Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
0
My Tradition, My Pride
1
My Tradition, My Pride
Author: DR MC NWAILA - Director General:
Department of Traditional Affairs
INTRODUCTION
This paper seeks to explore the notion of
traditional leadership within a democratic
dispensation and its future. The ongoing
debate about the proper role of traditional
leaders in modern African democracies is
complex and multifaceted and full of
contradictions. The discussion paper is
therefore intended to stimulate debate
during the envisaged round-table
traditional leadership dialogue to be
convened jointly by the Department of
Traditional affairs (DTA) and the University
of South Africa (UNISA).
We therefore need to grapple with and
reflect on the following questions: What are
traditional leaders and what is it they
represent? What is their place and
relevance in our democratic context?" The
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
refers to the notion of "unity in diversity"-
how does it apply to democracy and
tradition?
If we want to design a traditional leadership
capacity building program in South Africa,
what will the program be premised on,
beyond needs analysis? Do we train and
develop traditional leaders to be more of
"what they are" or more of "what they ought
to become"? What is therefore, an ideal
institution of traditional leadership in the
21st Century?
INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND
Over the years, the institution of traditional
leadership managed to survive despite the
frequent efforts by colonialists to
marginalize or even eradicate it, efforts that
sometimes spanned centuries, this
hereditary leadership not only survived but
also quite evidently thrived, despite the fact
that its very existence is generally
conceived to be an open threat to
democracy.
It is often claimed that the institution of
traditional leadership is the custodian of
culture and African heritage, as it existed
from time immemorial before conquest.
This assertion is confirmed by Holomisa
(2009) when he maintains “African culture
is rich and has so many edifying features,
you find yourself wishing you could
preserve and store it in some safe place
where it can be insulated from decadence
of some aspects of received cultures”. He
further contends, “Colonialism, missionary
education and apartheid all conspired
against African cultures and customs.”
Research conducted on evolution of socio-
political transformation worldwide, has
shown that modern societies and systems
of governance are constantly changing. It
is evident that traditional customary
2
My Tradition, My Pride
structures have not kept pace with socio-
political and economic transformation. As a
result, there have been contradictions and
tensions between democratic, traditional
and customary structures.
Nevertheless, South Africa has established
a firm foundation by crafting one of the
most progressive constitutions in the world.
This Constitution forms the basis for
restoration of the dignity, integrity and the
self-worth of our people, especially
indigenous communities including the Khoi
and San as well as uniting our diverse
cultural communities to be able to realize
the ideal of “unity in diversity”.
The colonial, apartheid and Bantustan
systems have seriously impacted and
displaced the institution of traditional rule
and distorted indigenous heritage and
culture.
Pakenham (1991) makes the point that the
scramble for Africa gave Europe virtually
the whole continent. He further claims that
Africa was sliced up like a cake, the pieces
swallowed mainly by five rival nations:
Germany, Italy, Portugal, France and
Britain. The King of Belgians, Leopold II,
championed and funded this scramble
agenda. The partition of Africa began in
earnest during 1800, which became one of
the most remarkable episodes in the
history of the world.
During colonial era especially in South
Africa, a number of traditional leaders were
deposed for not being amenable to colonial
and apartheid government directives.
Notwithstanding the traditional legitimacy
they enjoyed, they were ousted from office
or passed over in matters of succession.
Colonial powers and the apartheid
government, especially in South Africa
introduced new and foreign levels of
traditional leaders. The introduction of
such levels within the institution of
traditional leadership was, in many
instances, politically motivated and
included levels such as “supreme chief”,
“paramount chief”, “sub-chief” and
“independent headmen”. For example, the
level of a “supreme chief” was introduced
by the previous regime to arrogate the
power to rule over Africans to the
Governor-General and, later, the State
President in 1961. Other levels such as
paramount chiefs, independent headmen
and sub-chiefs were introduced to elevate
or demote certain people to new positions,
thereby according them new titles and
status, which were not appropriate in terms
of custom. The highest customary position
was reserved for the kings in Europe.
