ARMED FORCES MUST NOT VOTE?

MBABANE – Serious questions about the legality of the members of the armed forces voting during parliamentary elections have been raised.

Some legal experts said soldiers, in particular, should not vote on the basis of Section 97 (3), which states that the Umbutfo Swaziland Defence (USDF) Force is a disciplined, non-partisan, permanent national defence force, ultimately subordinate and accountable to civilian authority. The USDF is now called the UEDF (Umbutfo Eswatini Defence Force).

It is stated in section 5 of the Elections Act of 2013 that the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) shall provide for a special voting procedure for electoral officers, staff and security personnel who are on duty on polling day. During the 2013 general elections, the EBC conducted the special voting session for the polling personnel, security and the foreign mission staff on August 22 and 23. The primary elections were held on August 24, 2013. Polls were opened at 7am and closed at 5pm. Three politicians, who lost elections five years ago, claimed votes from the armed forces influenced the voting outcome. They did not want their names to be published because they have been nominated to stand for the 2018 general elections.

One word could prevent soldiers voting

Meanwhile, one legal expert, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was the word ‘non-partisan’, which could arguably prevent the soldiers from participating in the election. The Cambridge dictionary defines partisan as supporting a person, principle or political party, often without considering or judging the matter very carefully while non-partisan is the opposite. On the other hand, the Merriam Webster dictionary says a non-partisan is especially free from party affiliation, bias or designation.
Other dictionaries define non-partisan as not biased or partisan, especially toward any particular political group or persons. Its synonyms are unbiased, impartial, neutral or objective. “If non-partisan means neutral, what does it mean to the soldiers who are expected to vote for their favourites to Parliament?” asked one of the legal experts who referred the Times SUNDAY to the constitutional provision.

Kathy Gill, a former US State and Federal lobbyist who currently teaches at the University of Washington, once, said being partisan meant one adhered firmly to a political party, faction, idea or cause. Sipho Gumedze, an expert in Constitutional law, said the spirit of the law was that the armed forces should not align themselves with political parties. However, in a wider interpretation of the law, he said emaSwati would not talk about multiparty democracy because it was not being recognised by the country in the formation of a government. In the absence of political parties, Gumedze said the law applied to the political system used by the country – Tinkhundla-based political system of government. He said soldiers would be considered to have effectively participated in direct politics if they were allowed to vote during the parliamentary elections. Asked what he meant, the top attorney said they exercised political choice over another just as they would have done in a multiparty democratic election.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: