Gender Roles Must Fall! – By Nomsa Lusanda Mbuli

A couple of weeks ago my colleagues had a discussion about lobola, and discussions like that automatically lead to a discussion about gender roles. The general assumption is that a man pays lobola for a woman and in return she spends the rest of her life catering to his needs. Well, that’s basically what it boils down to. She finds herself having to cook for him, wash his clothes, clean after him, iron his clothes and give him children while he rules the world. But that is just what happens in the privacy of our homes. The unfortunate thing is that these inequalities that are at home are reflected at higher national levels. These general practices that put women at the back, ‘in the kitchen’, are the very practices that leave women behind. Because of these traditional practices, we still rarely see women in senior positions. 

For Swaziland as a developing country, it is important that the economy capture the contribution of all its female citizens. By ignoring women in development, we will cut out half the country’s contribution. The general feeling is that women gravitate towards child rearing and things around the home, while men gravitate toward construction projects. This kind of thinking leads to the idea that women should remain at home and raise children because that’s what they are especially suited for, while men must enter the work force and earn money because that is what they are especially suited for. But that mentality is so 1800s! The most amazing thing is that some of the supporters of this mentality, as was one of my colleagues, are women who are actually at work. The fact that she is at work while saying this should be an indication that times have changed, and so should our thinking.

The other thing that people do not understand is that in this time and age, a lot of people actually no longer fit in the boxes that were created for them before they were even born. People just no longer fit in these supposedly ‘natural’ gender roles. I know a lot of women who feel more comfortable solving mathematical problems than they do holding a baby. There are many families where the man prefers cooking while the woman tends to the yard. Most, if not all, of the cooking shows I have watched such as Master Chef and The Cake Boss have proven this fact in that most of these top chefs are men. There are other families where you find that the woman is the one who goes to work, while the man stays at home, in most cases with no source of income of his own. 

The reality is that people are incredibly diverse, for every ‘natural’ woman there is a woman who finds the idea of having children foreign and frightening. For every man who loves fixing things there is a man who prefers taking his car to a shop or calling a plumber. I know too many people, both men and women, who do not fit into these ‘natural’ gender roles that it begins to make the idea of natural gender roles seem absurd and restrictive. The reality is that such mentality pushes people into specific boxes, whether they want to be there or not. The other reality is that it creates hypocrites out of us. To hear a woman who wakes up every morning and bands over backwards taking care of her family, speak so strongly in favour of gender roles or hearing an unemployed man tell a woman ‘she belongs in the kitchen’ is very problematic and hypocritical. And that, frankly, is why I have a problem with these gender roles and boxes that society is panel beating women into.

The Most Comfortable Stiletto; Get Rid of Beauty Pageants – By Nomsa Lusanda Mbuli

Just before the end of last year (2015), the world witnessed the harshest embarrassment when Steve Harvey named the woman from Colombia Miss Universe, when the actual winner was from Philippines. Well, that’s what everyone thought was embarrassing. For me, the most awkward thing was that beauty pageants still exist. The contests are an old-fashioned reminder of exactly what we don’t want for women, and they should have no place in our future.

Many people argue that beauty pageants are empowering and I agree because they offer opportunities and scholarships. But what does that really mean? Does that mean that only beautiful people deserve opportunities and scholarships? What kind of empowerment picks and chooses a certain type of people? When positions of power in society are male dominated, winning a beauty pageant really makes no difference to the power relations in one’s country. Beauty contests de-humanize women by focusing on their physical appearance, which has everything to do with genetics and nothing that the contestant herself can control.

Beauty pageants send messages to young girls who may think that being beautiful is an accomplishment, that being chosen to participate is somehow a special honour to be a part of a contest that parades women as commodities. Perpetuating sexism by sexualisation of young girls and by judging women based on their looks is never going to be just harmless fun. I wish I could say that each contestant in any beauty contest is intelligent, cares about international issues, and wants to make a lasting difference in the world – but I cannot. Not because I doubt it is true, but because the judges decide to focus more on how hot these women are, and how well they can walk on stilettos. Only after cutting them down to the most ‘deserving’ five do they start asking the important questions. I suppose it is crucial to make sure a woman looks incredible in a bikini before asking her any questions about war or global warming. Maybe next time Barack Obama or Julius Malema want to comment on politics, we need to make sure that their beach bods measure up, too.

