Opposition rethinks boycott strategy

Swaziland's banned political parties and pro-democracy groups are conceding they may have harmed their cause by boycotting recent parliamentary elections. "If you are in the wilderness, you need all opportunities to be heard. All platforms, even government bodies, must be utilised," Ntombi Nkosi, president of the women's league of the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress (NNLC), told IRIN. Nkosi was an unsuccessful candidate for Member of Parliament in the October elections. However, the president of the NNLC, Obed Dlamini, was elected. "I will be speaking for myself and my constituency, but what I will be saying is the NNLC agenda," Dlamini said recently. Dlamini was prime minister from 1989 to 1993, when his refusal to imprison pro-democracy demonstrators contributed to his replacement by the conservative royal leadership. His party met this week at Mhlume, home of the large sugar estates in eastern Swaziland, where workers affiliated with agricultural unions are at the forefront of the political reform movement. Dlamini's decision to participate in the parliamentary polling disappointed some members of the Swaziland Democratic Alliance, an umbrella group of banned political parties, labour organisations and human rights and legal bodies, which called for the boycott. Jan Sithole, secretary general of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions, told IRIN prior to the October elections: "The elections are not legitimate - to participate in them would lend credibility to them. We are saying, have elections under a democratic system that will produce a genuine representational body that has real governing power." However, other pro-democracy organisations feel they may have shot themselves in the foot by failing to join Dlamini in parliament. "The people want change. They are tired of living under a royal system where their voices are not heard. It is illegal to declare you are a member of a political party – a chief can expel you from your home if you say so – but the people know who is a political progressive. They have followings; they could be elected MPs," said Jerome Shongwe, a member of the Swaziland Youth Congress, affiliated to the People's United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), which is believed to be Swaziland's largest opposition party. PUDEMO and opposition groups within the Swaziland Democratic Alliance observed the electoral boycott. Now some PUDEMO members are having second thoughts at year-end strategy meetings, as they assess efforts to move Swaziland away from monarchical rule. "Obed Dlamini and one or two other progressives are now gadflies in parliament. Dlamini is outnumbered ten to one by King Mswati's royal appointees. Most of the 55 elected MPs are politically neutral - they have no political agendas at all, because politics is banned in Swaziland," said one PUDEMO member. But if more pro-democracy activists had participated in the elections, Dlamini could have been at the centre of a group of parliamentary backbenchers who could exert influence, suggested the PUDEMO member, who asked not to be named for fear of losing his job as a public servant. As with the elections, a reassessment is underway in a response to Swaziland's controversial new constitution which King Mswati will decree into law early next year. Written by his brothers Princes Mangaliso and David Dlamini, the constitution perpetuates a ban on political opposition to royal rule, while strengthening palace power over the executive, judicial and legislative arms of government. King Mswati insists the constitution represents the will of the Swazi people, and was assembled after a consultation process with local communities. Labour leader Sithole said a "boycott" of the constitution by pro-democracy groups would not be practical, unless an alternative constitution existed. Instead, "We will test every clause of this constitution. Where the constitution says there is freedom of assembly, we will assemble. Where the constitution says there is freedom of speech, we will speak. We expect the authorities to act as they have always acted, and crack down with brute force whenever people raise dissenting voices," Sithole alleged.