independent group of newspapers in South Africa reported, Africas only unelected national leader, King Mswati III, will remain firmly in charge whatever the outcome of Fridays parliamentary elections.(Independent online, 20 September 2013). The Mail and Guardian, Johannesburg, reported, Regardless of who gets into Parliament, King Mswati III who inherited the throne from his father, King Sobhuza II, in 1986 holds all the power.(Mail and Guardian, 20 September 2013).

27 September 2013

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Richard Rooney was associate professor at the University of Swaziland 2005 2008, where he was also the founding head of the Journalism and Mass Communication Department. He has taught in universities in Africa, Europe and the Pacific. His academic research which specialises in media and their relationships to democracy, governance and human rights has appeared in books and journals across the world. His writing regularly appears in newspapers, magazines and on websites. He was a full-time journalist in his native United Kingdom for 10 years, before becoming an academic. He has published the blog Swazi Media Commentary since 2007 and also has other social media sites that concentrate on human rights issues in Swaziland. He holds a Ph.D in Communication from the University of Westminster, London, UK. He presently teaches at the University of Botswana, Gaborone.

10

Publications from Swazi Media Commentary available online free-of-charge

BOOKS

2013. The beginning of the End? 2012, a year in the struggle for democracy in Swaziland This compilation of newsletters from Africa Contact in collaboration with Swazi Media Commentary contains an assortment of news, analysis and comment covering the campaign for freedom in Swaziland throughout 2012. These include the Global Action for Democracy held in September; campaigns for democracy spearheaded by trade unions and students and the continuing struggle for rights for women, children, gays and minority groups.

2012. The End of the Beginning? 2011, a year in the struggle for freedom in Swaziland This book looks at activities in the freedom movement in 2011. It starts with a section on the unsuccessful April 12 Uprising followed by separate chapters looking at events in each month of 2011, including the Global Week of Action held in September. They also highlight the numerous violations of rights suffered by the poor, by children, by women and by sexual minorities, among others, in the kingdom.

2011. Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland. This volume of pages from Swazi Media Commentary focuses on media freedom and censorship. It starts with some overview articles that set out the general terrain, moving on to look at repressive media laws. Other sections of this book relate the daily threats journalists in Swaziland face when they want to report, but are not allowed to.

11

OCCASIONAL PAPERS SERIES

No. 1. 2013. Cynicism Eats Away at Swaziland Journalism: The state of Swazi journalism, 2013 One thing that shines out about journalists and their editors in Swaziland is the deeply cynical way they operate. Swazi journalists claim to be upholders of fine ethical traditions of honesty and inquiry, but instead they are often publishing lies or play ing with readers emotions to boost company profits. This article explores the state of newspaper journalism in Swaziland, a small kingdom in Africa, ruled over by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africas last absolute monarch. Editors are deliberately misleading their readers by publishing material that is intended to provoke controversy and reaction, even though they know it also contains lies. This is done in order to boost profits for owners.

No. 2. 2013. Swaziland Broadcasting Not For The People A review of broadcasting in Swaziland that demonstrates through research that radio in the kingdom only serves the interests of King Mswati III and his intimate supporters. All other voices are excluded from the airwaves. The paper contrasts a public broadcasting service with public service broadcasting and demonstrates that changes in the kingdoms broadcasting cannot be made until it becomes a democratic state. No. 3. 2013. Swaziland Media Need Code of Conduct for Covering Elections A review of how media have covered past elections in Swaziland highlighting a number of areas for improvement. The paper includes a suggested code of ethical conduct that Swazi journalists can adopt in order to improve performance.

No.4. 2013. Swaziland Press Freedom: The case of Bekhi Makhubu and the Nation magazine In April 2013 Bheki Makhubu the editor of the Nation magazine and its publishers, Swaziland Independent Publishers were convicted of scandalising the court after two articles criticising the judiciary were published in 2009 and 2010. The purpose of this paper is to bring together details of the story so far (May 2013). It is an attempt to bring under one cover all the available information on the case in order to assist those people in the future who might need a quick primer. 12

SWAZILAND: STRIVING FOR FREEDOM

A monthly digest of blogposts from the Swazi Media Commentary website

Volume 1, Jan 2013, is available free of charge here. Volume 2, Feb 2013, is available free of charge here. Volume 3, March 2013, is available free of charge here. Volume 4, April 2013, is available free of charge here. Volume 5, May 2013, is available free of charge here. Volume 6, June 2013, is available free of charge here. Volume 7, July 2013, is available free of charge here. Volume 8, August 2013, is available free of charge here.

13

Other publications from Richard Rooney The following publications about media in Swaziland are available free -of-charge online. 2012. The end of the beginning? 2011, a year in the struggle for freedom in Swaziland. 2011. Voices Unheard: Media Freedom and Censorship in Swaziland. 2008. The New Swaziland Constitution and its Impact on Media Freedom, Global Media Journal, Africa Edition, Vol. 2. (Stellenbosch University, South Africa). 2008. Swazi Newspapers and the Muslim Threat. Lwati: A Journal of Contemporary Research, Vol. 5. 2008. The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms in Swaziland, report prepared for Media Institute of Southern Africa. 2007. Suffer The Children Reporting of Minors by the Swazi Press. Lwati: A Journal of Contemporary Research (Swaziland), Vol. 4. 2007. The Swazi Press and its Contribution to Good Governance, Global Media Journal African Edition, Vol. 1. (Stellenbosch University, South Africa).

14

Swazi Media Commentary

Containing information and commentary about human rights in Swaziland Click Here

15