UNIVERSITY OF ESWATINI

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Course Code: POL 202
Lecturer: Mr Hlophe
Title of Task: Test 2
Student name: Themba Mdlalose
Student ID: 202004260
Course and Year of study: Politics and Administration in Swaziland
Year 2

Date: 01 November 2021

Question 2
Independence negotiations leading to the Kingdom’s Westminster constitution in 1968 were
fraught with many challenge. Discuss (50)

Following 66 years of colonial rule, Swaziland became independent in September 1968.

Leading up to independence, the British administration introduced a Westminster style
constitution providing for multiple political parties, a parliament modelled on the European
prototype and a civilian executive to be formed by the majority party. This was marked by
the initiation of the Masundvwini meetings of 1959 leading towards the conferences and
constitutional talks of the early 1960s which eventually gave birth to the Westminster
constitution and its adaptation and implementation in 1968. This paper analyses how this
period was marked by distress and challenges as the agents that were involved in the
construction of the constitution had to a certain extent dissimilar interest.

After the loss of their sovereignty, the Swazis mounted resistance to colonial rule under the
leadership of King Sobhuza II together with the Swazi National Council. The agitation
against foreign rule was pushed using delegations, petitions, litigations and even talks. The
advent of WWII and inception of the United Nations organization changed our international
political scene, as well as, the conduct of modern diplomacy. In this respect, principles of
self-determination, democracy, human rights and the struggle for national sovereignty;
assumed the uttermost agenda in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Thus, the
rise of popular nationalist movements the world over including Swaziland.

In 1959 Ingwenyama Sobhuza II wrote a memorandum to the British administration

pertaining the future Swaziland. The European Advisory Council also presented its
memorandum to the British Resident Commissioner in Swaziland; “Multiracial Legislative
Council” proposal. However, Sobhuza II initiated constitutional talks – the Masundvwini
meeting of 23/04 1960 and 25/07/1960. To that end, the British administration established the
constitutional committee towards preparations for independence. Thus, on 30/07/1960, the
Swaziland Progressive Party was formed by Dr JJ Nquku and the Ngwane National
Liberators Congress by Dr Sishayi Nxumalo; hence the first political party in Swaziland and
its advocacy for majority rule. Short political events in Swaziland saw the advent of more
political parties. Equally, they differed on their political ideologies towards national
independence. In 1961, the British administration seconded a constitutional adviser to
Swaziland; hence, its 1962 constitution proposal for the country. It thus, became the historical
“talks about talks”; marking the contending political debates leading to crafting of the
Westminster constitution and national independence.

Urbanization and education was gaining foot into Swaziland. Hence, the budding civic
society and African intelligesia that became a powerful factor towards independence. It may
be argued without any fear of contradiction that Africa was coming of age and getting
prepared for her independence struggle. That, the Pan- African movement became the
vanguard and ideology for her independence struggle. Significant was the vital role of the
Swaziland Students Union, composed of secondary and university students. Inherently,
Swaziland’s road to independence faced its fundamental crossroads hence, the contending
political debates marking her problematic independence conferences both at home and
abroad. The challenges of the conferences was that the key agents in the negotiations had
very different agendas, the progressives wanted to create a multi-party state whilst the
traditionalist wanted to conserve the primitive Swazi way of life and system of governance
with the King being sovereign, and the British on the other hand wanted to secure their
imperial interest in the country. It is for this reason that it took much longer to agree on the
adaptation of the Westminster constitution and hence delaying independence as the other
BLS countries being Botswana and Lesotho, attained their independence in 1966 whilst the
Kingdom attained hers in September 1968.

The Swazi Nation Council, liqoqo indefinitely had to reach a compromise which led to the
traditionalist partaking in the multi-party democracy experiment in the country hence they
created the Imbokodvo National Movement which was first led by Prince Makhosini the
country’s first prime minister. This movement was easily accepted by most EmaSwati thus
enjoying the virtues of popular sovereignty as the movement was under the patronage of the
King whom the people adored and chiefs who introduced incentives that encouraged the
people in their various constituencies to vote for the Imbokodvo National Movement during
the 1967 elections.

After all has been said and done it is very clear that the path towards independence was one
filled with challenges based on the differences between all the agents that were involved in
the crafting of the Westminster independence constitution. It is for this reason that it is of
paramount importance that we understand this synopsis as it is the basis upon which the
current political interactions in the Kingdom of Swaziland is based.
Question 4
Identify and discuss the Kingdom’s post-independence policies or lack of direction as
possible catalysts for the current political unrest. (50)

The independent Kingdom of Swaziland, the smallest country in the southern hemisphere lies
between Mozambique and South Africa. It is land-locked and the official capital city is
Mbabane; most administrative acts are performed there, the royal and legislative capital is
Lobamba. After attaining independence in 1968 the Kingdom of Swaziland adopted the
Westminster constitution which was characterized by the British style of governance,
however the Head of State at that time King Sobhuza is widely criticized for having made a
constitutional coup d’etat by eliminating the Westminster constitution and replacing it with
the Tinkhundla system of governance introduced through the famous 1973 decree. It is said
that the decree is the main cause of the current socioeconomic and political challenges that
the state faces hence the post-independence policies are criticized for the possible catalysts of
the current political unrest.

