Meeting Summary
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation briefed the Members on developments in Swaziland as per their request. The Acting Director-General (Acting DG) was grateful for the opportunity and deemed it opportune to share the ministry’s perspective about developments in Swaziland. He gave a historical view of the Swaziland crisis tracing it back as far as 1983, which was during King Sobhuza’s reign. He depicted how Swaziland became an absolute monarchy, introducing political repression which characterised the Swazi political landscape. The presentation showed how the situation in Swaziland has deteriorated and how civil society has resisted the monarchy. It also spoke to the failure of domestic political dialogue initiatives. The presentation showed desperate measures employed by the political opposition to draw the King and Councils attention to the wishes and aspirations of democratic forces within Swaziland. Instead of embarking on a democratic route, the monarchy has dug in its heels through declaring decrees and detaining political opponents.
Due to the geographic proximity, historical, cultural and linguistic affinities between South Africa and Swaziland, the impact was felt through the republic and beyond which undermined the regional integration and security. The resistance from pro democracy has culminated into a series of protests and acts of sabotage in the form of bombing attempts by sympathisers allegedly from South Africa. This has impacted on the diplomatic realm between the two countries. As a regional leader and the country most affected by Swaziland’s situation, South Africa has been under pressure to resolve this crisis. The recent global financial crisis has forced South Africa to seek effective ways to deal with the challenge.
The Committee debated the issue after the briefing. During the deliberations it became clear that South Africa could not afford the luxury of waiting for Swaziland to resolve their political differences. The attempt to do that would be equivalent to letting the country plunge both into serious conflict and economic turmoil with undesirable political ramifications for the entire region and South Africa specifically. Members suggested that the government should opt for parliamentary diplomacy where stakeholders would explore the possibility of a dialogue. Secondly, experts with an appreciation of how the monarchies and aristocracies function should be brought in to facilitate processes at a presidential level, which could lead to new constitutional monarchies with ceremonial responsibilities rather than executive and legislative powers. Members also suggested that the South African government should shift away from leaving the Swazis to their own devices, and rather explore the role of regional and continental institutions with the purpose of focussing their energies to resolve the political and economic impasse in Swaziland. With the guiding principles of South Africa foreign policy and its leadership role, it was seen as an opportunity to use its influence to effect changes in Swaziland before the situation become irreversible.
The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) stringent conditions for structural adjustment programmes were rejected by members, as it would exacerbate the already volatile position that Swaziland was in. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) was seen as one institution which could assist in accelerating changes in Swaziland. South Africa would play a prominent role in this regard.
Meeting report
Opening Statement
The Chairperson welcomed the Honourable Members of the Committee and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRC). He expressed pleasure at being able to spend time with the two ambassadors designate until the coming afternoon. He tabled two issues which members had to deal with on the day. They consisted of the briefing on Swaziland that the Committee had requested last week, and the continuation of the Committee workshop on public diplomacy. There were time constraints and the Committee had to use some of the workshop time to finish up some of its other work. He noted three apologies from Mr B Holomisa (UDM), Ms C Dudley (ACDP) and Mr M Booi (ANC), who could not attend the meeting today.
The Chairperson invited the Acting Director-General (Acting DG) and Deputy Director-General (DDG) to make the presentation and warned that there was a time constraint. He also expressed hope that the Members would be getting the hard copies of the presentation later on. He requested that the Committee spend an hour at the most, both on the presentation and engagement on the presentation.
Presentation on the Political Disturbances in Swaziland
The DDG expressed gratitude for being able to present the Ministry’s thoughts on Swaziland as request by the esteemed members of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation. He said that the Department thought that the briefing was timely as it afforded them the opportunity to share some of the latest developments in the Kingdom of Swaziland with whom South Africa bordered, had historical as well as economic and cultural ties with, and linguistic affinities to. Swaziland was an important neighbour of South Africa. He said that he was sure that members have been following developments in the Kingdom of Swaziland through various mediums. He stated that he would not be spending time on the small details, as this would afford the Committee time to discuss and provide counselling on how they think the Ministry should proceed with the issues that SA faced with Swaziland.