Some may say that these pageants are about celebrating the female body. Since when is universal female beauty, an image of a small-waisted, long straight haired, fair skinned, thin long legged, pouty-lipped young woman? Considering that only a few women fit this description, why do we celebrate this image? If the argument is that beauty pageants are for confident women, what exactly are these women confident about? Their good looks which are a result of genetics which appeal to local definition of beauty? Tweezing, waxing, dieting, foundation, mascara, eyeliner, eye-shadow, uncomfortable shoes, skimpy clothes, smiling endlessly – going through all these just to look good enough to be crowned the best?

Celebrating female beauty is problematic when they are based on sexist, racist, homophobic and able bodied notions of female beauty which excludes the vast majority of women. In December 2014, we were supposed to celebrate Bonang Matheba as the first Black South African woman to appear on the cover of Glamour Magazine. A magazine that was launched in South Africa in 2004. Is it possible that for over a decade, Glamour could not find a Black woman worth celebrating? And even then, Queen B appeared on that cover because she fits the societal (White) standards of beauty – lean, straight hair (weave) and tall. If we want to empower women, let us start by getting rid of beauty pageants and celebrating all types of women. Not just the ones that fit the box society creates for women.

Nudity? Freedom of expression? Culture? Expressing one's body? Must you judge? You be the judge!

Traditionalists, freedom of expression activists, moralists, revolutionaries, feminists, gender activists, male chauvinists, religious people and many others have fiercely debated about women’s clothing (and bodies) and never reached any compromise. 

What is nudity? What are the accepted standards of decency? How should women dress? What should they show and what should they hide? Who should decide?

In these few pictures I pose and explore these questions. Please assist me in reaching an acceptable compromise. Or should there even be a compromise? You be the judge? Wait a second, do you even have the right to judge? 

#16Days365: Join Hands in Activism For No Violence Against Women and Children - Tshepiso Medupe's hands

ALSO READ: Ten steps towards being the Perfect Revolutionary

#16Days365: Join Hands in Activism For No Violence Against Women and Children - Mr Pius Rinto's hands

Emagama Etinyanga Temnyaka Kanye Nemilandvo Yawo

Kodvwa usakhumbula yini kutsi inyanga “Kholwane” litsini ligama layo leSilumbi? Lweti lona? Uke watibuta yini kutsi asuselwa kuphi emagama etinyanga temnyaka? Makutsiwa “Bhimbidvwane” kususelwa kuphi? Inkhwekhweti uyayati yona nje?

Ngike ngatibuta ngingedvwa lemibuto lena ngabese sengitsatsa tinyatselo ngiyatfungatsa kutsi lamagama etinyanga temnyaka asuselwa kuphi. Bakhona ke lababese bayavela bayangisita ngetimphendvulo, nabo bebahle babuka tincwadzi letitsite bentela kusita sona sive.

Sitawusuka enyangeni yekucala yemnyaka site siyewufika enyangeni yekugcina solo setama kuchazelana. Ngekutsi sitawube setama kufundzisana, kutawufuna sifake nalamagama eSilumbi kute sikhone kutsi sonkhe silandzele kahle ngaleyo naleyo nyanga.

Njengoba sitawube sifundzisana nje, nami ngitawucela kutsi mangabe bakhona labanelwati lolujulile kunalolu, noma ke lolwehlukile, baluvete. Siyafundzisana.

[Nayi lenye indzabalemcoka - Umntfwana Longakhali Ufela eSwatini]

1.    BHIMBIDVWANE – JANUARY

NgeSiSwati sivuno lesisha sidliwa yinkhosi kucala kungakadli wonkhe umuntfu, kutsiwa iyaluma. Inkhosi iluma eNcwaleni-ke, bese emva kwaloko wonkhe umuntfu sewukhululekile naye kudla. Ngalenyanga inkhosi isuke seyilumile, ngako sekuvunwa sivuno sekucala, kudla kukunyenti bantfu badle bashaye sentfwala. Kutsiwa-ke ngeSiSwati bayabhimbidzela. Lenyanga kwase kutsiwa ke nguBhimbidvwane.

2.    INDLOVANA – FEBRUARY

Ngalenyanga kutsiwa tindlovu tisuke titele, tinebantfwana. Kusukela lapho lokutsi kutsiwe yiNdlovana nome iNdlovu lencane.

