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