Common Country Assessment - Swaziland, 1997

Contents | Introduction | Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Livelihoods | Advancement/Empowerment of Women | Child Rights/Child Development/Child Protection | Education | Population | Environment | Health | STD/HIV/AIDS | Food Security/Nutrition | Governance and Participation | Institution Building | Summary and Conclusion

Chapter Eleven - Governance and Participation

The governance of Swaziland, like the land tenure, is a product of the two main historical influences - the traditional sector and the modern. The former is dominant upon SNL, and the latter on TDL. The former uses mainly unwritten customary codes, the latter written law, predominantly Roman-Dutch. At the apex of both systems is His Majesty the King.

In theory that sounds simple: in practice it is very complicated, because as referred to above Swaziland is a mingled country, and as a result there is a considerable degree of confusion, overlapping and clashing within the governmental structures.

When the British took over Swaziland's administration in 1903, they reduced the King’s status to that of a paramount chief. Previously, he ruled as Ngwenyama in council, together with the Queen Mother, the Ndlovukasi. The 1968 Constitution made the King a constitutional monarch; parliament was sovereign. In 1973 a decree by the King abolished almost all the constitution, dissolved parliament, and banned all political parties. He became an absolute monarch.

In 1978 an appointed "Tinkhundla" parliament was reinstated, which has advisory powers only to the King. It was an electoral college charged with recommending parliamentary members to the King. In 1993, parliamentarians were directly elected by secret ballot through the 55 Tinkhundla centres. Fresh elections are due in 1998. Political parties are still banned - Swaziland is a no-party state. In fact, not only political parties but " all political parties and similar bodies that cultivate and bring about disturbances and ill-feelings within the nation are . . . dissolved and prohibited."¹

The word "inkhundla" (pl. tinkhundla) derives from the area outside of the cattle kraal where men would customarily gather to talk. Princes were often settled there to act as the King’s representatives, but the appointed head of each inkhundla is a commoner, an indvuna. This headman is assisted by an inner committee, or bucopho. The functions of these tinkhundla were to act as an advisory body to the chiefs on one hand and the Swazi National Council (libandla) on the other. The Swazi National Council at first comprised "the Ngwenyama, the Ndlovukazi, and all adult male Swazi," but the King’s Proclamation No. 1 of 1981 changed its composition to "the Ngwenyama, the Ndlovukasi, Bantfwabenkhosi, Chiefs and all adult citizens"¹ The King is advised by that SNC, and also an inner council (liqoqo). On special occasions, the King calls the nation to the royal kraal for consultations.

The 1978 Orders gave the Tinkhundla their electoral role as well as their advisory ones. They are organised into the four regions of Swaziland - Hhohho, Manzini, Shishelweni and Lebombo - as Regional Councils, each region being headed by a regional administrator.

These Regional Councils have never really worked, and in 1992 a vusela - The Tinkhundla Review Commission - gave a report which led to some reforms, but which still has not resulted in their becoming more like councils in urban government (including fund-raising powers for community development), which was the intention.²

One problem is that of the relationship with the approximately 200 chiefs. Tinkhundla is advisory: the power on SNL is in the hands of the Ngwenyama in Trust for the Swazi Nation, as delegated to the chiefs in libandla. The chiefs have direct access to the King, and under the Swazi Administration Act 79/1950, developmental powers and responsibilities are theirs as the competent authorities and theirs alone - not Tinkhundla’s.

So there is the governance of the chiefs in libandla, who amongst other powers have the highly important function of land allocation (and the fear-bestowing power, although rarely exercised, of land expulsion); the Tinkhundla, who act as intermediaries and electoral centres and are under the Deputy Prime Minister; and the modern government structure - the ministries, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the cabinet under the Prime Minister. Under the 1973 Decree the King retains absolute executive power over the whole kingdom. However, a king in the southern African tradition is not the same as was a king in medieval Europe: an African king must take heed of his inner council; the system of governance has a host of checks and balances to it not meaningfully reducible to an organogram.

This system does give powers to individuals to express their grievances to people in authority - a chief, Tinkhundla, a member of parliament, a ministry, a senator, a Prince, even the King or the Queen Mother. As stated above, all adult Swazis are members of the Swazi National Council. However, the system has recently and increasingly come under fire from ‘progressive’ forces who consider it to be unwieldy and inefficient, undemocratic, nepotistic and unworkable - something of a Gordian knot in the path of progress. The repeal of the 1973 Decree is their main objective, and with that the restoration of a constitutional monarchy and the unbanning of political parties.

With the snuffing out of political parties, such sentiments are increasingly expressed through legitimate and necessary organisations such as unions and human rights associations. These calls are seen as threatening by many, including but not limited to vested interests, and the lines have been hardening over recent years. A Constitutional Review Commission, headed by a Prince, is meant to address constitutional reform, but has been condemned by the progressives as a charade aimed at retaining the power of the vested interests.

Local governments have carried out universal franchise secret ballot elections, with mixed success. With increasing stridency in the political debates, with often more heat than light resulting, the current temptation to government is to provide less rather than more power for political expression.

1. CRC. 1997. The Current Constitutional Framework of Swaziland, p. 33.
2. MHUD. 1996. Swaziland National Physical Development Plan 1996-2000.

Governance and Participation Indicators

Suggestions or comments. This page was last updated on 06 May 2003