TRUE DEMOCRACY CAN NOT ALIGN WITH VESTIGES OF COLONIAL OPPRESSION
As calls for democracy in Eswatini intensify, the ruling monarchy is working hard to secure its privileged status.
As calls for democracy in Eswatini intensify, the ruling monarchy is working hard to secure its privileged status. A key tactic in this effort is carefully crafted propaganda that subtly frames the monarchy as the custodian of Swazi culture and tradition. Yet the idea of any institution acting as a “custodian” of culture is controversial, suggesting a narrow and static view of both culture and tradition.
Further complicating the issue is the lack of critical examination among some in Eswatini’s progressive movement, who sometimes echo this distorted view. For some, this may be a tactical choice, aimed at aligning with popular sentiments to gain support. For others, it may reflect an unwillingness to deeply question the concepts of culture and tradition.
To understand the relationship that Emaswati should have with their culture, it is crucial to look at the historical development of Swazi traditions and their relevance today. A closer look at this history reveals how colonial influences altered these traditions to benefit a privileged few at the expense of the general population.
This story begins in the 16th century, when European nations, driven by economic collapse and a thirst for material wealth, began colonizing the Americas. Spain, a major colonial power at the time, applied brutal tactics in its conquest of Indigenous empires. Their approach was to subdue the local leaders, often revered as godlike figures, which left their people largely submissive as the Spanish plundered their lands.
During this period, Italian political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli offered an alternative view on how best to conquer foreign lands. He argued that instead of dismantling entire civilizations, colonizers should take a “total takeover” approach by allowing local leaders to retain their authority as vassals of the colonial power. This approach, designed to keep the population subdued, was later adopted by the British in Southern Africa.
The territory now known as Eswatini was nearly absorbed by the Transvaal Boer Republic when the Anglo-Boer War began. Caught between two colonial forces, Swazi traditional authorities sought British protection, effectively becoming part of the British Empire. The Swazi king was designated as a “paramount chief,” subordinate to the British crown but permitted to retain a semblance of authority over his people.
As Machiavelli had advised, Swazi culture and traditions were superficially preserved. Swazi leaders retained their positions, not as representatives of their people, but as intermediaries for British interests. Swazi customs were manipulated to reinforce this colonial structure, with the monarchy transformed from a community-rooted institution into a ruling class that served colonial needs.
This system of indirect rule introduced capitalist structures into Eswatini’s feudal society, creating stark class divisions. The monarchy became a privileged ruling elite aligned with British interests, while the general population became subject to a system designed to control and exploit. This collaboration mirrored the role of the Boer elites in South Africa, who governed in a way that served British economic interests.
These class divisions fundamentally changed the monarchy, making it more authoritarian and less accountable to its people. After World War II, amidst growing anti-colonial sentiment across Africa and Asia, the British negotiated independence terms with King Sobhuza II rather than with emerging democratic parties rooted in local communities. This decision solidified the monarchy’s role as a reliable partner in maintaining colonial-era privileges and systems of control.
Professor James Small rightly describes the present Eswatini monarchy as a vestige of British colonialism. Despite its traditional trappings, the monarchy remains a colonial construct with absolute power over its subjects. This perspective reveals that many customs centred on the monarchy are, in fact, corrupted traditions designed to serve royalty and external interests rather than the Swazi people.
Examples of this can be found in practices like kuhlehla, kwetfula, and the Swazi Nation Land tenure system. Under colonial influence, these practices evolved to benefit a privileged few, stripping the people of rights and rendering them subjects to a feudal system. For instance:
Kuhlehla requires Emaswati to perform labour for the monarchy without compensation, reinforcing their dependence on the king. In pre-colonial Eswatini, kuhlehla was entirely voluntary, a way for people to maintain close ties with an institution embedded in the community.
Kwetfula involves giving tributes to the king, a practice that was once a symbolic gesture of respect. Today, it has become an economically burdensome expectation for ordinary citizens, while others use it to curry favour with royal authorities.
Swazi Nation Land tenure system gives the monarchy control over large portions of land, denying local communities land ownership and leaving them vulnerable to exploitation as laborers. This tenure system also limits the economic potential of communities, as land use must be approved by traditional authorities.
These practices have led to human rights abuses and widespread poverty, drawing criticism from international labour organizations. The British colonial government originally encouraged these practices to create a cheap labour pool for their plantations and mines, thereby maintaining social control over Emaswati.
This analysis redefines the seven decades of British colonial rule not as a benevolent “protection” but as a calculated setup of exploitative systems. Today’s monarchy, with its preserved traditions, perpetuates systems that favour elite and external interests, leaving Emaswati disenfranchised. Any traditions remaining from that era should be critically examined for their impact on Swazi society.
This understanding leads us to an important question: What role should Eswatini’s customs play in a society that seeks true democracy? Political activists must look beyond structural changes or superficial reforms. They must recognize that the monarchy’s authority, built on a colonial strategy of domination, is fundamentally incompatible with a democratic society.
To achieve meaningful change, activists must confront the cultural systems and norms that sustain the current power structure. They must unmask these traditions as vestiges of colonial oppression and expose their role in perpetuating inequality. Anything less than a complete transformation risks leaving the oppressive system intact, merely cloaked in a new guise.
Ultimately, true democracy in Eswatini cannot align with vestiges of colonial oppression. To break free, the people must reclaim their traditions and reshape them into practices that reflect their values and empower their communities. Only by challenging corrupted customs and questioning the nature of power can Emaswati achieve genuine self-determination.