3.    INDLOVU LENKHULU – MARCH

Lenyanga yetsiwa ngobe ilandzela iNdlovana, kwatsiwa yona-ke yiNdlovu lenkhulu, nome yiNdlovu nje.

4.    MABASA – APRIL

Ngalenyanga sekucala kuba makhata, bantfu sebabasa imililo batekotsa. Ngiko kutsiwa nguMabasa.

5.    INKHWEKHWETI – MAY

Yinyanga yekwekhweta le. Cishe ngalesikhatsi kuvuna kusuke sekuphela, bomake sebekhweta etilulwini netinyangweni, sebakha tibhidvo bafusa, bafaka nemmbila etingungwini. Kusuke sekulungiselwa busika. Kwatsiwa-ke yinkhwekhweti inyanga yekwekhweta.

6.    INHLABA – JUNE

Ngalenyanga inhlaba isuke itselile. Tonkhe tiganga letinenhlaba ngalenyanga tibovu titse tju, tigcwele tinyosi kanye netincwincwi.

7.    KHOLWANE – JULY

Kholwane ngulelinye ligama laPhezukomkhono. Yinyanga yekucala lapho evakala khona Phezukomkhono. Ayati-ke emaSwati kutsi nakuvakala lenyoni sesikhatsi sekulima. Labanye kodvwa batsi cha Kholwane akusuye Phezukomkhono, kepha ngulenye inyoni letalela ngalesikhatsi semnyaka.

8.    INGCI – AUGUST

Yinyanga yesingci le. Singci nguloku losekubitwa ngaJakalase nome imphungushe lamuhla. Kepha libito lako leSiSwati singci nome sithihi. Ngalenyanga singci sisuke sitele.

9.    INYONI – SEPTEMBER

Ngalenyanga tinyoni letinyenti tisuke titalele emacandza, ngiko kutsiwa yiNyoni.

10. IMPHALA – OCTOBER

Lenyamatane lokutsiwa yimphala isuke itele ngalenyanga.

11. LWETI – NOVEMBER

Lweti silwanyane lesikhalisa inyekevu, sivakala kakhulu ngalenyanga. Lenyanga lena kubuye kutsiwe yiNkhosi Lencane ngobe kusuke sekugidvwa iNcwala lencane ngalenyanga.

12. INGONGONI – DECEMBER

Ingongoni luhlobo lwenyamatane lenkhulu, lecishe ilingane nenkhomo. Lomsila wayo nguwo lowenta emashoba etangoma. Ngalenyanga isuke itele iNgongoni.

[Lenye Indzaba lemcoka - Who is the real head in the family? The wife or husband? Apostle Paul responds

Who is the real head in the family? The wife or husband? Apostle Paul responds

Introduction

My whole life I have been taught and told that the husband, and not the wife, is the head of the family. Apostle Paul was always presented as the primary “holy” source for this statement, and sometimes the story of creation would be used to supplement this “Godly” view. It might shock you, to digress but only for a moment, that many staunch traditionalists also relied on these sources, and never a Sobhuza nor a Ngwane or African ancestors, to drive the same point that the husband is head of the family.  Are there no African sources for this “head of the family” theory?

The problem

This theory always presented a practical challenge for me, especially when I was still a young boy, way before I knew anything about multi-party democracy or Karl Marx. This was especially because in the rural areas in which I lived I constantly observed that the wife in Family ABC was the one who did almost everything for the household, compared to the husband; ensuring that the cattle were milked and vaccinated, that cultivation took place, and that the children were paid for at school, including other “male” tasks whilst the biblical “head” of the family was still alive, present and healthy. The husband literally appeared to be the follower, and not the think-tank of the family. The woman, on the other hand, appeared to be the real symbol of unity, who without her there was no family. This woman appeared to me as the real head of the family.

I also curiously observed that in Family LMN, whilst both the husband was alive, the family was struggling economically. Yet as soon as he died the family prospered; a nicer and bigger house was constructed, the children suddenly had better school uniforms, they began to have pocket money, good breakfast, etc. Why did these things not take place when the head of the family was still alive but only took place when he was no longer there? 

Believe it or not, but in Family XYZ, the single mother was able to take care of the needs of her children. All her children went to school, and became successful. Yes, there were a couple of boys and girls. All this without a “head” of the family! Biblically impossible!

