MOTIVE

• To update, inform and network the international community about the latest political situation in Swaziland.
• To appeal for assistance for the acquisition of an irreversible, participatory, all-inclusive, people-driven democratic dispensation.
• To highlight what pro-democratic forces including SFTU propose as an acceptable way forward.

This document will focus on the labour, socio-economic and political situation in Swaziland as from February 1998.

• The SFTU is a democratic organisation, and, as such, allergic to undemocratic systems of governance - whether they be military, feudal, aristocratic or dictatorial.
• The SFTU believes that government is a social contract between the governing and the governed.
• We also believe that governing should do so with the mandate of the governed.
• The SFTU believes that a multi-party environment is the best system of governance, because it allows opposition and dissenting views to be heard.
• The SFTU believes that no democracy can exist within a state of emergency when free political activity and the bill of rights are banned.
• The SFTU does not believe in cosmetic changes, but needs a true all-inclusive, participatory and people-driven process.
• The SFTU believes that human rights are not situational, but are the birthright for all of humanity, irrespective of where they come from (Swaziland included).
• And, of course, the SFTU believes that workers everywhere are a vehicle for social transformation.

In February this year (1998), when Parliament was opened, there were two outstanding processes, one of which was the re-drafting of the Industrial Relations Act and the cosmetic Constitutional Review Commission to address the democratic dispensation in Swaziland.

The other outstanding feature this year was that 1998 is the year of elections.

At this juncture , we were assured that an industrial relations law that would be in full compliance with the ILO standard would be processed and finalised shortly.

Following three years of both internal and international pressure on the Swazi Government concerning drawing up an Industrial Relations Act which would be in compliance with the dictates of the ILO Conventions, particularly Conventions 87 and 98 which Government had voluntarily ratified, international pressure has come from many international organizations. I will mention just a few :

• The ILO
• The ICFTU and all its affiliates
• Amnesty International
• AFRO (African Regional Organisation of the ICFTU)
• The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)
• The Commonwealth Trade Union Council (CTUC)
• The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC)
• The AFL-CIO of the United States
• The South African Trade Union Co-ordinating Council (SATUCC)
• The NUNW of Namibia
• Governments and Governmental Organizations.

Locally the pressure was applied by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions and other pro-democratic groups and occasionally the employers.

After a drafting committee was assembled from the social partners, with the assistance of the ILO experts, a draft was produced and was completed in March 1998. The hopes and expectations of the social partners, the ILO and the other partners were that the bill would be law before the 86^th Session of the ILO. The SFTU continued to pressurise but intransigence showed its head. Just a few days before the Conference in Geneva began, there was an announcement on possible dissolution of parliament, made by the Chief Electoral Officer. Immediately this announcement was made, the SFTU wrote to the Prime Minister (Dr Barnabas Dlamini) seeking clarification on the announcement, and also tabling a demand whose essence was:

Unfortunately, to date the Prime Minister has not responded to this concern.

The second aspect of this issue was that the Swazi delegation to the Geneva Conference met the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to discuss the concerns of the social partners, namely that:

• The Draft be transformed to a Bill of Gazette.
• The Cabinet make their comments and approve the acquisition of the certificate of urgency so that bill does not stay 30 days before being debated by Parliament.
• The assurance of the Minister to the delegation that when he arrived in Geneva, he should be in possession of the Cabinet minutes confirming Government's commitment with a certificate of urgency.

In Geneva it was unfortunate that when the Minister, who arrived almost two weeks after the Geneva Conference had started, had nothing to report since he had no Cabinet minutes confirming his undertaking.

During the hearing in the Committee of the Application of Standards, the Minister was grilled and made an undertaking to the effect that:

• A certificate of urgency will be provided by Government to facilitate a speedy transformation of the Bill into law.
• ILO assistance will be required wherever possible to achieve this task.
• Government is largely in support of a document that will finally be in conformity with the ILO standards.
• All efforts to transform the bill into law before dissolution will be made. In fact the Minister denied that there would be dissolution, and said that the newspapers should not be believed.
• The Minister even said the Electoral Officer has no mandate to call for dissolution of Parliament, and that only the King has that power.
• On the other hand the Minister said that three months before the date of elections Parliament must be dissolved to allow preparations for fresh elections.

• Swaziland Government must repeal the 1996 Industrial Relations Act and transform the current acceptable bill into law before dissolution of Parliament.
• Swaziland should restore civil liberties.
• Swaziland should repeal section 12 of the 1973 Decree of April 12^th
• Swaziland should repeal the Public Order Act of 1963.
• Swaziland should investigate the death of Noxolo Mdluli a 16 year-old schoolgirl.
• Swaziland must establish a free judicial inquiry to investigate the abduction of the SFTU Secretary General.
• Government was further urged to make sure that the above concerns are addressed both in law and in practice and should furnish the ILO with replies this year (1998).

It is disheartening to report that upon arrival, other forms of delaying tactics were employed, in the following manner:

• We were told that Cabinet is still going through the bill.
• After they had finished, we were told that :
• The Chief Justice has made other submissions and observations on the draft, which will need the re-establishment of the drafting committee.
• The Industrial Court Judge had made submissions, which also needed the attention of the drafting committee.

