The Need to Reform the Political Role of the African Union in Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Domestic States: Making States More Accountable and Less Able to Avoid Scrutiny at the United Nations and at the African Union, Using Swaziland to Spotlight the Issues
| Date | 01 February 2018 |
| Author | |
| Pages | 84-107 |
| Published date | 01 February 2018 |
| DOI | 10.3366/ajicl.2018.0221 |
Violence and human rights abuse continue to affect many parts of Africa.
2016 has been a disastrous year for human rights across the globe […] If the growing erosion of the carefully constructed system of human rights and rule of law continues to gather momentum, ultimately everyone will suffer.
On the African continent, internal conflicts accompanied by gross human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, torture and rape, are common.
Under these circumstances, this article examines how effective the African Union (AU) has been in pushing states to be more democratic in nature and to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of their citizens. Swaziland is a useful example to use as the lens through which to view the AU's accomplishments in ensuring that states become more democratic and human rights acquiescent. This is the case as it is one of the most authoritarian countries in the world whose human rights record has been far from positive. Swaziland continues to use draconian methods to limit democratic progress and to stifle dissent. Crucially, there is generally little focus on the country and much that occurs in the country has flown under the radar internationally, particularly as far as human rights are concerned.
The article therefore reviews the extent to which international and regional processes are useful and effective in making states like Swaziland more human rights compliant. It reviews various United Nations (UN) processes to understand how Swaziland, generally speaking, avoids oversight processes. The article also examines Swaziland at the United Nations, and specifically the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, where Swaziland has no choice but to participate, to determine how Swaziland has often been able to avoid scrutiny and when it does, that process is not as effective as it could be because African states are reluctant to criticise each other. They often go out of their way to protect each other. The article explores how Swaziland has embarked on processes of treaty ratification as a result of the UPR, but has been able to avoid carrying out what is called on them to do as far as improving the actual democratic and human rights matters of concern.
The review of the UPR process is important to understand the extent to which African states are willing to play a part in enforcing human rights standards in other African states inside and outside of Africa. It thus shines a light on African processes that avoid public criticism of African states and at times defend them. Thus the way African countries operate at the UPR is indicative of how African states tend to deal with each other both on the continent as well as elsewhere. It indicates how African states often conduct themselves in a way that limits accountability and scrutiny. This has the effect that there is reduced pressure on countries with democratic and human rights problems to reform.
In this context, the article reviews the political role of the AU in making states more democratic and human rights compliant. This is an important consideration at this juncture as 2016 was the 35th anniversary of the adoption by the OAU of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the 30th anniversary of its coming into force and the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The article therefore examines the political processes used by the AU to determine the methods they use and whether there is a sufficiently robust approach towards issues of democratisation and human rights. It does not deal with the role the AU has played when intervening directly in countries when coups or similar events have occurred, or when peacekeepers are deployed in places where massive violations are being committed. That is beyond the scope of this article. It does, however, briefly deal with the situation when there is a request for action by the Peace and Security Council that is declined by the main AU organs. Also outside the scope of the article are the role of various AU structures, such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR/Commission) and the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights.
On 1 May 2014, trade union leaders Mario Musuku and Maxwell Dlamini attended Workers’ Day celebrations at a school sports ground in Manzini, Swaziland. Masuku addressed the crowds (in their thousands) while Dlamini participated in the singing of songs and chanting of slogans.
As a result of their actions, Masuku and Dlamini were charged with contravening the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 2008 and the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act of 1938. They then challenged the constitutionality of certain sections of these laws. In September 2016 the Swaziland High Court, in a two-to-one decision, declared the impugned provisions of these laws unconstitutional.
These developments help to contextualise the issues in Swaziland and the extent of the problems in the country. It helps to indicate the extent to which Swaziland is a country with an authoritarian regime in power.
To continue reading
Request your trial