Year in Review 2005 - Constitution tests opposition's staying power

The Swazi government will start 2006 with a publicity campaign for its new constitution, a document that has been at the centre of much controversy, but which few people have actually seen. Signed in July by Swaziland's absolute monarch, King Mswati III, the constitution comes into force later this month. But legal commentators are still unsure whether its wording can be interpreted to legalise opposition political organisations. Throughout 2005, analysts noted the constitution's split personality: the document is socially progressive, overturning centuries-old Swazi customs to permit equality for women, while on the other hand it is politically conservative, making no specific mention of the right of political parties to exist, and the absolute powers of the king, first assumed by Mswati's father in 1973, are also retained. "What does it change politically? That is the main question," said Paul Shilubane, president of the Swaziland Law Society. The king will continue to appoint the prime minister and cabinet, principal secretaries, chiefs and high court judges, and can dissolve parliament. A Bill of Rights mentions freedom of speech and assembly, but there is a caveat - all rights bestowed upon the Swazi people in the constitution can be abrogated by the king if he considers them to be in conflict with the public interest. King Mswati, Prime Minister Themba Dlamini and other officials noted during the year that if faults were found in the constitution they could be handled through amendments. But for now, the government insists that the majority of Swazis like being ruled by a king and distrust political parties. "We have every reason to be optimistic about the future under the new constitution, which was signed by His Majesty King Mswati III. The 'rule of law crisis' is over," asserted government spokesman Percy Simelane, referring to the king's refusal to accept earlier legal rulings aimed at limiting his powers. Some special interest groups representing business, women, children and the elderly are sanguine about life under the new national law. "We look forward to the enactment of the constitution - women will be able to own property, take out bank loans, sign contracts and assume the rights of adulthood for the first time," said Thab'sile Khumalo, a women's rights activist in the commercial city of Manzini. Inclusion of the death penalty in the new constitution, at a time when neighbouring South Africa and Mozambique have abolished capital punishment, has drawn objections from human rights groups. But the business community is happy with the constitution's protection of private property rights. "This will be good for foreign investment in the country. We in business need such assurances," said a Swazi entrepreneur who works in the capital, Mbabane, but preferred not to divulge his name because he is part of a consortium that includes international partners and is planning to invest in the country's mining sector. The contentious issue of mineral rights, which has put the issuing of mining and prospecting licenses on hold for years, is addressed in the constitution, potentially unlocking the nation's iron ore and diamond deposits. Tens of thousands of Swazi mine workers were retrenched in South Africa during recent years, and reopened mines would help ease an unemployment rate that climbed to 45 percent in 2005. Despite the positive aspects of the document, Swaziland's pro-democracy movement was unrelenting in its hostility to the constitution, and the nine-year drafting process. The Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civil Organisations, an umbrella group of labour, human rights, legal and pro-democracy groups, described the constitution-making process as a palace-run operation that excluded input from progressive political forces. But no "alternative constitution" was presented to the Swazi nation, though one was promised. "We will test the constitution by street action and court challenges," said Jan Sithole, Secretary-General of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU). The federation failed to enlist the cooperation of its members, much less the general public, when it called for a national strike in January 2005 to protest the constitutional process. A march on Lozitha Palace, 25 km east of Mbabane, was called in November by SFTU and its civil coalition partners, but organisers cancelled the demonstration when another poor turnout looked likely, and police warned that marchers would not be permitted anywhere near the palace. "People are afraid of getting beaten and gassed by the police, and why shouldn't they be? What does it achieve?" said a student at the University of Swaziland, located near Lozitha Palace. The police had unleashed club-wielding Special Forces on students the month before, when they marched to the education ministry in Mbabane demanding the resumption of bursaries. If 2005 saw no successful anti-government action on the part of pro-democracy groups, pro-government public displays were also absent. Commentators say Swazis are more concerned with the crises in their own lives: two-thirds of Swazis live in chronic poverty, according to UNDP; the health ministry acknowledges that over 40 percent of sexually active Swazi adults are HIV positive; the number of orphans created after AIDS kills their parents will rise by at least 10 percent this year, according to the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). "For most people, these were the issues of 2005, and they are the issues of 2006," commented a pastor, Albert Nxumalo. "Politics takes a back seat to survival for most Swazis today."