Observing these scenarios, I got confused, especially because I did not want to do the most “unCatholic” thing of questioning the holy teachings of the bible. To me the words of Apostle Paul seemed totally wrong, but I had to remember my baptism, communion and confirmation sacraments and try as best as possible to drive out of my head this doubting and questioning devil or else Pope John Paul II would be sent from the Vatican to come and whip me hard on the buttocks on behalf of the Lord Jesus!

Today, fortunately, I have the chance to properly analyse this “mystery.” Paul’s words regarding this subject are found in Ephesians 5.  I will show below that Paul’s words in that chapter are capable of being interpreted in at least two different ways to reach two mutually exclusive conclusions.

Two theories of interpretation

First, let us reproduce the contentious statement where Paul issues instructions for Christian households. After that we will immediately go into its respective interpretations. The statement is found in verses 22– 24:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

1.    The textual method of Interpretation

The bulk of preachers and proponents of the theory of the male being the head of the family staunchly rely on this method of interpretation. This view suggests that, when we read the bible or any book, we must stick strictly to the words written in the bible and never shift. The text is literally King and Queen, and therefore we must never abandon the pure and clear words of the bible, so goes the argument. These words were conveyed to Paul by God, and to change them or depart from them would be a wrong against God himself, they add.

If we follow this line of reasoning, it means that the statement must be read and left as it is. It means that the husband is (not “was,” not “may be”) the head of the family, whatever the circumstances and era, and thus the wife has no choice but to submit to him as per the Word of God. It means that even in matriarchal society, we must try as best as possible to arrive at the conclusion that husbands are the heads of families. We see therefore that this is a rigid method of interpretation.

It is not clear, however, what happens when the couple has divorced, or when the woman is a single mother and stays in her house in the suburbs, for instance. Does she no longer have a head? Or perhaps she goes back to her father where her father is “obviously” still the head of the family? The more we pose the questions, the more this theory becomes unhelpful.

Let us now consider the second method of interpretation.

2.    The contextual method of interpretation

When we employ this method, we begin from the premise that a statement was made by someone with a certain background which may have greatly influenced him, at a certain era and under certain determinable material conditions to achieve a certain determinable material purpose. Following this method, we also make note of the fact that there are other words or statements surrounding the specific contentious words or statement, or other words and statements in some other parts of that specific book, in this case the bible, which will help us in the interpretation of the specific statement. External sources of information are also considered when this method is relied upon.

Note carefully, therefore, that when we engage an issue using this method, we do not jettison the words, that is, the text, contained in that particular statement. Rather we go beyond them. We therefore read on the lines, then between the lines and then beyond the lines.

Using these method, we see, importantly, that these words were stated about two thousand years ago, by a preacher who lived about two thousand years ago, to a community which lived about two thousand years ago (we had to repeat “two thousand years ago” three times in order to reinforce this point). Hence Paul, two thousand years ago, says the husband “is” the head of the wife, and not “will always be” or “has always been.” Thus, he states what already occurs at that particular era and area. In a matriarchal epoch he surely would not have said this for it would not be obtaining at that time. Hence, viewed using the contextual method, Paul seems totally correct. Yes, at that time and area in which he was preaching, husbands were heads of families, and not their wives. Wives submitted to their husbands, not the other round and neither reciprocally.

Continuing to investigate the issue using the method, we must also ask ourselves what end or purpose Paul was trying to achieve. We find, therefore, that Paul, amongst other purposes, wanted to recruit families into the Christian faith. Let us try to put it the proper Christian way; he wanted to convert or transform people from sinning to a holy life in Christ! Paul had used his head to fully analyse the social situation at that time and found that the heads of most, if not all, families were husbands. Therefore, he needed the support of families in his mission. He knew that once he won the husbands to his side (or let us again put it the Christina way, once he won the husbands to the side of Christ) he would simultaneously win the whole family, for the family always follows its head; the husband. Smart Paul!

Further, if we scrutinise other words and statements that surround the statement under discussion, we find that they can help us emerge with a broader analysis and thereby broaden our perspective. The most important in this regard are verses 25 – 30. For convenience and clarity sake, we reproduce these verses below:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church — for we are members of his body.”