To this end, various statutes were
introduced. One of them, the South Africa
Act of 1909, designated the Governor-
General as the “Supreme Chief”, a position
3
My Tradition, My Pride
that gave him the power to create new
traditional communities and divide existing
traditional communities and to appoint any
person he chose as a “chief” or headman,
and to depose such persons as he deemed
fit. The Black Administration Act, 1927 (Act
No. 38 of 1927), consolidated these
powers and vested them in the Minister of
Native Affairs.
LEADERSHIP DURING THE HOMELAND
SYSTEM
This power was later re-assigned to the
President of South Africa in 1961 and then
to the homeland governments upon the
attainment of self-governing status, and to
the TBVC states upon gaining
independence. This was the beginning of
what Mamdani (2013) refers to as “indirect
rule”.
Mamdani (2013) argues that the colonial
“indirect rule’s” intention was to limit
citizenship to the settlers in South Africa. In
order to isolate indigenous communities,
Mamdani maintains that the colonial states
maneuvered concepts such as “native”,
used not to designate a condition that is
“original and authentic”, but to characterize
the colonized, localized, and a person
“thrown out of civilization as an outcast,
confined to custom and then defined as its
product”.
He further makes the point that the
governance of indigenous people in Africa
and South Africa in particular, was
subjected to “native authority”. In addition,
Mamdani states that “as a form of
governance, native administration claimed
to be faithful to tradition and custom used
parochially for political expediency”. It is
argued that no matter its local variations, a
core set of rules defined the “customary”
setting in “indirect rule” colonies. These
rules concerned land and governance.
Mamdani further makes a profound point
that land in a colony was defined
exclusively as a “composite of different
homelands, each the home of a designated
native tribe. Only those officially
designated as natives could claim land
rights in the tribal homeland”. Issues of
communal land remain unresolved in
democratic South Africa. Communal land
within traditional communities has become
quite contentious and very complex.
The struggle for power and control of rural
areas is underpinned by the history of
South Africa. In terms of Black Authorities
Act, 1951 (Act No. 68), a regional authority
and tribal authority comprising of traditional
leaders, performed amongst others, the
following functions and duties which are
currently performed by municipalities:
(i) Establishment, maintenance,
management of educational
4
My Tradition, My Pride
institutions;
(ii) Construction and maintenance of roads,
bridges, drains, dams, furrows and any
works which it may consider necessary
for purposes of sanitation or for ensuring
satisfactory water supplies or for
preventing or combating soil erosion;
(iii) Establishment, maintenance,
management of hospitals, clinics and
other similar institutions;
THE DAWN OF THE NEW ERA
The democratic South Africa has
celebrated its 22nd anniversary in 2016
and yet there has never been a robust
discourse on the fundamental issues
pertaining to the location and role of the
institution of traditional leadership in the
context of an inclusive democratic
governance model. Over the years,
traditional leaders have been calling for a
national dialogue to resolve complex
issues affecting this sector. The envisaged
round table dialogue is intended to grapple
with issues confronting the sector.
Shaun de Waal, in his Mail and Guardian
article of 17 May 2013 reported in his
interview with Francis Fakuyama who
claimed that there were two forms of state
in South Africa: “the modern constitutional
democratic state versus the patrimonial
version which has gone through a long and
painful struggle, displaced by the modern
kind of democratic governance system”.
When asked about South Africa and where
he saw it going, he responded that “South
Africa’s constitutional democracy is a sort
of foreign body that’s sitting on top of
society that’s not modernized in other
respects”. It is observations such as this
one by Fakuyama that create
contradictions in society, especially the
discord between modernity and customs
and tradition.
