Times of Swaziland
23 June 2008
PUDEMO hold rally at Maseyisini Constituency
BY SIHLE DLAMINI
NHLANGANO- While the Elections and Boundaries Commission announced the extension of the voters' registration, PUDEMO had other plans as they visited the Maseyisini Constituency to hold a political rally.
The banned political party mobilised the people to boycott the forthcoming general elections.
People's United Democratic Movement Publicity Secretary Zakhele Mabuza said they were mobilising the people to boycott the elections because they regarded it as a sick joke.
' "Elections under the Tinkhundla System of Governance have proved to be a joke because the MPs do not have the power to enact laws that will bring meaningful change in the country. So we don't want to see people rubber-stamping oppression," Mabuza briefly said before the start of the march. Asked why they decided to stage the first rally at Maseyisini, he said it was because their president hails from Makhosini, which is adjacent to Maseyisini. He also said there was a perception that was spread by authorities that if people do not register for election there would be no scholarships for their children and social grants for the elderly.
'This is the beginning of the campaign. We will use whatever means to sabotage the elections because they are not free and fair. This country signed international conventions that it will hold free and fair elections but now that's not the case," said the livid Mabuza.
Showing posts with label boycott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boycott. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
DECISION TIME: ARE WE READY?
The Nation
Comment
Decision time: are we ready?
As we draw nearer to the elections, let's take stock of what we really want for our parliament? There is no doubt that the quality of MPs we have had in the last five years has been a terrible embarrassment. But, whose fault is it? We now have a Constitution. Do those who will vote and those who will be voted for clearly understand this document? Where are the lawyers and other intellectuals to help unpack this most important document for the rest of us? Where is the media in all this? SIPHO NKOSI-DLAMINI reports.
The time has come for the electorate to make decisions on their representations in Parliament. In addition, it is that time of the year when some unfortunate humans disappear; and if found, they are without their limbs. That is why, in developmental terms, we have stagnated as a nation.
The people have been starved of information to make informed decisions on their representation. Yesterday is history; it helps us not to make the same mistakes. Tomorrow is a mystery whose solutions we must plan for today. Today is a gift; that is why we call it a present of opportunity to act.
The enlightened have the responsibility of leading those who need the light to make informed decisions and not to decide on the basis of who provided a meal one day. The individual standing for elections must have the capacity to comprehend the intricacies of governance and the priorities of the electorate. Providing one with a plate offish without the ability to use a rod, line and hook is a strategy to keep one a dependent forever (sihhanya).
Policies are good but only made useless by those who should implement them. A launching fanfare that culminates into a feeding session for the haves, projects a wrong impression when, on the very day, some people went to bed hungry. If only that money was used to buy some maize for the people of Lavumisa and Nkalashane, the meaning of commitment to poverty reduction would start to sink in. All those at the launch went home to a plate of food!
However, HMK Sobhuza II admonished us against dependency when he said, "ungabophila ngekudla kwemuntfu, utawugcina sewusihhanya sakhe" (i.e. do not depend on someone's food to feed your family; you end up his zombie). The people only need expert advice on when and what to sow; they know that the taste of the produce of own labour is always sweetest! Our MPs have had different tastes from the electorates'. Know what for to send an MP to Parliament. This is not possible if one does not know what the system of governance prevailing is. It is important that we articulate the methodologies of service delivery to the populace.
One would like to respect MPs and never to fear them. Never again should anybody, including the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, be ashamed of us for choosing people who cannot recognise their own products of Parliamentary deliberations. Does the system enable this state of affairs? All those who have an interest and basic understanding of specific elements of the Constitution should use the available means to educate all of us. We keep hearing of tinkhundla system. Could someone please give us a document that describes the system, if only for comparative assessment?
What HMK Sobhuza II called an experiment did not have a document and never became public, like many commissions. Thus, the populace has always voted based on perceived instructions and non-issues, opening them to manipulations.
For example, a prospective MP or incumbent, at election time, suddenly remembers that the people do starve, need a market shelter, piped water, etc.
For 5 years, the MP was looking after his/her stomach. Why should people vote if they have no say on how they are to be governed? Are we going to elect the Government of Swaziland or merely "horrible" Members of Parliament? Are these MPs answerable to the electorate or to themselves?
Remember, a few years ago HMK Mswati III called them to Lozitha for his briefing as to what they had done for their constituencies ever since they were elected. A majority of the answers were an affront to the electorate. Prince David will always be correct and has my support for the naked truth. Let us not allow this to happen again!
Democracy
Many academics and politicians have written on democracy to project supportive views on the system. Others have distorted the Plutonic philosophy to project personal or group preferences. The thesaurus version merely means power to the people (demos = people and kratos = power). It developed from the desire to move away from dictatorship, totalitarianism, or any form of entrenched favouritism by whatever method. Since the proletariat were providing the taxes, they were entitled to benefit from the use of the acquired resources to be used for the collective good.
Parliamentary democracy evolved seriously after the industrial revolution in Britain where the rich regarded themselves as having a divine right to rule the poor. First, there were the Conservatives (Tories), who wanted to maintain the status quo, then came the Labour party (Whigs), an outgrowth of the labour union movement. The Liberal Democrats took the centre stage trying to accommodate those who had no extreme views on the social evolution. This was the formal structuring of multi-party democracy.
No country today would say they have achieved democratic dispensation. The haves have become have-mores and the have-nots lose the little they may have accumulated. Hobos are a common sight even in the most developed 'democratic' countries. The difference in developing countries is the available levels of opportunities to reach the stars! The opportunity to express one's personality with one's God-given capacity/talent is the inherent spirit of elementary democratic principles. Choice, by technical know-who and not technical expertise, is anathema to democratic practice.
Thus, true democracy is the ideal system we all aim at. Communalism, as practised by nuns, aimed at elimination, not reduction, of have-nots. The latter is the Godly perfect system. How does multi-party democracy or tinkhundla systems fair in the human attempt of bringing God's kingdom closer so that His will can also be done on earth without being battered by any state security personnel? In a democracy, the theory is that the people own the governors; the government exists at the behest of the governed: the will of the people is pre-eminent.
Tinkhundla System
Is what we are practising in SD today at the same wavelength as that HMK Sobhuza II had in mind? My recollection from his speech on the experiment is that the people in each sub-constituency would decide who was to stand at primary level of the process of election to Parliament.
The basis would be the contributions the individual had made in one’s community to the general and any specific sector of socio-economic development. The communities must be involved in formulating the methodology.
External coercions, be they from the chief, government officials, political parties or family members would not play a role in decision-making on one's preference if the people were well informed about the real issues. During the secondary election at the Inkhundla, the candidates would then compete for election to Parliament. It is not clear who is to educate the populace on the real issues!
Has the practice lived up to this idea, especially with respect to external influence? Has the system practice metamorphosed through manipulation by interested 'parties'? What influence do tindvuna, hunger, positions, etc, have on vote decision-making? Does the system truly allow freedom of expression (neluhlanya luviwe), so that even a mad man can be heard?
For the purpose of the coming election, what measurable responsibilities do all the governance divisions have? What parameters are used to assess their delivery capacities? Simply, how can the electorate ascertain the kind of performance results and the capacity of an individual prospective MP?
Are there any measurable parameters for eligibility for election? This will help the system to stem the scourge of gross failure through lack of analytical agility and the consequent corrupt relations that ensue. How much transparency is entrenched in the system to enable any researcher to interrogate its efficiency or efficacy? Essentially, what defence argument can one advance against those who view it as undemocratic?
Ignore the waffling arguments to protect one's plate of fish.
Multi-party Democracy
The basis for multi-party democracy is that it expresses both the will of the people irrespective of their differences and the majority view wins the day. The candidature of each potential MP is scrutinised at grass roots level based on their assimilation, comprehension and people-based national policies and their implementation strategies.
For example, health, food security, education, international relations, national security and socio-economic development are national prerogatives. The appreciation of party policies by the populace should qualify one to be an MP and not providing a plate of food for one day.
The acceptance and appreciation of differing views is viewed as honourable and intellectually stimulating. No one person possesses monopoly of knowledge and thinking. Only God does!
However, experience in some countries has been the suppression of the minority view, which could contribute superiorly to the development of the country. Some politicians have resorted to military force to remain in power. In Swaziland, we do not need that because we are one "family", being blood relations. We will always be together at the funerals.
Overall, the responsibility lies with the electorate to choose the people who can articulate their aspirations. This is assumed to form the foundation stone of the system. The system also prescribes that an eligible candidate must possess basic education (not learning) standards to contribute substantially to a stimulating debate on people's issues.
Without the basic tools of natural mental agility and basic, not elementary, ability to read, one's qualification becomes suspect. One just needs to have the mental dexterity to compare and contrast using many sources of information.
Election
That the Constitution does not ban political parties may be incomplete truth; it is indisputable nonetheless that the Constitution does not specifically reinstate them into the political dispensation. The 1973 Proclamation specifically banned multi-party politics and introduced one party or non-party system. That was a constitutional change and was not open to multiple interpretations.
Without these specifics in the new Constitution, political parties are essentially banned. This view is further supported by the breach of the very Constitution in the composition of the EBC by including a practising "judge" of qualification of eligible candidates at the primaries. One is open to correction. But that is what many understand is prevailing.
The 2008 election may indeed be a farce. However, there is need to educate the populace why it is a farce so that they make the necessary informed decision to register and vote or not. Over-generalization cannot be enough to make a responsible decision. Let them know the prevailing circumstances that militate against free and fair elections.
True democratic principles do not allow one group to be a criminal, police officer, prosecutor, judge and executioner at the same time. With the means available, let the populace have the civic education they need to make intelligent decisions. No one will do it for them save those who are sufficiently enlightened to realise the wool over their eyes.
Some think the more of the same mind entering the system, the greater the impact of influencing changes from within. What are the strengths and weaknesses of such an argument? Even boycotts need to be substantiated. Hitherto, the vociferous anti-boycotts have been those who derive benefits from the status quo. That is expected. The populace are still unable to make informed decisions.
Forward
The views herein are an attempt to lead us away from the prevailing disinformation climate in order for us to make informed decisions on our representatives in Parliament. Never again should we hear anybody calling our MPs stupid because they 'approve' key legislation they do not understand, later doubt its efficacy, and question their own decisions when the law is applied.
Secondly, the majority has not read and understood the Constitution under which we shall be choosing our MPs. Accepting that it is their fault and no one else's, I implore our legal boffins to help surgically dissect the Constitution, elucidate the tricky areas and intellectually lift us to the level where we can elect quality MPs.
Is the Constitution people-based enough to facilitate free and fair elections? Do the people own it sufficiently to accept responsibility for its failures? Does it facilitate choice of quality MPs? No one in the country can stand boldly proud of the quality of MPs we have had in the last Parliament. Many of us have been around since independence!
In the last election, reports were that less than 25% of the electorate registered and voted. Did we then have a legitimate Parliament? Democracy demands that more than 50% of eligible voters should register and vote. Who is to blame for that other than those who must vote? Does the Constitution stipulate the size of register and qualification of eligible participants before we can say, "the people have indeed spoken"?
To boycott or not is a choice that needs to be based on knowledge not ignorance or mob psychology. The press must play its role as a medium of healthy intellectual exchange with only the future of the country in mind. Editorials should only crystallize (that is compare and contrast) issues and avoid promoting sides!
Is it true that chequebook journalism prevents open, free and fair intellectual intercourse? Governments have no monopoly on censorship. By commission or omission, the media houses are in many instances guilty, especially in Swaziland, through editorial power to exclude the unpalatable.
I sincerely invite you to raise your views and exercise your constitutional freedom of expression; one is expecting opposite views too. Silence is never golden in Africa; it depicts taciturn disagreement. Bunhhinhhinhhi ("cooing" like a bilious pigeon) is no longer justified!
Opposite debating views are healthy; that is how one can surpass one's horizons of knowledge. Only deafening silence keeps people mentally stunted and promotes the choice of "stupid" candidates.
Please wake up from your intellectual slumber! From Cape to Cairo, Morocco to Mozambique, there are many of our politicians, not all, who thrive on the ignorance of the people. Do not be one of those who provide the platform for stomach politics.
You were born free!
Comment
Decision time: are we ready?
As we draw nearer to the elections, let's take stock of what we really want for our parliament? There is no doubt that the quality of MPs we have had in the last five years has been a terrible embarrassment. But, whose fault is it? We now have a Constitution. Do those who will vote and those who will be voted for clearly understand this document? Where are the lawyers and other intellectuals to help unpack this most important document for the rest of us? Where is the media in all this? SIPHO NKOSI-DLAMINI reports.
The time has come for the electorate to make decisions on their representations in Parliament. In addition, it is that time of the year when some unfortunate humans disappear; and if found, they are without their limbs. That is why, in developmental terms, we have stagnated as a nation.
The people have been starved of information to make informed decisions on their representation. Yesterday is history; it helps us not to make the same mistakes. Tomorrow is a mystery whose solutions we must plan for today. Today is a gift; that is why we call it a present of opportunity to act.
The enlightened have the responsibility of leading those who need the light to make informed decisions and not to decide on the basis of who provided a meal one day. The individual standing for elections must have the capacity to comprehend the intricacies of governance and the priorities of the electorate. Providing one with a plate offish without the ability to use a rod, line and hook is a strategy to keep one a dependent forever (sihhanya).
Policies are good but only made useless by those who should implement them. A launching fanfare that culminates into a feeding session for the haves, projects a wrong impression when, on the very day, some people went to bed hungry. If only that money was used to buy some maize for the people of Lavumisa and Nkalashane, the meaning of commitment to poverty reduction would start to sink in. All those at the launch went home to a plate of food!
However, HMK Sobhuza II admonished us against dependency when he said, "ungabophila ngekudla kwemuntfu, utawugcina sewusihhanya sakhe" (i.e. do not depend on someone's food to feed your family; you end up his zombie). The people only need expert advice on when and what to sow; they know that the taste of the produce of own labour is always sweetest! Our MPs have had different tastes from the electorates'. Know what for to send an MP to Parliament. This is not possible if one does not know what the system of governance prevailing is. It is important that we articulate the methodologies of service delivery to the populace.
One would like to respect MPs and never to fear them. Never again should anybody, including the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, be ashamed of us for choosing people who cannot recognise their own products of Parliamentary deliberations. Does the system enable this state of affairs? All those who have an interest and basic understanding of specific elements of the Constitution should use the available means to educate all of us. We keep hearing of tinkhundla system. Could someone please give us a document that describes the system, if only for comparative assessment?
What HMK Sobhuza II called an experiment did not have a document and never became public, like many commissions. Thus, the populace has always voted based on perceived instructions and non-issues, opening them to manipulations.
For example, a prospective MP or incumbent, at election time, suddenly remembers that the people do starve, need a market shelter, piped water, etc.
For 5 years, the MP was looking after his/her stomach. Why should people vote if they have no say on how they are to be governed? Are we going to elect the Government of Swaziland or merely "horrible" Members of Parliament? Are these MPs answerable to the electorate or to themselves?
Remember, a few years ago HMK Mswati III called them to Lozitha for his briefing as to what they had done for their constituencies ever since they were elected. A majority of the answers were an affront to the electorate. Prince David will always be correct and has my support for the naked truth. Let us not allow this to happen again!
Democracy
Many academics and politicians have written on democracy to project supportive views on the system. Others have distorted the Plutonic philosophy to project personal or group preferences. The thesaurus version merely means power to the people (demos = people and kratos = power). It developed from the desire to move away from dictatorship, totalitarianism, or any form of entrenched favouritism by whatever method. Since the proletariat were providing the taxes, they were entitled to benefit from the use of the acquired resources to be used for the collective good.
Parliamentary democracy evolved seriously after the industrial revolution in Britain where the rich regarded themselves as having a divine right to rule the poor. First, there were the Conservatives (Tories), who wanted to maintain the status quo, then came the Labour party (Whigs), an outgrowth of the labour union movement. The Liberal Democrats took the centre stage trying to accommodate those who had no extreme views on the social evolution. This was the formal structuring of multi-party democracy.
No country today would say they have achieved democratic dispensation. The haves have become have-mores and the have-nots lose the little they may have accumulated. Hobos are a common sight even in the most developed 'democratic' countries. The difference in developing countries is the available levels of opportunities to reach the stars! The opportunity to express one's personality with one's God-given capacity/talent is the inherent spirit of elementary democratic principles. Choice, by technical know-who and not technical expertise, is anathema to democratic practice.
Thus, true democracy is the ideal system we all aim at. Communalism, as practised by nuns, aimed at elimination, not reduction, of have-nots. The latter is the Godly perfect system. How does multi-party democracy or tinkhundla systems fair in the human attempt of bringing God's kingdom closer so that His will can also be done on earth without being battered by any state security personnel? In a democracy, the theory is that the people own the governors; the government exists at the behest of the governed: the will of the people is pre-eminent.
Tinkhundla System
Is what we are practising in SD today at the same wavelength as that HMK Sobhuza II had in mind? My recollection from his speech on the experiment is that the people in each sub-constituency would decide who was to stand at primary level of the process of election to Parliament.
The basis would be the contributions the individual had made in one’s community to the general and any specific sector of socio-economic development. The communities must be involved in formulating the methodology.
External coercions, be they from the chief, government officials, political parties or family members would not play a role in decision-making on one's preference if the people were well informed about the real issues. During the secondary election at the Inkhundla, the candidates would then compete for election to Parliament. It is not clear who is to educate the populace on the real issues!
Has the practice lived up to this idea, especially with respect to external influence? Has the system practice metamorphosed through manipulation by interested 'parties'? What influence do tindvuna, hunger, positions, etc, have on vote decision-making? Does the system truly allow freedom of expression (neluhlanya luviwe), so that even a mad man can be heard?
For the purpose of the coming election, what measurable responsibilities do all the governance divisions have? What parameters are used to assess their delivery capacities? Simply, how can the electorate ascertain the kind of performance results and the capacity of an individual prospective MP?
Are there any measurable parameters for eligibility for election? This will help the system to stem the scourge of gross failure through lack of analytical agility and the consequent corrupt relations that ensue. How much transparency is entrenched in the system to enable any researcher to interrogate its efficiency or efficacy? Essentially, what defence argument can one advance against those who view it as undemocratic?
Ignore the waffling arguments to protect one's plate of fish.
Multi-party Democracy
The basis for multi-party democracy is that it expresses both the will of the people irrespective of their differences and the majority view wins the day. The candidature of each potential MP is scrutinised at grass roots level based on their assimilation, comprehension and people-based national policies and their implementation strategies.
For example, health, food security, education, international relations, national security and socio-economic development are national prerogatives. The appreciation of party policies by the populace should qualify one to be an MP and not providing a plate of food for one day.
The acceptance and appreciation of differing views is viewed as honourable and intellectually stimulating. No one person possesses monopoly of knowledge and thinking. Only God does!
However, experience in some countries has been the suppression of the minority view, which could contribute superiorly to the development of the country. Some politicians have resorted to military force to remain in power. In Swaziland, we do not need that because we are one "family", being blood relations. We will always be together at the funerals.
Overall, the responsibility lies with the electorate to choose the people who can articulate their aspirations. This is assumed to form the foundation stone of the system. The system also prescribes that an eligible candidate must possess basic education (not learning) standards to contribute substantially to a stimulating debate on people's issues.
Without the basic tools of natural mental agility and basic, not elementary, ability to read, one's qualification becomes suspect. One just needs to have the mental dexterity to compare and contrast using many sources of information.
Election
That the Constitution does not ban political parties may be incomplete truth; it is indisputable nonetheless that the Constitution does not specifically reinstate them into the political dispensation. The 1973 Proclamation specifically banned multi-party politics and introduced one party or non-party system. That was a constitutional change and was not open to multiple interpretations.
