Should Swaziland change?

Yesterday, I followed the Former South African president Mbeki comment on Democracy in modern times at the RT studio and how some states perceive and practise it.It's a good thing poeple in Swaziland fight for their rights this time and begin to express their own voices in the affairs of democracy.Africa must be conscious of the fact development moves but forward not backward.Citzens therefore should be aware that despotism have been denied by the develped world as a bad form of government. Lets love our continent by practising democracy like the concept implies and by sharing power instead of an individual(s) monopolizing power for years and decades,unroar and corruption especially in French speaking Africa where kingdoms are gradually building pace.

Africa is a land of rich culture and tradition. In fact, if there is anything the rest of the world should learn and respect her for, it is her attributes in this area. Swaziland Kingdom is one of these African's traditions. This Kingdom should be left alone to do their thing while the rest of the world respects it. We should not make any comment on the faith of Swazis monarchy system. If Swazis wake up today to renounce this tradition, we should also respect their decision and not to incite any conflict in this Kingdom.

BBC always put issues before us but are afraid to publish when people give their take on it......if afraid of libel why ask for people's view?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, an absoulute monarchy is bound to be corrupted with absolute power. This system of surfdom governance may have no chance to compete with democratic system. People in Swaziland like other parts of the world are enlightened and the monarchy behavior negates his own intellectual capability and understanding of his people.
Like or not, the more the King withholds all the power the more the Swazis grow their bitterness. Why is the King not using his knowledge of the French revolution to draw some lessons? What king of legacy does the king want to leave behind? All the king is doing is elevating the anger and degree of madness to the point the sense of reasoning will be loss without chance of recovery. British monarchy has survived because it dispensed some power to the people and King Mswati should do the same.

The only difference between this individual who calls himself the king of Swaziland and most other African rulers (and they are indeed, rulers, not the leaders they claim to be) is that he has never attempted to conceal his utter contempt for his fellow Swazis.

Any system which doesn't give the people a say in who governs them and how such governance takes place is definitely not for the people. While the Western system of democracy has its own flaws, every Swazi national has a right to basic human rights, freedom of expression and a better livelihood and if the current monarchy system can't make this happen, then it should be scrapped.

The march to democracy has never been easy for any country in Africa. It is somehow like the struggle for independence only that in this case the enemy is one who is well known to you and he is willing to be more vicious than the colonialist to have it his way! He has no shame and any attempts by International Community to shame him will be dismissed as interference on internal matters.
What is happening in Swaziland is within the African script. Those calling for democracy will be beaten, imprisoned and even killed. But now that they have come to this stage there cannot be turning back. It is going to be bad for everyone at the begining and the monarchy may even make it ugly! When that yearning for change comes, Swazis should fight on. That is how you secure your freedom from punitive mornachs.

While there are still quite a few monarchs in the world, absolute monarchy is becoming obsolete. It is evident that the masses need to have some say in who governs them. With absolute monarchy democracy is out of question. Royalty is not synonymous to good leadership. Therefore, I believe the people should have some kind of say in who governs them, not on account of their birthline but on account of how well they can rule. We do not hear of the Belgians or the Bristish protesting about their monarchies, this is because the Belgians elect their parliaments and the british their prime minister. There is therefore some democracy.
Absolute monarchy belongs in the past and we should leave it there

the current state of affairs in Swaziland is a shame unto the entire continent. Modern Africa do not accept this practice. It is about time the Swazi king realises that he has brought shame unto the continent with his extravagant lifestyle at the expense of the poor and the vulnerable in the country. Peaceful demonstration should continue until the king comes to the realization that it is about time Swaziland accept democratic rule

I believe the situation in Swaziland is that of abuse of power by the monarch who has no place in modern democracy except to look for a traditional area to head and live the general governance of the country to be decided by the good people of Swaziland.
It's would be better if king Mswati relinquishes his powers so he can be recognized as a past leader than to be one day bundled out of office and made to face "certain" charges. He cannot rule the Swazis forever

In this Modern age I can't understand why Swaziland still has that crazy form of government. Where is the United States and the so called United Nations with their human Rights talks; ohhh... I know the problem, there is no diamond or Oil in Swaziland so the poor should suffer. Why this world is so unfair!!!

Daylue Goah-Liberian studying in India

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Swazi people are not that docile, and I would hazard a guess that the vast majority are not in favour of an absolute monarchy. One of the main reasons why there isnt that much public outcry about the Kings policies is to do with land situation in Swaziland.Most people in Swaziland don’t own land. They are given land by a chief. Most often than not, the Chief is related to the King, sometimes a brother or a cousin.
Here comes the problem.If you protest too much you could ultimately become landless, and your children have no education.Not many people are willing to make that sacrifice.
Along with freedom of speech issues, I think this is one of the major issues that need to be addressed. A chief should not have power to evict someone of government land. Lack of freedom of speech, and the chiefs power explains why resistance is limited to foreign based Swazi's.

One thing you should know is that what works for me can not work for you. Demoncracy in Africa has become a mockery in my own view. If the Swazi people feel that demoncracy is the best way out, let them ask Liberia who bear the name of demoncracy but denies its power. I believe other countries in the west have the monarchy form of government which works well for them and there has been no civil strife for decades in those nations, why look for the thorns that will hurt you good Swazi people. I believe what you should advocate for now, is the moderate form of monarchy not getting rid of the system.

While I strongly believe that only the Swazis can decide whether they want an absolute monarch or not, I think there isn't much difference between the Swazi system and that of most regimes in the continent that are so called "Democratic". Many have stayed in power more than King Mswati, many are behaving more or less like absolute monarchies except by name. I've visited Swaziland and I find it relatively more developed than many of the economies in West and Central Africa. However, with respect to the Southern African sub-region, Swaziland appears to be the poorest but it's however difficult to pin it down to the presence of an absolute monarchy in the country. I think that important decision should be reserved for the Swazis and Swazis only. No external pressure!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.