In his address on the African renaissance
at the United Nations University in Tokyo,
the former President Thabo Mbeki (1998)
argued, few years after South Africa
became a democratic, non-racial and non-
sexist country that “the entire epoch in
human history, the epoch of colonialism
and white foreign rule, progressed to its
ultimate historical burial grounds because,
from Morocco and Algeria to Guinea-
Bissau and Senegal, from Ghana to
Nigeria to Tanzania and Kenya, from
Congo and Angola to Zimbabwe and South
Africa, the Africans dared to stand up to say
the new must be born, whatever the
sacrifice we have to make- Africa must be
free!”
Dowden (2009) reminds us of the impact of
colonialism in Africa. He maintains, “in
many parts of Africa people lack a sense of
5
My Tradition, My Pride
identity, ethnic or national. They are
culturally uprooted, unsure of who they are
and what to become. The old ways
forgotten, many Africans have not worked
out new ones”. He further advises, “Only
Africans can develop Africa. Africa’s history
and culture, Africa’s ways, are the key to its
development”.
In the context of South Africa, our
Constitution (1996), has laid a good
foundation in its preamble, when it
highlights, “We the people of South Africa,
recognize the injustices of the past…
believe that South Africa belongs to all who
live in it, united in our diversity”. In addition,
the Constitution commits all South Africans
to work towards a cohesive South African
society, “We therefore, through our freely
elected representatives, adopt this
Constitution as the supreme law of the
Republic so as to- heal the divisions of the
past and establish a society based on
democratic values, social justice and
fundamental human rights”. What remains
is to strive for this laudable ideal of building
a united nation, which is at peace with itself.
The policy question that begs an answer is:
“How do we design a customized model or
suitable landscape to ensure that
modernity and tradition coexist and are
integrated and harmonized to truly reflect
our diverse and colorful society in the spirit
of our Constitution?”
The new South Africa as stated earlier,
ushered in a democratic state in 1996,
which dismantled among others, the
apartheid homeland structures, which were
used as instruments for “indirect rule”. One
of the critical elements of a democratic
state expressed in the Constitution of
South Africa are “the Republic of South
Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state
founded on the following values among
others: human dignity, non-racialism, and
non- sexism”.
THE ROLE OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS
On the other hand, the “institution, status
and role of traditional leadership, according
to customary law, are recognized, subject
to the Constitution. The Constitution further
stipulates, “National legislation may
provide for a role for traditional leadership
as an institution at local level on matters
affecting local communities, especially
customary law and customs of
communities observing a system of
customary law”. It is clear that there is a
significant shift from the apartheid and
homeland dispensation to a democratic
Republic of South Africa. In other words,
traditional leaders were stripped of the
executive and legislative authority within
their communities when wall to wall
municipalities were established across
South Africa.
6
My Tradition, My Pride
This is affirmed through section 151 (1), (2)
and (3) of the Constitution of the Republic
of SA (1996), which brought about a radical
shift from the Black Authorities Act, 1951
(Act No. 68). It stipulates, “Local sphere of
government consists of municipalities,
which must be established for the whole of
South Africa.
Furthermore, “the executive and legislative
authority of a municipality is vested in its
municipal Council”. In addition, “a
municipality has the right to govern, on its
own initiative, the local government affairs”
inclusive of traditional structures and
communities.
This constitutional provision has far-
reaching implications for traditional
leadership; structures and communities
residing under the authority of elected
leadership within the municipal boundaries.
Their functions remain limited to facilitative,
supportive, complementary, and advisory,
conflict resolution and ceremonial roles.
At the heart of the contention and conflict
between elected and traditional leaders is
the struggle for control of the local sphere
of government despite the legislative and
constitutional provisions; these tensions
seem to continue unabated.
In the midst of this struggle, traditional
leaders continued to engage government
expressing a need for the establishment of
a department that would exclusively focus
on the support and development of the
institution of traditional leadership. In
response, the President of the Republic of
South Africa proclaimed the establishment
of the Department of Traditional Affairs in
December 2009.