He began by giving a historical overview of the source of the political impasse, stating that Swaziland was facing socio-economic and political challenges due, largely, to the nature of its political system, which was in the form of a monarchy. The country was also heavily dependent on South Africa. Swaziland’s political system defined the challenges it faced. Swaziland, to date, was still a modified monarchy with both executive and executive powers which rested in King Mswati III. Following King Sobhuza’s ruling decree of 1953 in which he banned political parties and abandoned the country’s constitution, the political formations in Swaziland remained banned. This was followed by the arrest of leading political leaders such as the President of the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO), Mr Marion Masuku, who has been subjected to several spells of detention by Swazi authorities who regard the activities of his movement to be undermining the national security of the kingdom. The opposition could be divided into three parties, mainly PUDEMO, the National Liberatory Congress, and Sive Siyanqoba. All three parties wanted political change. One of their demands was the resignation of King Mswati and a change to the constitutional monarchy. The King has reportedly dismissed these appeals and has refused to talk to all of these movements, which he regards as the dissenting voices within the Kingdom. These movements have been clamouring and calling for political reforms, and has been keen to engage the King on the political future for the country based on the will of the people. All these attempts have been rebutted by the authorities who have refused to engage with these parties.
The demands of these formations varied, although one could say that they were united in calling for a parliamentary system. They were also united in calling for a monarchy along the lines of Lesotho, where there would be a constitutional monarchy without executive powers, and the power of parliament would represent the will of the people. Neither of them has called for a full republican system which did not see a role for the monarchy.
The key component to the Swazi crisis was economic as had been mentioned before. 85% of Swazi imports come from South Africa and 75% of its exports come to South Africa, which made the country heavily reliant on South Africa. The year 2010 saw a compounded situation as more calls for the political reforms increased and more pressure was put on Swaziland. These challenges continued to be compounded by the banning of political parties. Noticing the lukewarm response from the authorities, the pro democracy movements in Swaziland organised demonstrations on the 12th March and 18th April 2011. The Ministry saw the rise of agitation for reforms in Swaziland as influenced by political uprisings in Northern Africa and the Middle East. The political formations were calling for similar style of uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.
The momentum in Swaziland for political reforms seemed to have died out somehow. The authorities seem to have been able to maintain and contain the popular movements for democratic change in Swaziland. In 2008, Swazi authorities were shocked by an attempted bombing in Swaziland in which two bombers died when it prematurely exploded near the palace. One of them was a South African. From the Swazi security and intelligence apparatus there has been a concern about the role of South Africans in the destabilising Swaziland. The South African is currently being incarcerated in Swaziland and the South African Ministry is in constant contact with Swazi authorities calling for justice to be meted out within a reasonable time. In response to the bombings and political protests regularly organised by civil society and political movements, the Swazi authorities have promulgated a number of legislations regarding anti-terrorism and sedition, which are currently being challenged by pro reform movements.
It was evident that all these developments have generated a lot of international interest. There have been a lot of calls for South Africa to intervene to help Swaziland resolve its political problem. South Africa is committed to good neighbourliness and to allow countries to determine their own destiny. The Ministry put emphasis on building a cordial relationship, which was described as historic ties of friendship and affinity between South Africa and Swaziland. The situation in Swaziland provided South Africa with a window of opportunity to come up with an amicable solution to the current challenges. As indicated before, another dimension of the Swazi challenges was the economic crisis following the global recession. Swaziland was one of the countries that were severely affected. The manifestation of this was the drop in the revenue Swaziland received from the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). This meant that Swaziland got R1.5 billion during the 2010/2011 financial year compared to R5 billion in the previous financial year, which was a huge cut by any stretch of the imagination. It was a massive cut in the revenue which constituted 60% of the income for Swaziland. Swaziland’s economy is said to be underperforming compared to other SACU members reflecting both global challenges and lack of competitiveness. There is no industrial and manufacturing base in Swaziland. The country imports all finished goods from South Africa. It largely exports raw materials such as timber and so on. The prevalent solution for fiscal challenges was for Swaziland to adopt the structural adjustment programme known as SAR. In consultation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Swaziland has adopted SAR with certain stringent conditions on their economy. Conditions included a 10% salary cut for public servants, introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) and Capital Gains Tax which has never been levied in the Kingdom, the creation of a levy to collect revenue in the Swazi economy, freezing of the filling of vacancies, a cut in salary increases and the introduction of performance management to improve procurement, accounting and auditing services.
