T he lack of democracy in Swaziland impacts on all the official structures and operations within the country. The democratic principles of accountability; transparency; respect for human rights; and acknowledgement of the dignity of persons have been eroded in the process. The much-anticipated opening up of the airwaves appeared to become a reality in September 2008, even though the concept had been under pilot for one year. While the government had allocated five radio licenses to radio stations, three to community and two to commercial stations, these have since been reversed and the whole process now in the limbo. Journalists continue to face the challenge of balanced reporting without fear of retaliation from the government, politicians and public figures. Censorship of media content continues to be exercised through lawsuits, harassment and legislation. This has resulted in journalists from both the private and state-owned media censoring themselves. The biggest challenge for journalism and democracy as a whole in Swaziland lies in the lack of a vibrant civil society. The state of the media It was anticipated that relations between the government and media would improve with the new Constitution, which came into force in February 2006. The Swaziland Constitution is notorious for giving rights and then quickly taking them away in subsequent provisions. For example, while freedom of expression and freedom of the media are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, there are no complimentary pieces of legislation that protect these freedoms. In addition, the failure to review laws that inhibit these freedoms continue to curtail media vibrancy. Attempts were made to rectify the situation in 2007, but once again progress has stalled on seven draft bills. The bills include the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill; the Swaziland Media Commission Bill; the Protected Ceremonies, Places and Areas Bill; the National Film Bill; the Swaziland Public Broadcasting Corporation Bill; and the Books and Newspapers (Amendment) Bill, all of 2007. Media stakeholders voiced concerns that they had with some of the draft bills and their input was submitted to the relevant authorities, who promised to consider their views. It has happened in the past that bills are delayed indefinitely if the authorities are unhappy with some sections. Bills that favour the status quo are passed into law almost immediately. On the surface it looks like media-government relations are improving, yet in practice little has changed. The breakfast meetings between former Prime Minister Absalom Themba Dlamini with media editors seemed noble at face value, yet it transpired to be nothing less than a windowdressing exercise. It was government’s attempt to present a good image to the international community in order to retain donor support in the wake of unending calls for Swaziland to democratise. The return of Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini as Prime Minister in September 2008 might even present more problems for the media, judging by his treatment of the sector in the past administration. Generally, there has been tolerance of freedom of speech, although critics and dissenting voices are still intimidated by government and politicians. Public advocacy gatherings and civic education exercises are still monitored by government, thus limiting freedom of expression and association. The Attorney General threatened media workers with arrest should they be seen to support purported “terrorists” in their reporting. Swaziland has recently adopted an anti-terrorism law known as the Suppression of Terrorism Act, 2008. Traditional authorities have also made their contempt for the media very clear, judging by the careless pronouncements made by Jim Gama, a traditional governor, dubbed as the traditional Prime Minister. He said: “offending journalists should be punished using ‘umphini’”, a traditional form of capital punishment. So This Is Democracy? 2008 -90- Media Institute of Southern Africa