Free elections and democracy in Zimbabwe and Swaziland Now 04-03-08

 

Free elections and democracy in Zimbabwe and Swaziland Now!

COSATU, SACP, civil society and solidarity organisations to march to the High Commissions on Friday 7 March 2008 in Tshwane
Background
No one can claim not to know, by now, that SADC is facing a serious problem, arising from the political and socio-economic crisis facing the twin-sister countries of Zimbabwe and Swaziland. These countries are a menace to the spreading trend towards democracy in Africa.

The world has at best lamented and at worst collaborated with the aggressor regimes of the two countries: the Mugabe and Mswati oppressors. This is why the new initiative, called the South African International Solidarity Front, currently convened by COSATU has taken the bold initiative to confront these two countries and demand justice for the sister peoples of these countries.

2008 is a year of elections in both countries, with the Zimbabwe elections to be held on 29 March, whilst the date for the Swaziland one is yet to be announced, sometime towards the end of the year. But what stands out clear is that the conditions for elections in both countries militate against free and fair elections, with political parties officially banned in Swaziland, and the Zimbabwean people forced to make choices within ZANUPF-set frameworks.

We shall therefore be holding a march to the High Commissions of the two countries on Friday, 07 March 2008 in Tshwane (Pretoria), starting at 11h00. This march will bring together all activists and organisations working for democracy and social justice in these two countries and beyond.

We call on all progressive peoples of the world to do something now to end the looming disaster and stop the suffering of our sister peoples of Zimbabwe and Swaziland.

Zimbabwe - What went wrong?

In recent weeks the crisis in Zimbabwe has scaled new heights.

It has now become a norm for police to raid the offices of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions and of other political activists, particularly of MDC, harassing, threatening and beating staff, searching offices and seizing fliers, files and videotapes. They have arrested union activists campaigning in support of democracy and social justice in the country.

The government is stopping at nothing to crush the resistance of opposition parties, civil society organisations and the trade unions and ruthlessly trample on human rights.

Meanwhile the economy has collapsed. Annual inflation is now around 66 000% - the highest in the world, according to latest indicators. Unemployment is around 80%. Many people survive on grain handouts and around 28% of the population, many of them highly skilled, have fled into neighbouring countries looking for work.

There are regular shortages of food, fuel and foreign exchange. Maize production has dropped to less than half the amount people need to survive. The government cannot afford to maintain roads and railways.

Average life expectancy is now the lowest in the world - less than 37. The country is among the worst hit by Africa's HIV/Aids pandemic, with 18% of the adult population HIV positive.

How has Zimbabwe sunk so low, from the days when it was liberated in 1980?

But the underlying social problems of poverty, unemployment and inequality remained and were made even worse by the IMF and World Bank-inspired economic structural adjustment programmes (ESAPs), which left the government without a coherent economic strategy. To this were added the unfair terms of trade, which hit all developing countries.

The government began to move away from redistributive economic policies towards measures to attract foreign investment. Investment in health, education and other social services was cut. Privatisation and public service downsizing led to retrenchments.

The government also failed to address the land question, which had always been at the core of the liberation struggle. The land was largely in the hands of whites, but for 20 years the government did nothing.

Then, to deflect attention from its growing economic problems, it suddenly launched its chaotic land grab campaign, to mask its previous failures and to shift focus from other government failures.

It flagrantly disregarded the law and unleashed a wave of violence by pro-ZANU-PF hooligans, much of it directed at farm workers. It was also a well-timed electoral gimmick by a leadership that had run out of ideas. It became a policy that discredited the whole land redistribution process.

Meanwhile the government became increasingly heavy-handed, intolerant of dissent and political plurality, expressed in the tendency to label anyone one who criticises government as counter-revolutionary and an enemy of the revolution. The government has ruthlessly repressed the trade union movement - the mainstay of the forces calling for change.

Meetings and demonstrations have been banned; leaders have been arrested and beaten and the government has tried to infiltrate their stooges. Yet it has nevertheless has stood firm against the most intolerable attacks.

