Chieftaincy, the State, and Democracy: Political Legitimacy in Post-Apartheid South Africa
300
Chieftaincy, the State, and Democracy: Political Legitimacy in Post-Apartheid South Africa
300eBook
Related collections and offers
Overview
As South Africa consolidates its democracy, chieftaincy has remained a controversial and influential institution that has adapted to recent changes. J. Michael Williams examines the chieftaincy and how it has sought to assert its power since the end of apartheid. By taking local-level politics seriously and looking closely at how chiefs negotiate the new political order, