1.2 The right to freedom of expression is enforced and citizens, including journalists, are not prejudiced when using this right. ANALYSIS: Swaziland is run on a dual system of governance: a one-party adaptation of Western-style parliamentary structures on the one hand, and a powerful traditional system of governance on the other. Conflict between the two systems is unavoidable and impacts heavily on freedom of expression. While the media may seem to be operating freely, journalists practice self-censorship due to a pervasive atmosphere of intimidation, state unpredictability and constant fear. Such fear is induced through intimidation and veiled threats, in the name of the King or by certain cultural values. For example, the culture of ‘respect’ for elders influences journalists not to question those in authority (or elders) and thus limits the way in which the media communicates certain information that may be perceived as offensive to the authorities. It is also not uncommon for foreign media owners to be threatened with withdrawal of their residence permits or licenses whenever their media houses are perceived to be too critical in their reporting. Such threats do not always come from official sources. The authorities, both in government and in traditional structures, also use many other forms of pressure to further limit media freedom. Though such pressure is not exerted on a story-bystory basis, editors have in the past been harassed and summoned by traditional authorities, sometimes to the royal residence, for tongue-lashings and warnings following publication of stories deemed too critical by the authorities (“The King is not happy, you know.”). Information is heavily censored in the state media, particularly broadcast. When a caller to a radio talk show touches on a sensitive issue, he or she is immediately taken off air. Some sectors of society such as trade unions and political formations are officially barred from appearing on state radio - the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS). For ordinary citizens, the King’s Proclamation to the Nation of 1973 seriously inhibits freedom of expression. In terms of the Proclamation opposition political parties remain banned and all forms of political expression such as protest rallies or meetings remain prohibited. Offenders risk being arrested and thrown into jail. The Public Order Act of 1963 also prohibits gatherings and processions of a political nature without the prior authorization of a police officer in charge of the district in which the meeting or procession is to take place. Offenders risk being arrested and put into jail. Generally, freedom of expression is not seen as a right but as a privilege that can be taken away. SCORES: Individual scores: 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1 Average score: 1.6 1.3 There are no laws restricting freedom of expression such as excessive official secret or libel acts, or laws that unreasonably interfere with the responsibilities of media. ANALYSIS: There are as many as 32 different restrictive pieces of legislation that severely curtail freedom So This Is Democracy? 2005 -245- Media Institute of Southern Africa