If transformation does not change the material conditions of the formerly oppressed - replacing white with black rulers - then it is a cosmetic change. Failure to resolve the pressing issues of the society leads to disillusionment, disenchantment and a lack of interest in the transformation project. The government for a long time failed to address critical issues facing the masses. But, in Orwellian fashion, turns up the revolutionary rhetoric to try to whip up support. It embraces neo-liberalism one moment, only to discard it towards elections, and then immediately after the elections readopts IMF-World Bank-type ESAPs.

Does this mean that it is inevitable that liberation movement leaders, once they have tasted power, get corrupted and bureaucratised? Is it inevitable that they become aloof from the masses and talking above their heads? We do not believe that the bureaucratisation of democratic movements is inevitable but to keep the democratic movement vibrant and democratic it must retain its link with the people. There are no quick-fix solutions for Zimbabwe's economic, political and social woes, but the key to any solution has to be the broadest possible mass movement, led by the organised working class, in support of democracy and human rights.

The aim of progressive forces should be to assist the process of building unity for the people of Zimbabwe, which should aim to build a broad-based government of national unity, with a development strategy focusing on investment in infrastructure, job creation and political democracy. Having said this, the solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe must emerge from within rather than imposed from outside. Zimbabwe is supposed to be going for elections next month, yet there is little to show regarding an environment conducive to free and fair elections, let alone the space for the active consolidation of democracy for development and national stability.

The SADC process, according to the MDC has failed, and has been a sheer waste of time. We too are not yet sure what concrete deliverables can be pointed to from this process, let alone the fact that it is not transparent and all-inclusive for the all-round participation of the Zimbabwean people, through their democratic representative organs of civil society.

Why Swaziland has escaped the international human rights radar for so long?

Swaziland got its independence from Britain in 1968 under King Sobhuza. However, this was merely a transfer of power from the British colonial masters to a neo-colonial monarchy, through which the British sought to re-establish its domination and exploitation.

The nature of this monarchy was defined the King's 1973 proclamation to the nation:

"Now, therefore I, Sobhuza 11, king of Swaziland, hereby declare that, in collaboration with my cabinet ministers and supported by the whole nation, I have assumed supreme power in the kingdom of Swaziland and that all legislative, executive and judicial powers is now vested in myself and shall, for the meantime be exercised in collaboration with my cabinet ministers.

"I further declare that to ensure the continued maintenance of peace, order and good government, my armed forces have been posted to all strategic places and have taken charge of all government places and all public services. All political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about disturbances and ill-feelings within the nation are hereby dissolved and prohibited."

This decree laid the basis for the current political architecture, where politics are the exclusive preserve of the ruling royal elite. In 1978 they introduced a system of called tinkhundla, which sought to entrench the hegemony of royal supremacy and deepen the semi-feudal and neo-colonial character of Swazi society. It fragmented Swazis into competing localities called tinkhundla in the name of "unique and home-grown democracy", which is directly in conflict with the universal principles of democracy.

The role of apartheid South Africa was conspicuous in this development. The Afrikanerbroederbond played a critical role in the proclamation of the state of emergency in 1973, because it was also threatened by emerging progressive forces, particularly organised workers. There was also a steady substitution of British by South African capital, which plays a critical role in the economy.

The security forces were also largely integrated into the apartheid security strategy, with open collaboration between the two states that led to the deaths of numerous cadres of the liberation alliance on Swazi soil.

The abduction, kidnapping, murder and systematic persecution of political activists of both the Swazi and South African liberation movements intensified after the secret 1982 pact between the two governments, and the 1984 extradition treaty.

The world has conveniently remained silent about Swaziland and allowed the ruling royal regime to get away with murder. The world remains silent, after a regime has been allowed to enforce a state of emergency for more than 34 years.

Amnesty International raised, on several occasions, the issue of extreme police brutality in Swaziland. Its fact-finding mission's report was terribly damning on the Swazi security forces.

So the situation in Swaziland has escaped the international human rights and democracy radar for far too long and there is an urgent need to put it back under the international spotlight.

Why does the Commonwealth and Britain apply double standards when it comes to Swaziland? Why does it not apply smart sanctions against the stubborn regime for refusing to unban political parties and political activities in general?