In the first post-independence elections, held in May 1972, the king’s party received nearly
75% of the vote while another party, the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC),
won 20%, giving the party 3 seats. The NNLC leadership was made up of urban intellectuals
most of whom favoured continuation of the monarchy under a constitution. Sobhuza
panicked, viewing the NNLC’s small incursion into his power base as a significant threat. In
April 1973, he issued a proclamation revoking Swaziland’s constitution, outlawing political
parties, exempting the monarchy from legal accountability and granting the king absolute
authority over all branches of government. The proclamation’s core paragraph stated: ‘Now
THEREFORE I, SOBHUZA II, King of Swaziland, hereby declare that, in collaboration with
my Cabinet Ministers and supported by the whole nation, I have assumed supreme power in
the Kingdom of Swaziland and that all Legislative, Executive and Judicial power is vested in
myself. In revoking Swaziland’s democratic constitution, Sobhuza almost certainly had the
support of the South African government. At that time, South Africa and western countries
favoured conservative African dictatorships which they viewed as bulwarks against the rise
of socialist and nationalist political parties which were suspected of subservience to the
USSR and China. Thus began a feudal dictatorship which now, 40 years later, is Africa’s last
absolute monarchy.
Sobhuza II died in 1982 leaving no designated heir and conditions rife for intrigues and
rivalries. Sobhuza named as Regent Queen Dzeliwe, an elder royal with a reputation for
intelligence and high principles. The regent was soon engulfed by conflict as various senior
princes vied for influence over selection of the successor. Although Swazi history and
tradition provided guidelines for selection of a crown prince, history and tradition were
shunted aside as a plot unfolded to designate as heir Makhosetive, a 14 year old son of
Sobhuza. Mswati was not prepared. His upbringing had not given him the customary
socialization of a future Swazi king. Such socialization would have stressed the requirement
to listen to all sides and to maintain equilibrium in Swazi society.

An absolute monarch holds and exercises all power within a state. For most people today, the
concept of ‘absolute monarch’ defies comprehension. In our contemporary understanding of
the nature of government, checks and balances are essential features which assure that no
person can decide everything, take whatever he wants and imprison or kill whomever he
wants. But in Swaziland, the king is immune from law and can commit crimes without fear of
punishment. At first glance, Swaziland’s government appears to consist of the standard
elements of a modern state. It includes a parliament, a judiciary and a cabinet supported by a
civil administration. Yet there is no mechanism or institution of government that can limit the
king’s powers. He is insulated from public opinion and citizen participation, and no state
institution can alter his priorities, fight his corruption, restrict his abuse of power or challenge
his authority to make appointments. Cabinet decisions must be synonymous with the king’s
preferences. The parliament is devoid of any political space from which it might question the
king’s expenditure priorities or policy decisions. Any judge, who in deciding a case impinges
on a royal interest, can soon be dismissed.

Dependency on SACU allowed Swazi kings to ignore needs for fiscal discipline and
economic development which would have increased the domestic tax base and could have
improved the life conditions of ordinary Swazis. In SACU boom years through 2008, sizeable
shares of SACU funds went into a build-up of government employment and wage increases
for civil servants, helping dampen disgruntlement among educated wage earners who
otherwise might have actively protested the lack of democracy and economic development.
Then between 2008 and 2011 SACU receipts fell by almost 60 per cent resulting in severe
liquidity shortages. At the time, the government wage bill was nearly 18 per cent of GDP,
proportionately the highest in Africa. Swaziland’s budget deficit for 2010 – 11 reached
almost 13 per cent of GDP, and access to domestic borrowing disappeared as lenders lost
confidence.

One main challenge that further exacerbated the ills made by the political system is the
emergence of the new coronavirus pandemic which led to the economic shutdown of all
countries around the globe. Swaziland not being an exception to this pandemic which caused
a recession in the economy that worsened the unemployment statistics thus infringing the
country’s economic growth leading to a higher poverty rate. It is for this reason that most
EmaSwati became politically conscious and felt it would be of great importance to eradicate
the current Tinkhundla system replacing it with a much more democratic system that would
promote transparency, accountability, rule of law and indeed democracy. Certain step were
taken by three members of parliament which would possibly introduce to the people and in
the constitution the virtue of electing a prime minister as a measure to make the government
much more accountable to the people. However such steps were brutally and systematically
crushed by the government which ultimately caused the surge of the current political unrest in
the country.

It goes without saying that the 1973 was a hastened and a miscalculated move by the
sovereign King Sobhuza as it bore in the future the fruits of destruction to the social,
economic, political and cultural life of all the Swazi civilians. The Tinkhundla system of
government has failed to satisfy the good will and collective interest of EmaSwati and it is for
this reason that it is of great importance for the people of ESwatini and the government to
initiate an all-inclusive dialogue that would give the potential remedy to the dire political
environment in the Kingdom of ESwatini.