Soon after its establishment, its immediate
mandate was to examine the constitutional
and other legislative mandate of the
Department. As pointed out earlier, the
South African Constitution democratized
the institution of traditional leadership and
provided for recognition of traditional
leadership in the new dispensation with the
intention to restore its dignity, legitimacy
and identity. To this effect, several pieces
of national and provincial legislation gave
effect to this provision, establishing houses
of traditional leaders, defining the
relationship to local government and
specifying powers in the allocation of
communal land.
Subsequent to this exercise, the following
five pillars constituting the "affairs" of the
Department were identified:
1. Leadership;
2. Governance;
3. Culture;
4. Administration of justice;
5. Socio-economic development;
7
My Tradition, My Pride
These pillars were premised on so-called
"maintenance agenda". This is a short term
agenda comprising of existing attributes
that would keep the institution afloat. The
immediate focus was to deal with the "what
is situation", but not the unresolved “what
ought to be" context. Despite all these
efforts, the discord between elected and
traditional leaders seems to persist.
TRADITIONAL LEADERS VERSUS
ELECTED LEADERS
The tension between the current reality and
the ideal state, is manifested through a lot
of disgruntlement within the traditional
leadership sector about unresolved issues
and what seems to be the lack of political
appetite to decisively confront these issues.
It is important to note that almost 20 million
people constitute rural and traditional
communities in South Africa including the
urban based communities who continue to
pay their allegiance to their traditional
leadership structures. This is almost 36%
of the South African population.
Furthermore, there are 7,970 traditional
leaders in South Africa who have been
recognized in terms of law. This includes
twelve kingships, five of which will become
principal traditional leaderships by
operation of law. A queenship has recently
also been recognized. In addition, there are
eight hundred and twenty nine (829)
recognized senior traditional leaders and
approximately 7,127 headmen and women
operating under them and others operating
independently.
Given the background and resilience of the
institution of traditional leadership in South
Africa over centuries, it is therefore argued
that the debate or dialogue on the place of
customs and tradition in this country must
be part of the national agenda to enrich
social cohesion and to unite us in our
diversity. Furthermore, it is important to go
back to basics in search of our heritage and
who we are.
Why is it important to revisit the issues of
identity, culture and heritage? It is
significant because:
Identity, heritage and culture are
three important elements that have
a bearing on our self-worth and
dignity;
When national identity is not clearly
defined and twisted, we become
baseless as a nation.
Traditional leaders and communities have
to be supported in their quest for self-
identity and their journey towards self-
actualization in modern society. They have
to be equipped and empowered to enable
them to lead their communities to a desired
state in harmony with the democratic
8
My Tradition, My Pride
principles enshrined in the Constitution of
the Republic of South Africa.
Needless to say that traditional leaders
have always played a critical role in the
development of society. Throughout the
ages, they have served as a steady,
guiding force for societal progress.
Decisions in communities regarding
conflict resolution and matters that relate to
social issues, welfare and many others are
often placed under the guidance of
traditional leaders.
Currently, traditional leaders in South
Africa continue to struggle with the bread
and butter issues such as inadequate
resources provided to support the
institution and lack of funding model and
dedicated budgets for traditional councils
which constitute the backbone of this
sector. Some of the most burning issues
often raised by traditional leaders are
among others, issues of land tenure
especially communal land, the role of
municipalities in land management, their
involvement and their participation in ward
and municipal council meetings, IDP
processes, minimal support for traditional
courts and their role in socio-economic
development within their jurisdictional
areas.
As stated earlier, the imposition of colonial
and foreign governance structures brought
about duality and they continue to exist and
function side by side.
Nevertheless, the future of traditional
leadership in South Africa is entirely
dependent on the current South African
leaders inclusive of traditional leadership to
shape the place and future of the institution
of traditional leadership within the
democratic environment created through
our laudable Constitution. Semou Pathe
Gueye (1999) warns that there cannot be
“African renewal with people who are
psychologically defeated and have lost
their confidence in themselves and their
ability to change their own situation
according to their own needs and
aspirations”. He further maintains “we have
to restore the self-confidence of Africans,
their pride and the historical internal
dynamics of their cultures”.