The national protest that was scheduled for 12 April 2011 went ahead as planned. Members saw how Swaziland authorities managed to contain and maintain the momentum and curtail protests. The South African government has called for calmness and restraint, and has urged the parties to opt for dialogue with the intention of finding a political solution to the problem. South Africa has availed itself to the Swazis to help them deal with the political challenges they face. Despite the Swazi authorities attempt to initiate a dialogue with the movements for reform, there has been a call for pluralism and reforms.
Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the Departmental officials and invited the Members input and questions from the floor.
Mr B Skosana (IFP) commented on the information that opposition parties were invited to a political dialogue, but that they refused. This was not a normal dialogue that parties would enter into; this dialogue would lead to a decree by the King’s council. He said there were early signs that Swaziland was going to be unstable politically. What happened in North Africa simply exacerbated Swaziland’s problems. There were political issues in Zimbabwe and Swaziland, which meant that the entire region was going to be very tense. He would not be for the border blockages this time if South Africa was asked to assist the country. Firstly, South Africa could apply parliamentary diplomacy. The president could talk to the Speaker who would form a multi-party forum led by the leaders of parties. That forum could be led by the speaker which will meet with the Kings Council and a forum from Swaziland to discuss certain issues before involving civic bodies from religious and cultural groups. This would allow them to see how Swaziland would be able to move, peacefully, towards constitutionality. The forum would discuss how the monarchy worked and see how Swaziland could work towards a constitutional monarchy or constitutional aristocracy. Secondly, the South African President could elect the council of advisors from those people who have experience on the workings of the monarchy and working of the aristocracy. The president would have to request these advisors to work with the Swazi King monarchy, which would constitute the preparatory process for the talks. That could pave the way for the Swaziland Council and advisors to reach a political settlement peacefully.
Mr K Mubu (DA) expressed his gratitude for the presentation and added on to the discussion regarding the reluctance of the opposition to take part in the discourse. He stated that one reason cited for the reluctance was the demand that all political prisoners be released as a precondition for any participation, a claim which Swazi Authorities denied. He also said that Swazi government’s involvement with the IMF did not seem to him as the answer to their economic problems. He observed that every country that has adopted the Structural Adjustment Programmes have been a dismal failure. According to him, a number of governments have collapsed as a result. It seemed that the measures being imposed were a recipe for trouble and serious political implosion for that country. What made it worse was that the King lived an opulent and extravagant lifestyle in the midst of serious poverty in a country where at least 40% of its adults are infected with HIV. It seems that Swaziland is one of the products of colonialism where artificial states were created without any economic backbone at all; they were created out of a false impression that it would become economically viable in future. What the world is seeing now is the result of that notion. He noted that Mr Skosana mentioned the importance of South Africa’s involvement in the matter and looking at the case of Zimbabwe, SA took too long to get involved. If South Africa took too long to get involved in Swaziland, the Zimbabwean experience could be repeated. A lot of people would be running into South Africa because their situation would deteriorate. Many of them would be looking for jobs and fearing for their lives. South Africa had to take serious steps to try to address the situation.
The Acting DG, Ambassador Jerry Matjila, answered that the IMF came into the picture because it had to guarantee a $100 million loan that the ADB had to give to Swaziland. The IMF has put a number of conditions on the loan. This was a reality many developing countries faced, not only Swaziland. There were many other developing countries that continued to be strangulated by these austere measures imposed by international financial institutions, to the extent that the countries cannot get assistance from other donors. Swaziland found itself in this kind of situation and had to go to the IMF and accept these very tight and stringent conditions. Unfortunately, these conditions are likely to exacerbate the situation rather than to solve it.
Ms C September (ANC) also expressed gratitude for the presentation and concurred with Hon Skosana that the economic recession has brought Swaziland to its knees. She said that it was just a matter of time before Swaziland experienced an economic meltdown was about to happen. Swaziland’s situation was a culmination of many things that happened. She said that many Swazi people were already in South Africa because the problem did not start yesterday. She asked how the Southern African Development Community (SADC) was dealing with that reality as she feared that the failure, like the one in Zimbabwe, was eminent. She deplored the involvement of IMF, and the advice it gave Swaziland, as it could plunge the little country into a further crisis and compound it further than it has. She urged the PC to call for speedy reform of international institutions such as the IMF. She suggested that Portfolio Committee must collaborate with the Department of Labour (DoL) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) due to serious labour atrocities committed towards workers in Swaziland. The ILO had to assist as they were part of the decision makers that would go and take a severe decision against Swaziland. There are different fronts from which pressure could be exerted. She did not understand the African Union’s (AU’s) and the SADC’s position on this matter.