This statement is clear, at least to one who possesses that little thing called a brain, but let us summarise our analysis of the statement, using the contextual method.

Husbands are called upon to love their wives, to keep them “radiant” and “without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish… just as Christ loved the church.” We also are aware of another verse, in the Gospels, where Jesus clarifies to his apostles that for one to be greater than all others, he should be willing to be a servant of the others! We see here that the burden to love appears to be much heavier than the burden to submit oneself. Jesus went to the extent of washing their feet to show them how further down one has to go in order to really show love. If we use the contextual method, clearly, husbands must love their wives to the point of being their servants and wash their feet with utmost love.

If “husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies,” surely it means that there is no room whatsoever for a man to ever abuse his wife. Neither is there any room for him to sit comfortably and read his newspaper whilst his wife attends to back-breaking house chores before she respectfully submits her body for sacred bedroom chores later in the night. Not so? Nay more, it means he has a duty to submit his body to the woman whenever the woman needs it!

We have been deliberately interpreting words found from verse 22 onward. You may ask yourself why we did we not begin with verse 21 instead. Verse 21 clarifies the issue such that by the time we reach the other verses, the issues are clear. We had to take this long road to verse 21, however, because, firstly, we had to show that there more than one ways that a statement can be interpreted, and that, secondly, it is important to broaden one’s mind before concluding on any issue rather than to stick to the “golden truth” without question.

Verse 21 finishes this issue when Paul says, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Need I say more? No need. Let us repeat the first four words in capital letters for the benefit of our snake-eating, “holy-milk”-drinking, grass-eating friends:  SUBMIT TO ONE ANOTHER.

I pause…

International Criminal Court and al-Bashir: Imagine King Mswati were charged by ICC

1.    Introduction

A lot has been said about the recent visit to South Africa by Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, to attend the African Union (AU) summit, and his eventual exit from South Africa. Some have condemned the South African government for allowing al-Bashir to exit South Africa without handing him over to the ICC, relying especially on a court case that had ruled that Al-Bashir must not exit South Africa and the fact that South Africa is a member state of the ICC. Some, of course, have praised the government. Indeed, if South Africa has prevented al-Bashir from exiting the country, South Africa would have been seen as an unpatriotic and unAfrican state.

The unreliability of the ICC has been well documented, especially when one considers that some of the worst murderers in this world today are the United States of America (USA), Britain, and Israel. All these three have not even received a warning from the ICC, yet African leaders have been prosecuted in The Hague. This clearly shows that the ICC is nothing but a tool to be used by the powerful against the weak. There can never be a claim that there is any justice in a society where the law enforcers choose which criminals to arrest and who not to, even when it is clear that they all have cases to answer.

Currently, 123 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC. Out of them a staggering 34 are African States, 19 are Asia-Pacific States, 18 are from Eastern Europe, 27 are from Latin American and Caribbean States, and 25 are from Western European and other States. It is noteworthy that the USA and Israel are not members of the ICC. Further, we should note that, despite the United Kingdom being a member, its former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was never prosecuted for his country’s role in the Iraq war in 2003, a war which was without a United Nations mandate and which saw the death of thousands of people. We further note that, whilst Sudan is not a member state of the ICC, al-Bashir was charged by it, yet former USA president, George Bush was never prosecuted despite leading the Iraq war.

If we look at the member states of the ICC, it is clear that Africa supports (or supported) the ICC. A change of heart has emerged, however. African leaders no longer want to be subjected to the processes of the ICC and have called for African solutions to Africa’s problems (although there is nothing African about murdering other Africans. It is simply a crime against humanity).

2.    If not ICC, then who?

Whilst some commentators, especially some those who claim to be Africanists, have overwhelmingly supported the view that Africa must withdraw from the ICC and solve its own issues without interference by either Europe or USA, some of us are not fooled at all! The fact of the matter is that some African leaders, such as King Mswatii III of Swaziland, are not only against the Rome Statue having jurisdiction over them, but in fact do not want to be bound by any law, whatsoever. They just want to be the law. Why then should we support these selfish, murderous African leaders? The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and all sensible revolutionaries should not!

For the record, Swaziland, just like Sudan, is not a member of the ICC. This is one of the reasons the ICC gave to the Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN) when it declined to prosecute King Mswati.