Without these specifics in the new Constitution, political parties are essentially banned. This view is further supported by the breach of the very Constitution in the composition of the EBC by including a practising "judge" of qualification of eligible candidates at the primaries. One is open to correction. But that is what many understand is prevailing.
The 2008 election may indeed be a farce. However, there is need to educate the populace why it is a farce so that they make the necessary informed decision to register and vote or not. Over-generalization cannot be enough to make a responsible decision. Let them know the prevailing circumstances that militate against free and fair elections.
True democratic principles do not allow one group to be a criminal, police officer, prosecutor, judge and executioner at the same time. With the means available, let the populace have the civic education they need to make intelligent decisions. No one will do it for them save those who are sufficiently enlightened to realise the wool over their eyes.
Some think the more of the same mind entering the system, the greater the impact of influencing changes from within. What are the strengths and weaknesses of such an argument? Even boycotts need to be substantiated. Hitherto, the vociferous anti-boycotts have been those who derive benefits from the status quo. That is expected. The populace are still unable to make informed decisions.
Forward
The views herein are an attempt to lead us away from the prevailing disinformation climate in order for us to make informed decisions on our representatives in Parliament. Never again should we hear anybody calling our MPs stupid because they 'approve' key legislation they do not understand, later doubt its efficacy, and question their own decisions when the law is applied.
Secondly, the majority has not read and understood the Constitution under which we shall be choosing our MPs. Accepting that it is their fault and no one else's, I implore our legal boffins to help surgically dissect the Constitution, elucidate the tricky areas and intellectually lift us to the level where we can elect quality MPs.
Is the Constitution people-based enough to facilitate free and fair elections? Do the people own it sufficiently to accept responsibility for its failures? Does it facilitate choice of quality MPs? No one in the country can stand boldly proud of the quality of MPs we have had in the last Parliament. Many of us have been around since independence!
In the last election, reports were that less than 25% of the electorate registered and voted. Did we then have a legitimate Parliament? Democracy demands that more than 50% of eligible voters should register and vote. Who is to blame for that other than those who must vote? Does the Constitution stipulate the size of register and qualification of eligible participants before we can say, "the people have indeed spoken"?
To boycott or not is a choice that needs to be based on knowledge not ignorance or mob psychology. The press must play its role as a medium of healthy intellectual exchange with only the future of the country in mind. Editorials should only crystallize (that is compare and contrast) issues and avoid promoting sides!
Is it true that chequebook journalism prevents open, free and fair intellectual intercourse? Governments have no monopoly on censorship. By commission or omission, the media houses are in many instances guilty, especially in Swaziland, through editorial power to exclude the unpalatable.
I sincerely invite you to raise your views and exercise your constitutional freedom of expression; one is expecting opposite views too. Silence is never golden in Africa; it depicts taciturn disagreement. Bunhhinhhinhhi ("cooing" like a bilious pigeon) is no longer justified!
Opposite debating views are healthy; that is how one can surpass one's horizons of knowledge. Only deafening silence keeps people mentally stunted and promotes the choice of "stupid" candidates.
Please wake up from your intellectual slumber! From Cape to Cairo, Morocco to Mozambique, there are many of our politicians, not all, who thrive on the ignorance of the people. Do not be one of those who provide the platform for stomach politics.
You were born free!
THREATS OF BLOOD AT SWAZI POLL
Swazi Observer
17 June 2008
THREATS OF BLOODSHED AT ELECTIONS
By Faith Vilakati
MAHLABANE residents are threatening to boycott the national elections if they are to vote under Chief Ngalonkhulu of Mafutseni umphakatsi instead of Chief Mbhungu Mabuza whom they claim to be their rightful chief.
In different interviews, community members said if they were forced to register under a chief they do not recognise, there would be bloodshed.
This follows an announcement made on Sunday, during a meeting the community held with the elections facilitators, whereby they were told to register and vote under Chief Ngalonkhulu.
This means that registration clerks will have to move from Mafutseni to Mahlabane to register the over 3 000 eligible voters.
The residents pleaded with the Elections and Boundaries Committee to allow them to register and vote under Chief Mgebiseni of Ngculwini Royal Kraal.
Delisile Thwala, the most vocal resident, said they were up in arms and ready for anything, stressing that they did not want to see anyone from Mafutseni Umphakatsi at their community at anytime.
“We have our own chief who was recognised by the King and there is no way we can vote under another chief.
I would like to warn the Mafutseni people not to dare come to Mahlabane to register us because they will be dead men, we are ready for anything. For the past 15 years we have not been voting and we have had enough of this.
"We also want to be heard and respected as citizens of the country,” said Thwala.
Mathole Mabuza echoed Thwala’s words, stressing that they wanted to be recognised.
“I have been around this place for sometime now and can attest that we have our own chief.
For over 10 years we have not been represented in parliament and if we are to vote under Chief Ngalonkhulu, we would rather stay like this for the next five years, we are used to it,” he said.
They disclosed even tried to seek audience with Ludzidzini governor Jim Gama who referred them to the Manzini Regional Administrator (RA) Prince Masitsela but nothing happened.
“Gama said the RA was to arrange a meeting for us with the Elections and Boundaries Committee Chairman Chief Gija but that meeting never materialised,” she added.
Reached for comments, Prince Masitsela said the issue of the two chiefdoms would only be settled by His Majesty the King.
He added that the division started a while ago and it was now tough for him to comment because the issue was now ‘heavier’ than he could handle.
“All I can say to Mahlabane community is that they must register for the elections,” the prince said.
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=44665§ion=main
17 June 2008
THREATS OF BLOODSHED AT ELECTIONS
By Faith Vilakati
MAHLABANE residents are threatening to boycott the national elections if they are to vote under Chief Ngalonkhulu of Mafutseni umphakatsi instead of Chief Mbhungu Mabuza whom they claim to be their rightful chief.
In different interviews, community members said if they were forced to register under a chief they do not recognise, there would be bloodshed.
This follows an announcement made on Sunday, during a meeting the community held with the elections facilitators, whereby they were told to register and vote under Chief Ngalonkhulu.
This means that registration clerks will have to move from Mafutseni to Mahlabane to register the over 3 000 eligible voters.
The residents pleaded with the Elections and Boundaries Committee to allow them to register and vote under Chief Mgebiseni of Ngculwini Royal Kraal.
Delisile Thwala, the most vocal resident, said they were up in arms and ready for anything, stressing that they did not want to see anyone from Mafutseni Umphakatsi at their community at anytime.
“We have our own chief who was recognised by the King and there is no way we can vote under another chief.
I would like to warn the Mafutseni people not to dare come to Mahlabane to register us because they will be dead men, we are ready for anything. For the past 15 years we have not been voting and we have had enough of this.
