US president elect, Trump, the Trumpet is accused of having expressed a wish to remove ,rid Africa of its dictators.
As we went on laying points during one of our Times of Swaziland Open Again forum discussions I gathered that we Swazis lacked knowledge as to the legality of Swaziland's monarchy.
With this in mind I went to visit a few sources, people who can help me understand the ruler-ship of Swaziland. A Ngwenya uncle of mine happened to be the perfect point to start digging since he was one of the people who was centre stage in the political upheavals that swept Swaziland circa 1960 to 1973.
My mother says the old man said that in 1962~63 the British government pushed forward the possibility of a constitutional monarchy.
A system born in Britain that retains kingship but gives real political power to the people by way of political power and free association.
It is said that the King of Swaziland, then paramount chief ,pushed for a way to counter this through the mbokodvo movement and was successful. The Swazi democratically elected Imbokodvo into power and set their king on the Swazi throne. Via this mistake, Swazis lost their only chance at democracy and in 1973, Ngwenya was exiled over to Nelspruit(orginaly from Mkhakhweni), political parties were shut out the walls of Parliament. And Kingship was made legal.
It is this legality that fascinates me and has me wanting answers to the following questions.
1. How was Swaziland's kingship made legal.
The constitution of Swaziland enshrines the kingship and points out how the king becomes king but can we say that it( the constitution) makes a king the king? If so, how did the constitution itself get such powers since people say they never made it. And yet the king signed it at Sibaya before the people.
2. Swaziland was a legal protectorate of the British crown via the foreign office. Can we then say a protectorate and a colony are both property of their conqueror in the same fashion. Was Swaziland Britain's farm and was Independence a simple ownership transaction?
3. An ideal kingdom is one where the are Earls~what we call chiefs. The earls control the land on behalf the king and the king provides protection to all via use of the Earl's serfs as soldiers should trouble disturb the state's peace. The serfs do not own the land and should pay homage to the earls and king. The question is, does Swaziland still need this arrangement. If so, is it laid out in the 'people's constitution' such that we each know where we stand with regards to the king such that we the people are in agreement with the king and each other and fearlessly view this the legal fashion by which Swaziland is ruled.
3. Did we really reject the constitutional monarchy as was proposed by the British foreign office in 1963. Did we have legal if not traditional grounds to refuse Sobhuza as king or did we not.
4. The Arabian or Islamic kingdoms like that of Qatar are part of the UN. Does that make them legal and does that in turn make Mswati's kingdom legal. Would this change if we were to have oil, good wealth distribution and a benevolent kingship?
6. What dictates the legality of a monarchy. Is it the UN, a network of powerful allies, benevolent or brutal kingship or simply a country's people and nothing more.
I could go on and lìst my musings but they will not resolve any thing.
I feel we are too fixated on the Tinkhundla system that we fail to deepen our true quest. To make Swazis self conscious of the roots of SD's problems such that they themselves lead the fight for re-inventing Swaziland and we never lack a leader.
I say reinvent because I for one am not sure democracy is what we want as Swazis. But need it because our king is proving himself questionable.
