A Constitutional History of the Kingdom of Eswatini (Swaziland), 1960–1982

Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9783030247768
• eBook ISBN: 9783030247775
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: African History
• Index: History

Swaziland—recently renamed Eswatini—is the only nation-state in Africa with a functioning indigenous political system. Elsewhere on the continent, most departing colonial administrators were succeeded by Western-educated elites. In Swaziland, traditional Swazi leaders managed to establish an absolute monarchy instead, qualified by the author as benevolent and people-centred, a system which they have successfully defended from competing political forces since the 1970s. This book is the first to study the constitutional history of this monarchy. It examines its origins in the colonial era, the financial support it received from white settlers and apartheid South Africa, and the challenges it faced from political parties and the judiciary, before King Sobhuza II finally consolidated power in 1978 with an auto-coup d'état. As Hlengiwe Dlamini shows, the history of constitution-making in Swaziland is rich, complex, and full of overlooked insight for historians of Africa.

Part IIntroduction

© The Author(s) 2019

H. P. DlaminiA Constitutional History of the Kingdom of Eswatini (Swaziland), 1960–1982African Histories and Modernitieshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24777-5_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini¹

(1)

University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

Hlengiwe Portia Dlamini

End Abstract

Why a Book on the Constitutional History of Swaziland?

Swaziland is the smallest country in continental Southern Africa and has a fascinating history of constitutional development under a traditional monarchy. This work is historical in the sense that, almost everywhere, African traditional leaders vanished from the political scene as they made way for the new political elite,¹ none of whom had royal blood flowing in their veins. This is not the case in Swaziland, where the monarch played a preponderant role in its constitutional developments and effectively succeeded the departing British colonial administration. The constitutional history of Swaziland (renamed Eswatini in 2018 by King Mswati III) is largely unexplored, and yet it is a rich area for scholarly investigation by historians. This book responds to this hiatus in Swazi historiography. It focuses on the history of the constitution of Swaziland during the era of King Sobhuza II, and deals with colonial and post-colonial Swaziland from 1960 to 1982.

The encouragement and motivation I received from academics to write a book on the constitutional history of Swaziland can be contrasted with the sceptical attitude of many in Swaziland who felt it was not achievable: it was considered that such a work was too political and that embarking on such an endeavour was treading on dangerous ground. People are hypersensitive about political issues, which are rightly or wrongly associated with political activists labelled in Swaziland as ‘Progressives’, and who have been clamouring for multipartyism and a new constitutional dispensation since the ban on political activities in the 1970s.

I took up this challenge to write on a such a sensitive topic to demonstrate that academics have a privileged role to play in their societies in deconstructing myths and removing fear. African scholars have legitimate fears of indulging in political discussions due to victimization, but they cannot afford to distance themselves from the situation. The challenge of this book is to give a critical account of the history of Swaziland’s constitutional development, and to evaluate the label imposed on Swaziland as ‘the last absolute monarchy’² in Africa in constitutional terms. If Swaziland is the last absolute monarchy in Africa, where is the line-up of the other absolute regimes? Does the problem lay in absolutism or regime type? Generally, the African presidentialism displayed by most ‘life presidents’ is actually disguised absolutism.

The mainstream media³ also styles the Swazi monarchy as the ‘last absolute monarchy’ in Africa, which is clearly negative and alarmist, and generates generalized fear and uneasiness. Swazis have fallen easy prey to the Western notion of ‘political absolutism’ without fully appreciating and giving value to Swazi absolutism. The critiques of the Swazi constitutional order seem to ignore the fact that Swaziland is a traditional African kingdom that has endeavoured to design an original African political system that may not fit squarely within the Western framework.⁴ Furthermore, there is an exaggeration in the labelling of Swazi monarchical absolutism because, on a comparative basis, it is no more absolute than any other African political regime. The spotlight is on Swaziland due to its original African political system, and because it does not conform to the prescriptions of Western liberal democratic dictates. China would definitely not be treated in the same way as Swaziland.

Surprisingly, Swazi monarchists inadvertently subscribe to the thesis of an absolute monarchy when they clamour that the king’s powers should not be reduced but should, in fact, be expanded. They proclaim in public that the king of Swaziland should be given more powers because all powers belong to the king. This urgent desire for the king’s powers to be increased is captured in siSwati as Emandla eNkhosi. By publicly calling for the king to be given more powers, pro-monarchists are negotiating for an ultra-absolute monarchy. This stance should be contrasted with that of Swazi civil society and opposition groupings classified as Progressives, who are diehard opponents of absolute monarchism that have consistently and vehemently called for a return to constitutionalism and liberal democracy in Swaziland.⁵