"We also want to be heard and respected as citizens of the country,” said Thwala.
Mathole Mabuza echoed Thwala’s words, stressing that they wanted to be recognised.
“I have been around this place for sometime now and can attest that we have our own chief.
For over 10 years we have not been represented in parliament and if we are to vote under Chief Ngalonkhulu, we would rather stay like this for the next five years, we are used to it,” he said.
They disclosed even tried to seek audience with Ludzidzini governor Jim Gama who referred them to the Manzini Regional Administrator (RA) Prince Masitsela but nothing happened.
“Gama said the RA was to arrange a meeting for us with the Elections and Boundaries Committee Chairman Chief Gija but that meeting never materialised,” she added.
Reached for comments, Prince Masitsela said the issue of the two chiefdoms would only be settled by His Majesty the King.
He added that the division started a while ago and it was now tough for him to comment because the issue was now ‘heavier’ than he could handle.
“All I can say to Mahlabane community is that they must register for the elections,” the prince said.
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=44665§ion=main
Monday, June 16, 2008
SWAZI POLL BOYCOTT CRUMBLING
Swazi Observer
16 June 2008
Inhlava registers for the elections
By Njabulo Dlamini
INHLAVA Forum political party irked comrades from similar formations when its chairman and co-founder Mfomfo Nkambule declared they were registering for the elections.
Even though he quickly clarified they registered and were not participating, many were left not convinced.
"Yes, we are registering and are at strategic points to ensure people are empowered with information on the upcoming elections for them to make informed choices on whether they could change the system," he said.
Nkambule said by registering, they were placing themselves in a better position to be heard when campaigning for a boycott of the elections process.
"You should be at the centres and pass information to the people so as to pass the message effectively," he said.
His intervention came after one of the speakers from the floor wanted to know whether Inhlava was 'confused' with its policies by passing out different messages on the elections.
participating
Apparently, Nkambule had given an interview to the media that his organisaton was participating in the elections yet at the Royal Swazi Sun on Friday, he informed the audience they were boycotting.
This was during CANGO's Multi-Party Consultative Conference technically supported by Open Society Initiative of Southern Africa (OSISA).
The theme was: Swaziland Democracy Now.
The Inhlava chairman dismissed the constitution as a document not crafted to protect and promote the citizens' interest but that of a few.
"As Inhlava, we intend using every available opportunity to get the message across- we only require the people to rally behind us.
authorities
People have the brains and this they could use to outsmart the authorities of the land.
"We registered because we want to engage the people i.e. what change they will attain through participating in the exercise (elections).
Generally, the system undermines the people since the top-down approach is used. We need people with the courage to make others see what they currently can't see."
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=44633§ion=main
16 June 2008
Inhlava registers for the elections
By Njabulo Dlamini
INHLAVA Forum political party irked comrades from similar formations when its chairman and co-founder Mfomfo Nkambule declared they were registering for the elections.
Even though he quickly clarified they registered and were not participating, many were left not convinced.
"Yes, we are registering and are at strategic points to ensure people are empowered with information on the upcoming elections for them to make informed choices on whether they could change the system," he said.
Nkambule said by registering, they were placing themselves in a better position to be heard when campaigning for a boycott of the elections process.
"You should be at the centres and pass information to the people so as to pass the message effectively," he said.
His intervention came after one of the speakers from the floor wanted to know whether Inhlava was 'confused' with its policies by passing out different messages on the elections.
participating
Apparently, Nkambule had given an interview to the media that his organisaton was participating in the elections yet at the Royal Swazi Sun on Friday, he informed the audience they were boycotting.
This was during CANGO's Multi-Party Consultative Conference technically supported by Open Society Initiative of Southern Africa (OSISA).
The theme was: Swaziland Democracy Now.
The Inhlava chairman dismissed the constitution as a document not crafted to protect and promote the citizens' interest but that of a few.
"As Inhlava, we intend using every available opportunity to get the message across- we only require the people to rally behind us.
authorities
People have the brains and this they could use to outsmart the authorities of the land.
"We registered because we want to engage the people i.e. what change they will attain through participating in the exercise (elections).
Generally, the system undermines the people since the top-down approach is used. We need people with the courage to make others see what they currently can't see."
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=44633§ion=main
SWAZI BOYCOTT DEBATE
Swazi Observer
17 May 2008
To boycott elections or not
Stories by Fanyana Mabuza
The visiting Director of Programmes at Freedom House, a United States-based democracy advocacy group, Dr Herman Roberts has treaded carefully on the issue of whether to boycott or not to boycott the upcoming country’s elections.
Speaking during a lecture at the Public Affairs section of the Embassy of the United States of America on Wednesday, Dr Herman observed that both actions could be effectively used as a tool to push forward any organisation’s mandate.
He was answering questions from the floor, which wanted to know whether there would be any gains if the country’s political formations vowed to boycott the upcoming polls.
Recently, the Swaziland Democratic Front, a coalition of political parties in the country, urged its membership to boycott the polls, saying attending would be like legitimising the ‘fraudulent election’ that was being forced down the throats of the masses.
This call was repeatedly made at the recent May Day celebrations, held at Simunye.
“A boycott can be a powerful tool for those who do not have power and wrestle it from those who wield it. It can also help make a case for those people choosing to boycott, as they can use arguments that the election is always stolen by the present regime.
For example, you may decide to boycott because you know that you can never win an election against the present regime.
"When you tell this to the international community, it is bound to stand up and listen, take more interest in that country’s polling mechanisms and eventually see for itself how the election is stolen, while putting pressure in that regime to play fairly.” Dr Herman said.
He also observed that taking part in an election could just be as effective.
“You can decide to join the election after a number of years of boycotting.
"By breaking the boycott you would be showing the rest of the world that you would never win an election when a particular regime is in power as it may use every trick in the book, legal or illegal, to hold on to power, and by taking part you are exposing that fact which could not have surfaced had you boycotted.”
Dr Herman said whatever the case may be, a party should be very clear of the choice it was making and articulate it fully to its constituent, which can then make a decision whether to partake or not. “It is the constituency that must make the final decision and leaders should ensure that those decisions are taken by an informed electorate. So it is up to the people to decide whether to boycott or not boycott the elections, but that position must be fully informed,” he said.
He closed by disclosing that research had shown that some people boycotted polls because of apathy and would rather visit the malls than vote because they did not care much about a country’s political process while others may boycott as a result of cynicism, meaning that they believed voting won’t change anything.
“The latter are the most dangerous as they are shutting themselves out of the process rather than attempt to change things for the better.”
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=43824&Section=main&articledate=Thursday,%20January%201,%201970
17 May 2008
To boycott elections or not
Stories by Fanyana Mabuza
The visiting Director of Programmes at Freedom House, a United States-based democracy advocacy group, Dr Herman Roberts has treaded carefully on the issue of whether to boycott or not to boycott the upcoming country’s elections.