Leaders like King Mswati III, Omar al-Bashir and Robert Mugabe, amongst others, will simply never want to account to anyone for their rule. King Mswati, for example, in July 2005 signed Swaziland’s constitution. Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of Swaziland, and if any other law is inconsistent with the Constitution that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. Further, section 2(2) provides, “The King and iNgwenyama and all the citizens of Swaziland have the right and duty at all times to uphold and defend this Constitution.” According to the constitution, a criminal charge of treason is mandated against those who undermine this provision, including the king who is also mandated to defend, and be subservient to, the constitution.

Despite the above provision, King Mswati has violated this constitution many times! He has done so without any repercussions whatsoever. Instead he has continued to enjoy the respect and support of the African Union. The king, despite the constitutional supremacy provision, is above the constitution. He is the law of Swaziland, and the constitution is only valid as and when King Mswati wants it to be.

3.    If Mswati were charged by ICC

Due to the undeniable fact that King Mswati is practically above all Swaziland law, and that the AU will not charge him any time soon, only the most foolish would ever come in defence of Mswati if he were to be prosecuted by the ICC. As recent as 2008, Mswati made a clear call to his security forces that they were to deal with all human rights activists in the most vicious of ways and totally disregard all international conventions and laws. When appointing the current Prime Minister, Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini, in 2008, Mswati stated clearly that he was appointing him to go and throttle these activists and finish them all. Since then, many activists have been arrested, tortured and some killed by his security forces, with some being forced to exile.  In a just world, he should have been prosecuted for violation of the constitution.  

Before this episode, many people had been evicted from their homes, some fired from their jobs, all in total disregard of court orders to the contrary. PUDEMO’s president, Comrade Mario Masuku, is the most arrested political activist in Swaziland. He is currently in jail, having been arrested on Workers Day, in 2014, charged under the Terrorism Act of 2008 for addressing workers and rallying them on the call for multi-party democracy. He has previously been arrested for sedition, treason, and sometimes detained without any trial. All this on the direct orders of King Mswati.

If the ICC is nothing but a vulture which always wants to feed on the carcass of a dead animal, then Mswati is also one. They are all of the same further. If the ICC is nothing but a criminal entity, then it is a criminal entity which arrests other criminals, fairly or unfairly. Let vultures eat themselves! In fact, if Mswati were to find himself weak and alone in the wild, with many vultures hovering over him, as PUDEMO and all revolutionaries who are serious about the freedom of Swaziland, we would have to remove all the animal carcasses that might be lying around so that the vultures can concentrate squarely on him, and him alone, to do to him as they so wish!

Therefore, we should always pronounce on international issue, condemn the wrong things. However, in so far as these murderous leaders like King Mswati are concerned, we must simply let them be tortured! They do not care about Africans. Why they should we go all our way to defend them?

Let Mswati and crew be fried by the International Criminal Court! 

Kaizer Chiefs & Orlando Pirates dining & wining with the devil – Swaziland United Democratic Front

SUDF`s OPEN LETTER TO ORLANDO PIRATES AND KAIZER CHIEFS ON THE KING`S CUP PARTICIPATION

19 June 2015

“Dining and Wining with the Devil”

To Mr Motaung and Mr Khoza:

It is common knowledge, if not a fact, that many Swazis love and respect you two Gentlemen. Amongst the reasons which informs these undying belief in the two of you, is the fact that you have succeeded through your sacrifices, leaderships and Art of Organizing, to have us the two greatest soccer teams in Africa. You have proven to us and the entire continent that it is possible for Africans to Nurture talent, skills and assemble soccer teams so good that even the struggle for freedom in your own Country heavily relied on to wage the course for justice in South Africa under Apartheid.

The glorious names of Orlando Pirates and Kaizer Chiefs are too precious, glorious and Humble to be directly linked to the terrible litany of gross violations of everything African and Human today in Swaziland. To this; We the Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF), representing various pro-democracy formations inside Swaziland join other progressive forces to humble ask the two giants of soccer in Africa, to please cancel and further disassociate yourselves with anything to do with the so called King`s Cup scheduled for July 2015.

As such we beg for your indulgence dear comrades. Participating in the so called King`s Cup is tantamount to “Dining and Wining with the devil. “Swazis still live under Apartheid localized as Tinkhundla system of Governance. This hegemonic elitist Royal supremacy whose current public face is His Majesty the king for whom you are been lured into help face-lift has:

1.    Presided over not only the incarceration, but torture and Killings of not less than 65 Political activists over the past 47 years since British colonial yoke handed power over to Royalty, the latest been just in the past two weeks.