We insisted that whatever is done be finalised urgently. Indeed the submissions were considered by the drafting committee in four days and the bill was then left with the Cabinet. But still we insisted that the Draft should be gazetted and be accorded the certificate of urgency status, so that the dissolution of Parliament deadline be beaten.

Upon completion of this task, Government approved a bill, but failed to award a certificate of urgency. Subsequent to this act of intransigence, Parliament was dissolved on the 12^th of August 1998. This therefore means the bill cannot become law.

A Labour Advisory Board was assembled to bring pressure to bear on Government, offering the following options:

• The Bill be transformed into law through a royal decree.
• The Bill be transformed into law through the council of Ministers.
• The Bill be transformed into law after re-calling the Honourable Members of the dissolved Parliament.

We saw the whole state of affairs as having been deliberately created by Government because of its lack of sensitivity to the needs of the working masses.

Otherwise these could have been easily avoided .

• The Royal Decree option is unacceptable due to lack of transparency and to its being open to manipulation.
• The option to recall parliamentarians direct red-tape.
• The council of Ministers option allows no room for lobbying.

Worse still, most of the Cabinet Ministers have lost candidature in the nominations for the elections to the next Parliament, and, as such, will not have any incentive to be positive about the labour law.

Because of this state of affairs we have called a mass meeting on the 30^th of August, where resolutions will be taken for a final onslaught to achieve an industrial relations act that will be in conformity with the dictates of international labour standards.

We believe that the taste of the pudding is in the eating. Until we have the product we shall not rest. In the first 5 years we had many promises and processes without any product or delivery.

Following the fact that in 1996 the King appointed a "Constitutional Review Commission" (CRC) which was supposed to be a vehicle masterminding the democratic dispensation, this same vehicle was given by decree two years in which to complete its task, which two years were due to elapse in July this year (1998). Again in February 1998, it was announced that there shall be national elections in October. This announcement was made before the Constitutional Review Commission had been evaluated.

The fact is that, due to its undemocratic nature, this structure was not given a good reception by the people. The structure remains non-inclusive, but continues to operate in the presence of the state of emergency. The structure was not participatory, and was overloaded with traditionalists, royalists, chiefs and close relatives of the crown. Out of 33 delegates, there were only four progressives. The terms of reference of this structure were decreed and disallowed group participation and submission by groups or formations whether political or non-political - only individuals were expected to submit to this forum. All these undemocratic attributes of this structure caused the democratic alliance to disassociate themselves from it and to condemn the process as cosmetic and only meant to deceive the international community, and to leave them with illusion that there is a democratic dispensation process in place in Swaziland. We condemn this hypocrisy with the maximum contempt it deserves.

The progressive forces took a resolution to boycott the elections and further engage in a campaign against elections. The progressive alliance include the following civil society organizations, both political and non-political: students, unions, employers, farm dwellers, street vendors, human rights organisations, women, youth, the Law Society, disadvantaged groups and many others.

• The SFTU believes that the process of national elections should not go side by side with the democratic dispensation.
• We believe that if there was a genuine intention and political will to change, the CRC would have been democratically elected in an enabling environment where a bill of rights operates, and where freedom of political expression, association and assembly is guaranteed.
• We also believes that the reason why this structure was put in place was that the Swazi nation had realised without hesitation that change was necessary, and that the system of governance then in place did not enjoy the support of the Swazi people, and that there was an urgent need for democratisation.
• If the above summation is correct, then it makes no sense that on one hand you have a two year process which is designed to indicate the wishes of the people for a political direction, and then still re-instate the current undesirable system of governance for another 5 years.
• We do not want to be a party to blessing the current undemocratic, draconian system of governance which is neither transparent nor accountable to its citizens.
• We condemn this as systematic hypocrisy of the highest order.
• We believe that there comes a time when a man-made law becomes incongruent with the dictates of humanity and social justice and that such time has come in Swaziland.
• The demand for an all-inclusive constitutional form was made by the workers in their catalogue of the 27 demands. This stays, and demand no 21 still remains undelivered.
• As long as sections 12 and 13 of the 1973 decree are still in place, no democratic dispensation can be meaningful.
• Migrant workers in South African were registered without their knowledge, let alone their consent.
• On the 15^th August 1998, the King at the Royal Cattle Byre ordered everybody to go for elections.

Irrespective of the pressure from the traditional structures, of the electoral officer, of propaganda and the dictates of the King, the progressive forces have re-stated their stance and resolution publicly.

• On the nominations weekend of the 22^nd and 23^rd of August 1998, in many areas where our constituents were involved there were no nominations. The voter turn-out was embarrassing to the authorities to say the least.

• Tensions between the authorities and the conservatives, particularly the traditionalist structures, have grown.

• Repeal of Sections 2,11,12 and 13 of the 73 Decree
• We call for immediate suspension of the elections
• The dissolution of the present undemocratic constitutional form.
• Re-election of an all-inclusive, participative, people-driven constitutional forum.
• Encourage a national convention since we believe in a negotiated settlement
• Elections of an all-inclusive participatory interim authority whose tenure of office will be linked to the completion of the product of the constitutional process.

APPEAL

We thank you in advance for your maximum co-operation as always displayed in the past.