Speaking during a lecture at the Public Affairs section of the Embassy of the United States of America on Wednesday, Dr Herman observed that both actions could be effectively used as a tool to push forward any organisation’s mandate.
He was answering questions from the floor, which wanted to know whether there would be any gains if the country’s political formations vowed to boycott the upcoming polls.
Recently, the Swaziland Democratic Front, a coalition of political parties in the country, urged its membership to boycott the polls, saying attending would be like legitimising the ‘fraudulent election’ that was being forced down the throats of the masses.
This call was repeatedly made at the recent May Day celebrations, held at Simunye.
“A boycott can be a powerful tool for those who do not have power and wrestle it from those who wield it. It can also help make a case for those people choosing to boycott, as they can use arguments that the election is always stolen by the present regime.
For example, you may decide to boycott because you know that you can never win an election against the present regime.
"When you tell this to the international community, it is bound to stand up and listen, take more interest in that country’s polling mechanisms and eventually see for itself how the election is stolen, while putting pressure in that regime to play fairly.” Dr Herman said.
He also observed that taking part in an election could just be as effective.
“You can decide to join the election after a number of years of boycotting.
"By breaking the boycott you would be showing the rest of the world that you would never win an election when a particular regime is in power as it may use every trick in the book, legal or illegal, to hold on to power, and by taking part you are exposing that fact which could not have surfaced had you boycotted.”
Dr Herman said whatever the case may be, a party should be very clear of the choice it was making and articulate it fully to its constituent, which can then make a decision whether to partake or not. “It is the constituency that must make the final decision and leaders should ensure that those decisions are taken by an informed electorate. So it is up to the people to decide whether to boycott or not boycott the elections, but that position must be fully informed,” he said.
He closed by disclosing that research had shown that some people boycotted polls because of apathy and would rather visit the malls than vote because they did not care much about a country’s political process while others may boycott as a result of cynicism, meaning that they believed voting won’t change anything.
“The latter are the most dangerous as they are shutting themselves out of the process rather than attempt to change things for the better.”
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=43824&Section=main&articledate=Thursday,%20January%201,%201970
Sunday, June 15, 2008
SWAZI BOYCOTT - OR NOT?
Swazi Observer
17 May 2008
To boycott elections or not
Stories by Fanyana Mabuza
The visiting Director of Programmes at Freedom House, a United States-based democracy advocacy group, Dr Herman Roberts has treaded carefully on the issue of whether to boycott or not to boycott the upcoming country’s elections.
Speaking during a lecture at the Public Affairs section of the Embassy of the United States of America on Wednesday, Dr Herman observed that both actions could be effectively used as a tool to push forward any organisation’s mandate.
He was answering questions from the floor, which wanted to know whether there would be any gains if the country’s political formations vowed to boycott the upcoming polls.
political
Recently, the Swaziland Democratic Front, a coalition of political parties in the country, urged its membership to boycott the polls, saying attending would be like legitimising the ‘fraudulent election’ that was being forced down the throats of the masses.
This call was repeatedly made at the recent May Day celebrations, held at Simunye.
“A boycott can be a powerful tool for those who do not have power and wrestle it from those who wield it. It can also help make a case for those people choosing to boycott, as they can use arguments that the election is always stolen by the present regime.
For example, you may decide to boycott because you know that you can never win an election against the present regime.
"When you tell this to the international community, it is bound to stand up and listen, take more interest in that country’s polling mechanisms and eventually see for itself how the election is stolen, while putting pressure in that regime to play fairly.” Dr Herman said.
He also observed that taking part in an election could just be as effective.
“You can decide to join the election after a number of years of boycotting.
"By breaking the boycott you would be showing the rest of the world that you would never win an election when a particular regime is in power as it may use every trick in the book, legal or illegal, to hold on to power, and by taking part you are exposing that fact which could not have surfaced had you boycotted.”
Dr Herman said whatever the case may be, a party should be very clear of the choice it was making and articulate it fully to its constituent, which can then make a decision whether to partake or not. “It is the constituency that must make the final decision and leaders should ensure that those decisions are taken by an informed electorate. So it is up to the people to decide whether to boycott or not boycott the elections, but that position must be fully informed,” he said.
He closed by disclosing that research had shown that some people boycotted polls because of apathy and would rather visit the malls than vote because they did not care much about a country’s political process while others may boycott as a result of cynicism, meaning that they believed voting won’t change anything.
“The latter are the most dangerous as they are shutting themselves out of the process rather than attempt to change things for the better.”
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=43824&Section=main&articledate=Thursday,%20January%201,%201970
17 May 2008
To boycott elections or not
Stories by Fanyana Mabuza
The visiting Director of Programmes at Freedom House, a United States-based democracy advocacy group, Dr Herman Roberts has treaded carefully on the issue of whether to boycott or not to boycott the upcoming country’s elections.
Speaking during a lecture at the Public Affairs section of the Embassy of the United States of America on Wednesday, Dr Herman observed that both actions could be effectively used as a tool to push forward any organisation’s mandate.
He was answering questions from the floor, which wanted to know whether there would be any gains if the country’s political formations vowed to boycott the upcoming polls.
political
Recently, the Swaziland Democratic Front, a coalition of political parties in the country, urged its membership to boycott the polls, saying attending would be like legitimising the ‘fraudulent election’ that was being forced down the throats of the masses.
This call was repeatedly made at the recent May Day celebrations, held at Simunye.
“A boycott can be a powerful tool for those who do not have power and wrestle it from those who wield it. It can also help make a case for those people choosing to boycott, as they can use arguments that the election is always stolen by the present regime.
For example, you may decide to boycott because you know that you can never win an election against the present regime.
"When you tell this to the international community, it is bound to stand up and listen, take more interest in that country’s polling mechanisms and eventually see for itself how the election is stolen, while putting pressure in that regime to play fairly.” Dr Herman said.
He also observed that taking part in an election could just be as effective.
“You can decide to join the election after a number of years of boycotting.
"By breaking the boycott you would be showing the rest of the world that you would never win an election when a particular regime is in power as it may use every trick in the book, legal or illegal, to hold on to power, and by taking part you are exposing that fact which could not have surfaced had you boycotted.”
Dr Herman said whatever the case may be, a party should be very clear of the choice it was making and articulate it fully to its constituent, which can then make a decision whether to partake or not. “It is the constituency that must make the final decision and leaders should ensure that those decisions are taken by an informed electorate. So it is up to the people to decide whether to boycott or not boycott the elections, but that position must be fully informed,” he said.