2.    Currently not less than 15 political Activists languishing in jail among whom is President of PUDEMO Mario Masuku aged 65 years, whose Health is in a dire situation as he is diabetic charged with flimsy charges of Terrorism for speaking in a May day 2014.We Know too well that particularly Mr Khoza has met and knows about Swazi Struggle through the President Mario.

3.    Has not only banned and proscribed PUDEMO but further maintained the 1973 ban on political parties. This has cascaded to the ban of trade unions as well as perpetual threat to shut down vocal civil society organizations. This is a clear demonstration of political hostility and utter levels of intolerance against democracy and respect for human rights. We are convinced any association with the King`s Cup will be a direct aiding of the last absolute Monarchy which is characterized by arbitrary use of force; extra judiciary killings; forced evictions of innocent poor Swazis and lawlessness. The King’s Cup is a desperate effort by this regime for recognition, attention and credibility. It seeks to use and abuse the great name of anyone who is not well versed about the atrocities and blood of the 1, 2 million Swazis.

4.    In December 2013 through the Royal Swaziland Police Force the State brutally attacked mourners during memorial service in the Lutheran Church in Manzini who had convened to pay their last respect to Dr Nelson Mandela upon his death.

5.    Moreover the Monarchy through its appointed Government has despicably failed to support sports nor to develop a credible environment for nurturing of talent and skills of Swazi Youth. In fact only R7 million of the national budget goes to sports when the King alone slice nothing less than R2.8 billion of the national budget this year 2015 alone.  Surely your conscience must speak to you dear Pirates and Kaizer Chiefs, The world supported the struggle for the boycott of South Africa under Apartheid in all sporting codes which gave incredible impetus to your course for freedom today. “Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu”

We hope that you will find it in your hearts to stand with the poor and Oppressed masses of our beloved Country Swaziland.

Yours in the Struggle for democracy and Justice in Swaziland

Wandile Dludlu

(SUDF Coordinator)

25058926
0026876111676

#KingsCupMustFall: Swaziland Solidarity Network’s letter to Orlando Pirates and Kaizer Cheifs

To:       Dr. Irvan Khoza- Chairman -Orlando Pirates Football Club 

Mr. Kaizer Motaung – Executive Director- Kaizer Chiefs Football Club

RE: SOWETO GIANTS SHOULD NOT SPOIL THEIR RICH HISTORY BY HONOURING A TINPOT DESPOT.

When the current manager of the English national team, Roy Hodgson, was appointed into his post his past was brought up to remind the public of the social role that sports personalities cannot escape. At the height of Apartheid, Hodgson had naively and insensitively allowed himself to be used by the Apartheid regime in its public relations tactics to reverse its pariah state status by participating in a football match.

Today human rights violations continue and despotic regimes still desperately seek unsuspecting sports and music personalities to use as pawns. Where this unfortunate situation exists, the conscientious world has responded by boycotting and isolating these ignoble regimes.

King Mswati is one such dictator and he has found perfect pawns in two of Southern Africa’s biggest sports clubs, Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates. These two African giants need to understand the blot they might have on their impeccable record of history, if they allow themselves to sell their souls and be ‘bought for thirty pieces of silver’ by participating in the forthcoming public relations hoodwink - dubbed Super King’s Cup, in Swaziland.

DESPOT

It has long been widely known in South Africa and beyond that Swaziland’s government has no respect for human rights and that the country has no political freedom. Swaziland is a dictatorship. It continues to evade the international media radar mainly because the country is so miniscule, with even less prestige internationally.

The country has no democracy at all. All power is vested in the monarchy, which rules by decree despite the existence of a worthless constitution which was imposed on the citizens ten years ago. As an absolute monarch the king only delegates his judicial, executive and legislative powers to powerless institutions which may make one believe that the country is run like modern state when it is in fact run like the king’s personal farm.

While there is no law that explicitly bans the formation and functioning of political parties, they are effectively rendered useless by the fact that they cannot contest state power as that power is vested exclusively in the king who appoints the prime minister, deputy prime minister, all cabinet ministers, a third of parliament, all senior civil servants and members of the diplomatic corps. As another king’s appointee, the country’s senate president recently pointed out, the king is the state.

