http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/30/zimbabwe
Recently people in the Swaziland Posts and
Telecommunications Corporation (SPTC) went on strike in response to the
company’s denial by a state court to enter into many of the facets of the
telecommunications industry. The court ruled that SPTC had broken an agreement
made with the competing company Swazi MTN (MTN), which was seen by many as an
opportunity for MTN to become a monopoly in the most profitable areas of the telecommunications
industry. There is reason to believe that the agreement restricting SPTC was only
possible with pressure from King Mswati III, who happens to be a large
shareholder in MTN. Since the agreement, the people of Swaziland have
experienced worse service from MTN as well as higher rates for internet and
phone connections do to a lack of competition from SPTC. During this time King
Mswati III has been purchasing multi-million dollar jets with the funds from
state supported businesses.
The
fact that a leader could stomach profiting off of influence in business
industries at the expense of the well being of the entire country is absolutely
repulsive. Most of the king’s citizens survive on just two dollars a day, and
suffer some of the lowest life expectancies in the world. In addition to
poverty, the people of the region have experienced an epidemic of the HIV virus
in the last decade with 26% of adults contracting the virus. Instead of using his
omnipotent influence to further domestic infrastructure or public health relief
projects, Mswati has used his power to meddle with the country’s economic structure
for his own benefit. This use of clientalism to further a business that extends
the king’s power and wealth is exactly why the country cannot deal with
reoccurring problems of public health and poverty. The country as a whole has
been made more inefficient in order so that the authoritarian government can
enrich itself and its supporting elite.
What
the country needs is a push towards a more democratic system, where the ruling
officials are held accountable. Since the King rules by decree and cannot be
voted out of power, he has no repercussions for his actions that damage the
economic stability of his country. Political parties and opposition to the
monarchy have been banned since 1973 by Mswati’s father, which has kept the
country from moving in a more democratic direction. The consequence of a
continued authoritative rule has been strikes in other public sectors of the
country, such as teachers and civil servants, who have dealt with increasingly
inadequate salaries. Swaziland has also seen further economic instability demonstrated
by the fact that they required a $355 million bailout from South Africa in
2011. What the country needs is to find a government that is more accountable
to the well being of its community. King Mswati III might as well find this out
sooner rather than later because a strike at SPTC could easily turn from a
movement to change the governance of the telecommunications industry into a
movement to change the governance of the country.
Article: http://thinkafricapress.com/swaziland/further-public-sector-strikes-mtn-sptc-king-mswati-telecoms
Other Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14095303
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14388006
Picture: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/30/zimbabwe
I think this is a really interesting article because telecommunications is often cited as one of the areas where Africa could really take the lead. African countries, in some cases, have the opportunity to skip right over things like landlines and go straight to cell phones, etc. I think this is why it's also sad for me to hear about something like this going on, because this is an area where some countries could really shine, but obviously Swaziland is not going in that direction.
ReplyDeleteGood post. It is, as you said, repulsive that a leader would use the profit for himself when there is such turmoil in a country. My main question is if there are citizens protesting against the corruption, or any type of resistance to the authoritarian rule? It is obvious that the state is in dire need for a government with power checks and balances and a ruler who will want to rule for the people's sake, and not for personal gain. I suppose my main response and wondering from your post is, if there's any chance of democratization in sight for Swaziland, or is the authoritarian regime currently too powerful and "stable"?
ReplyDeleteAndrew-
ReplyDeleteThe focus on telecommunications is great and an issue that is capturing the attention of more and more policy practitioners and scholars. In particular, some African companies are becoming great innovators in banking by phone- using cellular technology. Its a shame that Swaziland does not seem to be promoting such innovative practices by its citizenry.
I find it interesting that you propose a push toward a more democratic system as a solution. I agree that a monarchy is held less accountable, but even a in a seemingly democratic system authoritarian rulers have gotten away with similar things. I think transparency in any ruling is crucial.
ReplyDelete