SWAZILAND: Troubled times rock tradition

King Mswati III is one of the last remaining absolute monarchs left on earth. While the monarchy has provided stability in fair times, its role in a more hostile environment is being questioned. Neil Ford reports.

Despite the great changes that have occurred in Southern Africa over the past decade, the region plays host to one of the world's last absolute monarchies. Apartheid has fallen in South Africa, Namibia has gained its independence and peace is becoming more firmly entrenched in neighbouring Mozambique with each year that goes by but King Mswati III of Swaziland has shown no inclination to give up control and hand power to a democratically elected parliament.

Mswati has ruled since 1986, when he succeeded his father Sobhuza II, who reigned for six decades. Despite his relative youth - the king is just 35 years old - he holds very traditional views on the power and place of the king. he has already taken 11 wives, although he has some way to go to catch up with his father, who was married over 60 times.

all criticism of the monarchy is forbidden and although the role of the legislature is to advise the king, in practice it seems to resemble a civil service rather than a government. In 2002, the judiciary highlighted the fact that there were several limitations on the power of the monarch but the king has refused to abide by the ruling.

Despite the lack of political change, there is a sizeable campaign for reform, largely in the form of illegal political parties and trade unions. Most of the reformers are content to see the king stay on, perhaps as a European style monarch who acts as a national figurehead but does not actually run the country. The monarchy's standard retort to the demands for change is that democracy and parliamentary rule have led to division and bloodshed in the rest of Africa, so Swaziland is better off under a traditional African monarchy, with a king who can act as a stabilising force.

At an Easter gathering in 2003, the king told religious leaders that he thought the fashion for democracy was unsuitable for Swaziland.

The trade union movement organised a boycott of the October 2003 parliamentary election in protest at the lack of democracy in the country, although a number of opposition politicians belonging to banned parties stood as independents. The electorate selected 55 members of the House of Assembly, while the king appointed the remaining 10.

As always, the post of prime minister was awarded by the king and in November 2003, Mswati III selected Absalom Thcmba Dlamini to head up the government. He previously ran Tibiyo TakaNgwane, the royal company that is designed to raise money for the country, but which political reformers argue generates income for the royal house. Dlamini is reputed to be an honest politician and is well respected within the country.

PILLARS OF SOVEREIGNTY

One of the reasons for the monarchy's survival in Swaziland is the fairly homogenous composition of the country - the vast majority of the population are Swazi and traditionally look to the Swazi king. This contrasts with the situation in other African countries with well-known royal houses, such as Uganda, where many people do not belong to the Baganda ethnic group.

Although much of Swazi society is fairly traditional and continues to support the king, state and therefore royal control of the media plays a large role in minimising political opposition. Apart from a Christian radio station and a single independent newspaper, all newspapers, television and radio stations are state controlled.

A new constitution was drawn up in 2003 but its publication has been delayed.

The president of the Swaziland National Association of Civil Servants, Elliot Mkhatshwa, says: "We know the constitution's content, and it is not representative of the democratic aspirations of the Swazi people".

The fact that the document has been drawn up and granted by the royal house means that it can just as easily be taken away. The last constitution was abolished in 1973, the same year that Sobhuza banned all political parties.

Mkhatshwa argues: " You can't have a constitution that says Swazis are entitled to human rights, and have those rights taken away when government determines they are not in the 'public interest'. The public interest is not defined. Any chief can tell you what to do."

Although parliament normally accedes to Mswati's will, it rejected his request for the state to fund the purchase of a $45m royal jet in 2002. The IMF warned that the purchase of the aircraft would send the wrong signal to the donor community and a protest march of over a thousand Swazis was also organised to campaign against the purchase. Outside and domestic criticism forced the king to accept parliament's decision but subsequent attempts to organise national strikes have met with little success.

The start of 2004 provided two excellent examples of the extent of royal influence over the country. Swazi schools were supposed to reopen on 20 January but the king ordered them to remain closed for an extra week, so that children could be used to weed the royal fields.