KLEPTOCRACY

With all this power vested in him, the king of Swaziland has not held back on abusing it to fulfil his selfish personal greed. This has resulted in him forcing all major investments in the country to guarantee him and his family’s trust fund, Tibiyo, shares in their businesses. As a result of this he owns virtually half the country’s economy. Despite his hold on so much personal wealth the king still draws royal emoluments from the state which is over a fifth of the nation’s budget.

It is these kleptocratic tendencies which have resulted in the country’s economy growing sluggishly while the rest of the region’s economies make major strides. It is worth pointing out for example that the country remains the only one in the region with a sole mobile phone operator, MTN Swaziland, a company that retains its monopoly primarily because the king has substantial shares in it. All attempts by other companies to break into the market have been futile. This is perhaps the reason why some mobile phone operators may wish to sponsor an event like the Super King’s Cup in order to gain favour with the country’s despot.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Human rights abuses in Swaziland are endemic because the people have no government of their own. At every level of society people are denied basic human rights. Political dissenters are detained arbitrarily or with spurious charges levelled against them.

Like the Apartheid regime, king Mswati’s regime has gone to great lengths to tarnish the image of those who call for democracy in the country and there are legal instruments that are used to achieve this end such as the infamous Suppression of Terrorism Act, which gave the country’s government legal authority to declare any entity as a terrorist organisation. Once declared terrorist organisations such formations are proscribed and any association with them results in severe sanction including harsh prison sentences.

It was due to this act that one political activist by the name of Sipho Jele was arrested in May 1, 2010 for merely wearing a T-shirt inscribed with the name of one proscribed entity, PUDEMO. He never lived to see his day in court as he died in custody possibly from police torture.

There are other oppressive laws also used to suppress dissent such as the law against sedition. The president of the same organisation (PUDEMO), Mario Masuku, and the Secretary General of its youth league, Maxwell Dlamini were also arrested in 2014 for what the state claims were seditious statements made at a Workers’ Day rally.

In the same year their arrest was followed by that of two columnists, Bheki Makhubu and Thulani Maseko who were charged and later convicted for criticizing the manner in which the then country’s Chief Justice had handled the detention of a government cars inspector.

They remain behind bars while ironically the Chief Justice and the presiding judge in that case have been arrested by the country’s authorities for abuse of power and corruption. The manner in which this arrest was conducted was also flawed as it saw the country’s prime minister appointing himself the state prosecutor withdrawing and reinstating charges against those who had been arrested in the state’s publicity stunt.

Political activists are not the only ones denied basic human rights as even those who choose to shy away from political involvement end up on the wrong end of the country’s suppressive institutions. Poor Swazis are evicted annually for one reason or another without compensation from their ancestral lands. All their attempts to seek redress from the courts are futile as the king is effectively above the law and therefore immune from prosecution or civil charges.

RESISTANCE

The most important thing worth considering about Swaziland is the fact that the country’s population has made sincere attempts to change the country’s governance. As already pointed out, these political activists are dealt with brutally which results in a general state of despondency and fear amongst the population.

Yet despite this general fear within the population, the country’s Mass Democratic Movement thrives underground and continues to mobilise the country’s population to struggle against the dictatorship. It is this brave population that convinced those outside the country to provide solidarity to the struggle in Swaziland.

BOYCOTT

It is in this spirit of solidarity with the people of Swaziland that the Swaziland Solidarity Network [SSN] appeals to the two teams, Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates, not to honour the invitation to participate in the Super King’s Cup. It is clear from the name of the event that this is not just a sporting event meant to promote goodwill but rather a political event meant to legitimise a despot who has lost credibility in the eyes of the world and the country that he rules with an iron fist.

A brief background has been provided into the reasons why being in bed with this despot will blot the two teams’ record in history but should they need further information our organisation is willing to facilitate a meeting with them to elaborate on these issues. The very least that they can do is to hear both sides of the story before making a decision on whether to participate in this one day political publicity stunt or not.

For more information please call comrade Lucky Lukhele at Tell: 011 339 3621 or cell: 072 502 4141 or myself at 082 886 5970.

In Solidarity

__________________________
Solly”Afrika” Mapaila- SSN- National Chairperson- [South Africa Chapter]