He closed by disclosing that research had shown that some people boycotted polls because of apathy and would rather visit the malls than vote because they did not care much about a country’s political process while others may boycott as a result of cynicism, meaning that they believed voting won’t change anything.
“The latter are the most dangerous as they are shutting themselves out of the process rather than attempt to change things for the better.”
Link http://www.observer.org.sz/main.php?id=43824&Section=main&articledate=Thursday,%20January%201,%201970
Monday, June 9, 2008
SWAZI WORKERS TOLD 'BOYCOTT'
Times of Swaziland
5 May 2008
Workers told to boycott elections
By Arthur Mordaunt
SIMUNYE – The Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) has its work cut out for it as workers have been told to boycott this year's national elections.
The message: "Boycott the elections," was loud and clear yesterday at the Workers' Day celebrations at Simunye:
Speaker after speaker, particularly those from labour movements and progressive formations, were candid in their remarks that this year's elections should be boycotted. Short of calling the elections a farce, the speakers said there was no way one would expect a free and fair election under the prevailing circumstances.
"Don't participate in the elections. Don't even register," said Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) President Dr Alvit Dlamini.
People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) President Mario Masuku reminded the workers that Swaziland was a member of many international organisations that promoted democratic principles, which were specific on how elections should be held.
He said the United Nations and other organisations were very clear that elections should be democratic but Swaziland insisted that ours should be held in a different way.
Another proponent for the elections boycott was Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) Secretary General Jan Sithole, who informed the workers that the only free and fair elections were those held under multi-party democracy.
"You can't be a referee, match commissioner and a player simultaneously and also tie your opponents in the change rooms outside the pitch and then declare that the game was fair. This is what's happening with the Swaziland elections and we can't participate in that," said Sithole.
Aubrey Sibiya, newly elected civil servants leader, also called for the elections to be stopped until a way is found for the representation of all.
The workers seemed to agree with their leaders as they ululated and whistled loudly with each of the remarks calling for the boycott.
Sibiya even asked the workers whether they thought the elections were going to help them and they responded with a resounding no.
5 May 2008
Workers told to boycott elections
By Arthur Mordaunt
SIMUNYE – The Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) has its work cut out for it as workers have been told to boycott this year's national elections.
The message: "Boycott the elections," was loud and clear yesterday at the Workers' Day celebrations at Simunye:
Speaker after speaker, particularly those from labour movements and progressive formations, were candid in their remarks that this year's elections should be boycotted. Short of calling the elections a farce, the speakers said there was no way one would expect a free and fair election under the prevailing circumstances.
"Don't participate in the elections. Don't even register," said Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC) President Dr Alvit Dlamini.
People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) President Mario Masuku reminded the workers that Swaziland was a member of many international organisations that promoted democratic principles, which were specific on how elections should be held.
He said the United Nations and other organisations were very clear that elections should be democratic but Swaziland insisted that ours should be held in a different way.
Another proponent for the elections boycott was Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) Secretary General Jan Sithole, who informed the workers that the only free and fair elections were those held under multi-party democracy.
"You can't be a referee, match commissioner and a player simultaneously and also tie your opponents in the change rooms outside the pitch and then declare that the game was fair. This is what's happening with the Swaziland elections and we can't participate in that," said Sithole.
Aubrey Sibiya, newly elected civil servants leader, also called for the elections to be stopped until a way is found for the representation of all.
The workers seemed to agree with their leaders as they ululated and whistled loudly with each of the remarks calling for the boycott.
Sibiya even asked the workers whether they thought the elections were going to help them and they responded with a resounding no.
SWAZIS URGED TO VOTE
Swazi Observer
5 May 2008
EDITORIAL COMMENT
YOUR VOTE, YOUR POWER
THE country is going to the polls later this year. Two weeks from now (May 19 - June 22,2008) registration begins.
The Swazi Observer Group of Newspapers would like to encourage every Swazi of the voting age to exercise his or her right to vote for a government of their choice. Your vote is your power.
It is only through honest participation in the elections that the Swazi nation can influence the political direction the country is to take. To waiver that inalienable right would be like shooting ourselves in the foot.
We have noted pockets of dissenting voices calling for an umbrella boycott of the elections and have listened to some of the reasons advanced for such a stance.
Those calling for the boycott of the process have told us that it is undemocratic and not in line with the universal protocols regarding elections.
They have also labelled the process as repressive. We cannot pretend that these voices are entirely wrong, or that there is absolutely no sense in what these pockets of dissent are saying.
As obtains in all systems of government the world over, we agree that the Tinkhundla system of governance must go through some periodical metamorphosis in line with global changes.
World trends and developments must be taken into account in all aspects of leadership so that a country is not left out or becomes irrelevant in the global scheme of things.
Constructive
However, as a newspaper we believe that the only way to influence positive and constructive change to the system of governance in the country is not through a boycott of the elections.
On the contrary, we believe that the Swazi nation should decide on change peacefully via the polls; Far from it. His Majesty King Mswati in has promised the world that the leadership will ensure that conditions for a free and fair election exist.
It is not through a boycott inspired by a handful of people that we can put His Majesty's resolve to the test. It is by participating in the elections that we can change the course of Swaziland's future.
It was the people of Swaziland that called for a change in the country's election system from one of an electoral college to that of direct representation.
They did not see to these changes through a boycott of the electoral process, but by openly engaging the leadership and advancing compelling arguments which had the interests of the majority at heart.
The voice of the people was heard and there was no stopping the wave of popular demand. There are no compelling reasons to abandon that route now.
In fact, there is more to gain in participating in the poll than hi boycotting the process. Another point to ponder is that by wavering one's right to vote, one would be indirectly endorsing the system - as is. Look at it this way.
You do not register to vote because you say there are serious flaws in the system of governance. In fact, you do not vote because you say you are opposed to the system.
Your neighbour, who may be a stalwart, goes to register and fully participate in the system. What you have already done - wittingly or unwittingly - is that you have handed over your fate and future to the people you are so opposed to.
You will neither have the opportunity nor access to influence the direction the country will take -politically and otherwise.
You may complain to the international community about being left out, but your voice may not be heard as you will be told that you gave up your right to influence change.
One may be tempted to think that the route of violence may be the next option - but that is something else because once it starts, it never ends.
Sustainable
Whether that would be a sustain-able route in the circumstances is another matter to be discussed later. But, as a newspaper we would like to urge everyone to go to register to vote and to participate fully in exercising one's right to vote and choose a government that will represent the interests of the majority of the Swazi people.
Over the next few days, we will partner with the structures entrusted with ensuring a free, fair and credible election to bring you information about your rights, recourse, electoral resource material, polling stations, your options and all that you need to know about the process.
We shall not give up our calling to be a credible and critical newspaper. We shall not be in bed with the authorities. But, our first and last stop will be the interests of the ordinary public we serve.