This paper also highlights some critical
observations and pertinent points raised for
consideration during the round table
engagement derived from the Fifteen Year
Review Research on Traditional
Leadership in South Africa (2008),
conducted by Human Sciences Research
Council:
1. There are clear signs that after a
long period of uncertainty on the approach
towards traditional leadership, government
is now adopting the view of organic
9
My Tradition, My Pride
democracy proponents. This makes
government do slightly more than tolerate
traditional leaders, which is better than the
confusion of the last decade (1993 – 2002).
Policies seem to indicate that government
is seriously considering an integration of
traditional leadership within the South
African system of governance. However,
this is at an early stage as there is still
uncertainty as to whether government sees
itself as having superior authority over
traditional leaders or see traditional
leadership as a parallel governance
system.
2. South African intellectuals are not
in agreement about the relevance of
traditional leadership in the South African
political system. They are therefore
generally ambiguous about traditional
leadership core areas of operation and
about their proposals on policy direction on
traditional leadership. Within this generality
there are those that are clear about the
need to phase out traditional leadership
from the South African political system and
those who are adamant traditional leaders
must be given administrative support and a
flexible, mutually agreed, policy
environment in which to work.
3. Traditional leaders are at a very
early stage of establishing their own
systems of analysis and negotiation of a
range of social issues at a national scale
and using the administrative bureaucratic
support afforded by legislation. Whilst they
are convinced that their role is critical in the
South African political system and that they
make real contribution at a local level, the
Provincial and National levels have been
grappling with the question of their status
and powers and not so much the question
of operations and precise specification of
their role. Traditional leaders need to make
solid input as to whether specification of
their role by government is desirable to
them given the integrated functions that
they currently perform.
4. The fact that the State apparatus
has every element of work that traditional
leaders once performed is used to argue
for their invalidity in addition to the
argument of them being an anomaly in a
specifically defined form of democratic
system. Specific issues are raised about
their powers in collecting revenue from
rural citizenry, their role in local
government, in addition to questions about
the meaning of them dealing with
customary issue and how that affects
women in particular.
5. Whilst the question of integration of
traditional leadership with the State political
regime is crucial and its delay has caused
tension both at national and local levels,
the approach of government and civil
society is not one of co-operative crafting
10
My Tradition, My Pride
of a solution but one of confrontation on
technical issues around synergies between
State legislation and a customary political
system. This standoff is somewhat
predicated on denial about the historical
nature of the problem coupled with
insistence on synergized democratic logic
(with democracy defined exclusively in
terms of representativity, and open
procedural routines). Area-based
approaches and area-based systems of
democratic practices are not only
inconceivable at this stage, but they are
seen as unnecessary because they do not
‘add up’ with the broad and generic political
discoursand civil society organizations
have not been sufficiently consulted
anmissionsubmissions are being ignored.
However this view of the pragmatists can
be enhanced. Given the current standoff
between the organic democracy
proponents and the democracy
pragmatists and how this is evidently
influencing schools of thought in
government, it is important perhaps to
employ a variety of methodologies in
eliciting the perceptions on rural
governance. Methods could include:
consultation with communities on matters
to do with traditional leadership policy, land
management policy, and gender issues in
rural governance. But it is also important to
employ participatory methodologies and to
invite input from Indigenous Knowledge in
developing Integrated Development Plans
and Land Use Management Plans. It is also
important to devise research that is
carefully designed not to see rural
governance in isolation from land issues,
poverty alleviation and socio-cultural
values.