Why would the Commonwealth see fit to support and heap praises on a constitution that entrenches the power of the ruling aristocracy and to affirm the state of emergency, yet unequivocally demand clear guidelines for democracy elsewhere?

Could this be the reason for the confusing role of Commonwealth and the British government, including the allegations that they objected to the application of smart sanctions against Mswati at the EU level?

Poor people are on the receiving end of the regime's viciousness, with more and more Swazis being forced to cross the borders into South Africa in search of jobs, yet the country is well endowed with abundant natural resources that have become a preserve of a tiny ruling minority.

Finally, the following conditions obtain as regards the royal elections:

· Political parties remain banned, with the exception of the royal broederbond, which is the only legal political force that has monopoly over the entire political life of our country as an organised force

· The new constitution of the monarchy, itself a direct off-shoot of the king's decree of 1973, bans political parties and criminalises all forms of political activity and the basic rights to associate and organise, not to mention demonstrations and marches

· Parliament is nothing but a rubber stamp and stooge of royal power. It has no power to determine anything that is not in the interest of the royal family and the monarchy, aside the fact that it is largely comprised of royalists and their apologists

· The media and judiciary are extensions and auxiliaries of the royal establishment, independence is a luxury they cannot afford.

· Political activists are regularly detained for their peaceful political activities, which are in anyway, illegal even according to the new constitution proclaimed by the king recently

Summary of lessons from the two countries

The paths are different, the scales are uneven, but the effects are the same - the continued exploitation and oppression of the poor as under colonialism. The prime lessons from these three comparisons indicate the following factors:

· The political structures of these countries and their post-colonial configuration vary, but the fundamentals of parasitic accumulation and growth path

· The elites that drive neo-liberalism in these countries differ on how they developed, with some emerging from the ranks of anti-colonial struggles, whilst others were off-shoots of surrogate accommodation with colonial interests, but they all became fully integrated into the orbit of global capital accumulation and parasitism as junior partners of the powerful forces of global capital, transforming them into elites acting to protect their own interests and those of global capitalism in general.

· Britain as the former colonial power is partly responsible for the continuing crisis in these countries, cannot just play an innocent angel or honest opinion-maker on the situation in these countries. In fact, Britain, through the Commonwealth and on its own accord, plays double standards, outrightly condemning Zimbabwe, but doing all it can to protect the Swazi monarchy in Swaziland, though uncomfortably condemning the recent electoral outcomes in Kenya.

· The ideological arsenal of these different elites take different forms with some of them resorting to patriarchal, narrow semi-feudal values in the name of culture and tradition, whilst others resort to anti-imperialist rhetoric blended with revolutionary phrase mongering. This is not to undermine instances where, for whatever reason, some of these forces have really threatened imperialism, but essentially, they facilitate imperialist accumulation in general. The deployment of reactionary ideologies to demobilise society and destroy organs of social revolution and intensified patronage have characterised the essence of all their approaches.

· Finally, they (ruling elites) all are determined to maintain, whatever the cost in human and other terms, their power and privileges. In other words, they are prepared to go to any extent to keep themselves in power. Elections therefore, are an integral part of renewing their legitimacy and tightening their hold on the whole of society.

Our demands

The Zimbabwean and Swazi governments must create conducive conditions for free and fair elections, by:

o Free multiparty electoral contest on the basis of universally acclaimed democratic principles and standards, as set out in various international protocols

o Ensuring a free and independent electoral commission runs the elections, without fear or favour

o Ensuring that all organisations and political parties are able to canvass their opinions freely and have full access to the media, judiciary, security and other institutions of society

o Ensuring that all candidates have access to all social institutions and that the police do not act as a private army of the ruling regime, but serve all the people equally

We urge SADC to stop being too accommodative to the machinations and manipulative tendencies of Mswati and Mugabe, but take serious steps to demand a clear process without firm timeframes and drastic measures to enforce all these requirements.

For more information, please phone Bongani Masuku, COSATU International Relations Officer, on 011 339 491 or 079 499 6419.