Ambassador Matjila replied that South Africa has a specific role to play, especially within the AU and the SADC. Indeed the AU, and particularly the SADC, had roles in defence and security. Therefore they had been entrusted with maintaining peace and security, especially in Swaziland. South Africa would assume the leadership of organ troika in August, currently chaired by Zambia. This would be the time that the issue of Swaziland would be discussed. He reported that there is an extraordinary summit organised for SADC for the month of May. The summit was originally convened to deal with Zimbabwe and Madagascar but he suspect that Swaziland would be discussed as well with a view of finding and making proposals on how Swaziland could be helped to overcome these economic challenges. He did not think that the AU would get involved at this point, except to make public pronouncements consistent with its protocols. He said that he thought AU would defer to the SADC in order to try to find a solution to the problem.
He said the ministry took note of the comments made about labour. He pointed out that comments would be handled by the ministry of labour and the labour unions when they meet in Geneva in two months time. They would discuss the labour and social dimension of the current crisis. Attention would be paid particularly on the impact caused by the austerity measure, including the reduction in salaries of workers and the wage cuts imposed for the next three years. These measures were likely to further exacerbate Swaziland’s precarious and fragile economic situation.
Mr S Mokgalapa (ANC) echoed the sentiments of his colleagues and argued that he did not believe that throwing money at the problem would solve it. He said that the view that Swaziland’s problem was compounded by recession was mind-boggling as the issue has been there for centuries. He argued that the PC knew that the solution for Swaziland was political and that is what it required. He agreed with Hon Skosana’s suggestion of proceeding towards a constitutional monarchy; however, he cautioned against the view that the country had to be left to its own devices to resolve political challenges. He pointed out the case of Zimbabwe. He did not buy the idea that this issue had to be left to Swaziland to resolve, claiming that all the Members knew this was an impossible mission. He also said that South Africa as the regional leader and upcoming chair of the SADC had to play a more proactive role in making sure there was political reform in Swaziland. He also said that South Africa is a significant player and contributor in the country. He was aware that there were already Swazi’s in South Africa, but wondered about the extent to which SA was able to contain the situation before it could get out of hand. He said that there was consensus on the need to deal with the Swaziland issue before there was another matter similar to what happened with Zimbabwe. He said that this had a destabilising effect on the entire region. He reminded the PC that one of the South African foreign policy principles were that of regional integration, which could not wait while the region was in the process of collapsing. He concurred with Hon September’s questioning of the AU stance on Swazi question. He alluded to the charter that prided itself with good governance principles which had to be used this time in Swaziland. Although he understood that the charter of document was not “alpha and omega”, but it had some salient points that could be used for reforms in ensuring stability in the region.
Mr E Sulliman (ANC) noted that the Committee had an hour to hear the Swaziland briefing and engage with the presentation. He recommended that in order for the Committee to do justice with this issue, they had to come back in two or three weeks and convene a special meeting to discuss the matter further. The meeting would be held for Members to make recommendations on what could be done to resolve the Swaziland matter.
The Chairperson noted Hon Sulliman’s proposal and handed over to the Acting DG to respond to issues raised.
Ambassador Matjila expressed gratitude for the comments and promised to take the recommendations to the highest office. He said that the recommendations would assist the Ministry to fashion and inform the strategy for engagement with Swaziland. He promised to take the recommendations into consideration in an attempt to mitigate the impact of the current crisis. South Africa could not afford to bury its head when Swaziland and other countries in the region were facing such difficulties.
The Chairperson noted that there was a general consensus that the discussion would not be exhausted today and further engagement would be needed after the elections when members come from the recess. He stated that the Committee would keep the ministry abreast. He said that everyone agreed that the discussion on Swaziland would have to take place in the context of peace and stability in the sub-region of the SADC. He indicated to other Members that when they engaged on Swaziland, they also had to engage on Madagascar, Zimbabwe and some other countries in order to take a broader view of what was happening in the world.
The meeting was adjourned.