6. There is a need to come to a
resolution about the legitimacy of investing
in an indigenous system with the view to
make it work for the communities
concerned. Both because traditional
leaders operate in communities that are
largely poor and because that which is
indigenous is often relegated to heritage,
merely in its aesthetic sense, there seems
to be hesitation in investing energy to
develop a systematic linkage between a
traditional leadership system and
government. There is also a hesitation in
developing a systematic funding and
operational system that works for all
provinces. The hesitation of legislation is
fundamental to all the ambiguities
experienced currently. The African
Renaissance thus becomes informal
political rhetoric of ceremonial occasions.
7. Coupled with an urgent need to be
precise about the legitimate existence of
traditional leadership as part of governance
of rural areas in South Africa, there is also
a need to specify government obligations in
ensuring smooth operations of the house.
11
My Tradition, My Pride
This must be complemented by the Houses
of Traditional Leadership developing their
own systems of operation and
accountability within the systems and
between traditional leadership and
government.
8. Municipalities need to formulate
institutional arrangements to work with
traditional leaders on land use
management, integrated development
planning and other service delivery issues.
Even the loose terms of ‘advising’, ‘being
consulted’, and ‘influencing’ policy that are
directed at the local level relationships
must be systematized with real working
institutional mechanisms.
These observations point us to the core of
the problems within the traditional
leadership sector. Traditional leaders
therefore need to consider these issues in
the process of redefining and locating
themselves in the rightful place in modern
and a democratic South Africa. During the
dialogue, we need to grapple with these
issues within the constitutional framework
to create a coherent traditional and
democratic model to enhance social
cohesion in South Africa.
CONCLUSION
In the process of pursuing the principle of
unity in diversity, we can draw inspiration
from Gueye, when he makes a clarion call
to those who are proud of their heritage to
rebuild their identity on the solid rock of
their best ancestral values, “enriched by
the achievements of successive
generations of Africans who have shaped
our history”.
We conclude this paper by borrowing wise
words from Ayi Kwei Armah cited by
Makgoba, MW, et al. (1999) in their
compilation of papers delivered during the
African Renaissance Conference, “A
people losing sight of origins are dead, a
people deaf to purpose are lost. Under the
fertile rain, in scorching sunshine, there is
no difference: their bodies are mere
corpses, awaiting final burial.”
Critical issues
Defining the ideal state
What will be required to take us there?-
In terms of capacity building- What do
we have to do to equip traditional
leadership to shift from "here"
( maintenance agenda) to that place
called "there" ( ideal state)? What
does the ideal state comprise of?
References
1. The Constitution. As adopted on 8 May
1996 and amended on 11 October 1996 by
12
My Tradition, My Pride
the Constitutional Assembly of the
Republic of South Africa.
2. Dowden, R. (2009) Africa: Altered States,
Ordinary Miracles, Portobello Books,
London.
3. Gueye, SP. (1999) African Renaissance
as an Historical Challenge; Papers
compiled during African Renaissance
Conference; Mafube and Tafelberg
Publishing, Cape Town.
4. Holomisa, SP (2009) According to
Tradition: A cultural Perspective on Current
Affairs, Logo Print, Somerset West.
5. Mamdani, M. (2013) Define and Rule-
Native as political Identity, Wits University
Press.
6. Mbeki, T. (1998) Africa: The Time Has
Come, Selected Speeches, Tafelberg
Publishers, Cape Town.
7. Okri, B. (2002) A Way of Being Free,
Phoenix House, London.
8. Pakenham, T. (1991) The Scramble for
Africa, Abacus, London.
9. Shaun de Waal. (2013) Mail and
Guardian interview with Francis Fakuyama,
an Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the
Freeman Spogli Institute for International
Studies at Stanford University.
10. Sithole, P and Mbele, T. (2008) Fifteen
Year Review on Traditional Leadership: A
Research Paper compiled by Human
Sciences Research Council Democracy an
Compiled and Distributed by
Department of Traditional Affairs
Private Bag X 804
PRETORIA
0001
13
My Tradition, My Pride
SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: 012 334 5859
Email: www.cogta.gov.za