It should be noted that royal absolutism as expressed in siSwati is seen as positive and, even, desirable. If monarchical absolutism is translated into English to describe the Swazi constitutional order, it becomes pejorative. So, the positive or negative attribute of monarchical absolutism is also a function of the language in which it is expressed. One could ask: What is wrong with having an absolute monarchy that ensures a fairly comparative distribution of state resources in an African continent inflicted with the force of inertia?⁶ I make a clear case for the historical processes of the making of an absolute monarchy in Swaziland: however, I qualify Swazi monarchical absolutism as the end product of this evolution as ‘benevolent’ and ‘functional’ absolutism. Following independence in 1968, King Sobhuza II instituted a benevolent despotic regime in Swaziland, the hallmark of which was the bringing together of all Swazis of different shades of political opinion under the firm control of a paternal monarch without necessarily resorting to persecution. Before King Sobhuza II’s demise in 1982, Swaziland recorded zero political prisoners in its cells and was described as ‘a paradise of human rights in the African continent’.⁷ In contrast, the notorious Idi Amin, Macías Nguema, and others made headlines as the greatest human butchers in contemporary Africa.⁸ I have not shied away from describing the constitutional system that King Sobhuza instituted as ‘absolute’ because it was. However, I have qualified and illustrated in this book the nature of Swaziland’s exceptional benevolent despotism, which stands out as a classic case in the African continent from an objective perspective. The problem and perception of royal absolutism lays in the way it is presented and in the agenda of the presenter.⁹

What Is a Constitution, and What Does Constitutional History Represent?

The term ‘constitution’ has been defined by a variety of scholars in various ways. On the one hand, Lane defines a constitution as a compact document that encompasses a number of articles about a state, laying down the rules that state activities are supposed to follow.¹⁰ According to this definition, a constitution is simply a list of instructions written in a document for a country. Lane further asserts that a constitution can be regarded as a single document that makes up the bulk of constitutional law.¹¹ On the other hand, Nwabueze defines a constitution as a document that has a force of law by which a society organizes government for itself, and defines and limits its powers, and prescribes the relations of its different organs.¹² Grimm describes the function of the constitution as follows:

By submitting all government to rules, a constitution makes the use of public power predictable and enables the governed to anticipate government behaviour vis-à-vis themselves and allows them to face government agents without fear. A constitution provides a consensual basis for persons or groups with different opinions and interest to resolve their disputes in civilised manner and enables peaceful transitions of power.¹³

Akpan defines a constitution as a political contract between the government and the governed.¹⁴ Ndulo and Kent asserted that a constitution represents the basic structure of any organized society.¹⁵ These authors argued that a constitution can be written or unwritten; however, concepts of formality appeared in post-colonial Africa. As a result, a constitution is now described as a single document, a charter for the exercise of political power.¹⁶ In essence, a constitution is that formal governance document that provides checks and balances on the powers of the state, and defines the distribution and operation of power amongst the various components of the country.

Maseko¹⁷ emphasizes that the constitution of a nation should not simply be a statute that mechanically defines the structures of government: it should be a ‘mirror reflecting the national soul’, the identification of ideals and aspirations of a nation, and the articulation of the values bonding its people and disciplining its government. A constitution should not be the act of a government but, rather, of a people constituting a government; a government without a constitution is power without right. A constitution is an account of the ways in which a people establish and limit the power by which they govern themselves, in accordance with the ends and purposes that define their existence as a political community. This elaborate definition is a pointer to the process of making a constitution that should be as important as the document and its observance.¹⁸

Constitutional history deals with the processes of the lawful formulation, adoption, and amendment of constitutions over time, as a constitution is not a static document. In typical British fashion, political actors of society—the legislature, executive officers, judiciary, political parties, and the general public—were continually engaged in the constitutional debates to design a constitution that represented the aspirations of the people. The study of constitutional history must, therefore, consider the full range of political and social institutions in a given country, and their involvement in shaping constitutional developments. The constitution that the British bequeathed to the Swazis was a product of several meetings involving several stakeholders. Constitutional history thus represents the processes involved in providing Swaziland with a constitution over time.

The Geo-Political Location, Ethnic Composition, and Outline of the History of Swaziland

Swaziland is the smallest country in continental Southern Africa and is devoid of any coastline. Sandwiched between Mozambique and South Africa, it encompasses an area of 17,363 square kilometres. It measures 135 kilometres from east to west, and 176 kilometres from north to south. It lies between the 26th and 27th latitudes south, and 31st and 32nd meridians east (Fig. 1.1).¹⁹

Fig. 1.1

Map of Swaziland (Eswatini) and its neighbours

(Source The US Central Intelligence Agency, courtesy of the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection)

Swaziland has four distinctly different topographical and climatological zones that run from north to south, and exist in parallel belts a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• Part I. Introduction
• Part II. Colonial Phase
• Part III. Post-Colonial Phase
• Back Matter