We shall remain professional and balanced in everything that we do and there shall be no group of people - conservative or progressive -that will be denied reasonable space in the newspaper.
However, we have taken a position as a newspaper. We support the national elections and call upon all eligible Swazi people to exercise their right to vote.
Chief editor
5 May 2008
EDITORIAL COMMENT
YOUR VOTE, YOUR POWER
THE country is going to the polls later this year. Two weeks from now (May 19 - June 22,2008) registration begins.
The Swazi Observer Group of Newspapers would like to encourage every Swazi of the voting age to exercise his or her right to vote for a government of their choice. Your vote is your power.
It is only through honest participation in the elections that the Swazi nation can influence the political direction the country is to take. To waiver that inalienable right would be like shooting ourselves in the foot.
We have noted pockets of dissenting voices calling for an umbrella boycott of the elections and have listened to some of the reasons advanced for such a stance.
Those calling for the boycott of the process have told us that it is undemocratic and not in line with the universal protocols regarding elections.
They have also labelled the process as repressive. We cannot pretend that these voices are entirely wrong, or that there is absolutely no sense in what these pockets of dissent are saying.
As obtains in all systems of government the world over, we agree that the Tinkhundla system of governance must go through some periodical metamorphosis in line with global changes.
World trends and developments must be taken into account in all aspects of leadership so that a country is not left out or becomes irrelevant in the global scheme of things.
Constructive
However, as a newspaper we believe that the only way to influence positive and constructive change to the system of governance in the country is not through a boycott of the elections.
On the contrary, we believe that the Swazi nation should decide on change peacefully via the polls; Far from it. His Majesty King Mswati in has promised the world that the leadership will ensure that conditions for a free and fair election exist.
It is not through a boycott inspired by a handful of people that we can put His Majesty's resolve to the test. It is by participating in the elections that we can change the course of Swaziland's future.
It was the people of Swaziland that called for a change in the country's election system from one of an electoral college to that of direct representation.
They did not see to these changes through a boycott of the electoral process, but by openly engaging the leadership and advancing compelling arguments which had the interests of the majority at heart.
The voice of the people was heard and there was no stopping the wave of popular demand. There are no compelling reasons to abandon that route now.
In fact, there is more to gain in participating in the poll than hi boycotting the process. Another point to ponder is that by wavering one's right to vote, one would be indirectly endorsing the system - as is. Look at it this way.
You do not register to vote because you say there are serious flaws in the system of governance. In fact, you do not vote because you say you are opposed to the system.
Your neighbour, who may be a stalwart, goes to register and fully participate in the system. What you have already done - wittingly or unwittingly - is that you have handed over your fate and future to the people you are so opposed to.
You will neither have the opportunity nor access to influence the direction the country will take -politically and otherwise.
You may complain to the international community about being left out, but your voice may not be heard as you will be told that you gave up your right to influence change.
One may be tempted to think that the route of violence may be the next option - but that is something else because once it starts, it never ends.
Sustainable
Whether that would be a sustain-able route in the circumstances is another matter to be discussed later. But, as a newspaper we would like to urge everyone to go to register to vote and to participate fully in exercising one's right to vote and choose a government that will represent the interests of the majority of the Swazi people.
Over the next few days, we will partner with the structures entrusted with ensuring a free, fair and credible election to bring you information about your rights, recourse, electoral resource material, polling stations, your options and all that you need to know about the process.
We shall not give up our calling to be a credible and critical newspaper. We shall not be in bed with the authorities. But, our first and last stop will be the interests of the ordinary public we serve.
We shall remain professional and balanced in everything that we do and there shall be no group of people - conservative or progressive -that will be denied reasonable space in the newspaper.
However, we have taken a position as a newspaper. We support the national elections and call upon all eligible Swazi people to exercise their right to vote.
Chief editor
Friday, May 23, 2008
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
From Swazi Media Commentary http://www.swazimedia.blogspot.com/
Things are beginning to get interesting as Swaziland prepares for Parliamentary elections later this year (2008).
Opposition groups are set to boycott the polls and instead campaign for multi-party elections.South Africa’s Independent on Line (IOL) reported on Sunday (3 February 2008)
that a dozen political parties, civic organisations and student groupings met to endorse the formation of a united front within two months to challenge the status quo in Swaziland.
IOL quoted Mphandlana Shongwe, founder member of the banned People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), saying that taking part in elections would give the state a sheen of false legitimacy. PUDEMO is one of six political parties taking part in the broad movement.
IOL reported that Shongwe told a rally on Saturday, ‘For the past 24 years we have been able to deny the state legitimacy so we are proud of ourselves and we must not rest until we attain the goals we set for ourselves.’
Boycotting the polls in their current format would send a message to the world that change was required, he added.
‘Does it mean we have to start butchering people before the western world can realize that there was something wrong with the way the country was governed?’Any member of the front who wanted to stand in elections, likely to be held in October or November, would have to resign from his party, delegates concluded.Political parties were banned in 1973 when the late King Sobhuza II, father of incumbent King Mswati, determined that Westminster-style democracy promoted hatred.The constitution, rewritten in 2006, allows for freedom of association but people can only stand for elections as individuals.The front will be officially launched at a conference in early April where a name and constitution would be adopted.
Link http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/02/swaziland-election-boycott.html
First published 6 February 2008.
Things are beginning to get interesting as Swaziland prepares for Parliamentary elections later this year (2008).
Opposition groups are set to boycott the polls and instead campaign for multi-party elections.South Africa’s Independent on Line (IOL) reported on Sunday (3 February 2008)
that a dozen political parties, civic organisations and student groupings met to endorse the formation of a united front within two months to challenge the status quo in Swaziland.
IOL quoted Mphandlana Shongwe, founder member of the banned People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), saying that taking part in elections would give the state a sheen of false legitimacy. PUDEMO is one of six political parties taking part in the broad movement.
IOL reported that Shongwe told a rally on Saturday, ‘For the past 24 years we have been able to deny the state legitimacy so we are proud of ourselves and we must not rest until we attain the goals we set for ourselves.’
Boycotting the polls in their current format would send a message to the world that change was required, he added.
‘Does it mean we have to start butchering people before the western world can realize that there was something wrong with the way the country was governed?’Any member of the front who wanted to stand in elections, likely to be held in October or November, would have to resign from his party, delegates concluded.Political parties were banned in 1973 when the late King Sobhuza II, father of incumbent King Mswati, determined that Westminster-style democracy promoted hatred.The constitution, rewritten in 2006, allows for freedom of association but people can only stand for elections as individuals.The front will be officially launched at a conference in early April where a name and constitution would be adopted.
Link http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2008/02/swaziland-election-boycott.html
First published 6 February 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)