current government is more tolerant of free expression and freedom of the media has also contributed to the increased openness. But this new openness is not exercised without fear and there remain considerable restraints on the practice of freedom of expression. “People still talk in hushed tones.” Some panellists spoke of being regularly followed by police, and having their work monitored. Government spies “always” attend public events where their presence alone “is enough to just shut you up.” These tactics of intimidation result in reduced criticism of the ruling elite and less political activism. People can suffer retribution for speaking out against the status quo, though this often happens in a “subtle and covert” manner. Land expulsion is the most threatening form of retribution. The majority of Swazis live on Swazi national land, which is controlled by the traditional authorities. “Speak too openly and you risk eviction from your home”. The lack of land tenure inhibits the practice of freedom of expression. Fear of those in power (both traditional and political authorities) means people only express their political views “behind closed doors”. Political debate does not occur publicly and is suppressed by the cultural dictate that those in authority must not be questioned. The media is often told not to question the King on sensitive political issues, and they always follow suit. Criticism of the monarchy remains strictly off-limits. When the Times of Swaziland recently published a story that blamed the dwindling economy on the King’s lavish spending, the paper was forced to issue an apology immediately or face closure. The constitutional protection of freedom of expression was described as mere “window-dressing”, guaranteeing this right “on paper only, not in practice.” SCORES: Individual scores: Average score: 1.3 1, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 2.1 (2005=1.6) 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 the media. ANALYSIS: There are still at least 32 pieces of legislation on the statute books that restrict freedom of expression and/or media freedom, many dating back to the pre-independence era. The Proscribed Publications Act 1968 gives the Minister of Information sole power to declare a publication “prejudicial to the interests of defence, public safety, public morality or public health”. The Sedition and Subversive Activities Act 1968 criminalises the making of statements that “bring into hatred and contempt” the King, his heirs or successors; “raise discontent or disaffection” among the people of Swaziland and “promote feeling of ill-will and hostility” between different groups. The Books and Newspapers Act 1963 requires all print operators to be licensed and places a prohibitive cash bond of E15,000 (Emalangeni equals South African Rand) on entry into the print media industry. The Officials Secrets Act 1963 prohibits access to government-held information, except on approval by senior government officials. So This Is Democracy? 2007 -228- Media Institute of Southern Africa