Eswatini / Swaziland - Politics
Eswatini is an absolute monarchy. King Mswati III and Queen Mother Ntfombi, the king’s mother, rule as co-monarchs and exercise ultimate authority over the cabinet, legislature, and judiciary. There is a bicameral parliament consisting of the Senate and House of Assembly, each composed of appointed and elected members. The king appoints the prime minister. Political power remained largely vested with the king and his traditional advisors. International observers concluded the 2018 parliamentary elections were free and fair.
Under the constitution, the king is the commander-in-chief of the defense force and commissioner-in-chief of police and correctional services. The Royal Eswatini Police Service is responsible for maintaining internal security as well as migration and border crossing enforcement and reports to the prime minister. The Umbutfo Eswatini Defence Force has domestic security responsibilities, including protecting members of the royal family, and it reports to the chief defense officer and the army commander. Traditional chiefs appointed by the king select and supervise volunteer rural “community police,” agents of the government who have the authority to arrest suspects accused of minor offenses for trial by an inner council within the chiefdom. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control over the security forces. There were reports that members of the security forces committed numerous abuses.
Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; political detainees; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media, including censorship; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly; restrictions on freedom of movement and residence within the territory of a state; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic human rights organizations; and the existence of the worst forms of child labor.
There were reports that the government or its agents committed extrajudicial killings. Civilian security forces refer cases to police for investigation into whether security force killings were justified, and to the Directorate of Public Prosecutions for prosecution. The military conducts its own investigations of defense force killings, followed by referrals for prosecution before military tribunals.
The law prohibits security forces from inflicting, instigating, or tolerating torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. It also establishes a disciplinary offense for officers who use violence or unnecessary force, or who intimidate prisoners or others with whom they have contact in the execution of their duties. There were numerous credible reports that security forces employed such practices. There were media reports of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by community police.
Most citizens who encountered the legal system did so through one of 13 traditional courts that adjudicate civil and minor criminal matters along with abuses of traditional law and custom. In general, chiefs preside over traditional courts. Traditional courts did not recognize many of the fundamental rights provided for in the constitution, particularly those involving women’s and children’s rights, and record keeping of traditional court proceedings was limited. Military courts may use confessions obtained under duress as evidence and may convict defendants based on hearsay evidence.
Civil society tension remained high since 2021 unrest, resulting in reports of citizens, businesses, and even government officials and parliamentarians not exercising their right to free speech in fear of direct and indirect retaliation by the government, and fear of targeting by unidentified opposition elements that claimed responsibility for violent actions.
a widespread culture of self-censorship existed among journalists, especially regarding reporting related to the king and the royal family. Most journalists and broadcast media avoided criticizing the palace due to fear of reprisals such as being professionally ostracized or losing paid government advertising in their outlets. One independent monthly magazine that covered sociopolitical topics reportedly lost advertising revenue from a parastatal after it published criticism of the royal family.
Self-censorship only applied to matters regarding the palace and was virtually nonexistent in relation to the government, which media frequently criticized. Daily independent newspapers routinely criticized government corruption and inefficiency but avoided criticizing the royal family.
Participation in the traditional sphere of governance and politics took place predominantly through chiefdoms. Chiefs were custodians of traditional law and custom, reported directly to the king, and were responsible for the day-to-day running of their chiefdoms and maintenance of law and order. Although local custom mandates that chieftaincy is hereditary, the constitution, while recognizing that chieftaincy is “usually hereditary and is regulated by Swati law and custom,” also allows the king to “appoint any person to be chief over any area.” As a result, many chieftaincies were nonhereditary appointments, a fact that provoked land disputes, especially at the time of the death of chiefs.
Political rights were restricted, although citizens could choose 59 of the 69 members of the House of Assembly in procedurally credible, periodic elections held by secret ballot. Under the constitution the king selects the prime minister, the cabinet, two-thirds of the Senate, 10 of 69 members of the House of Assembly, the chief justice and other justices of the superior courts, members of commissions established by the constitution, and the heads of government offices. On the advice of the prime minister, the king appoints the cabinet from among members of parliament.
Following unprecedented civil unrest and alleged abuses in 2021, the king expressed commitment to convene a national dialogue but took no action, and the government was nonresponsive to proreform civil society groups that called for dialogue. Citing national security concerns, the government narrowed the space for civil society, thus setting the stage for further unrest as evidenced by a nationwide shutdown of transport services in November and December 2022.
Eswatini held parliamentary elections on 29 September 2023, with political parties banned from contesting. With most candidates loyal to the king, the election is unlikely to change the political scenery in the kingdom formerly known as Swaziland. Only about a dozen of those nominated during primaries last month are known to have ties to the opposition. Many do not say which side they are on, fearing repression. “Democracy is not that much practised around here,” Thantaza Silolo, spokesperson for the largest opposition group, the Swaziland Liberation Movement (Swalimo), told AFP.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
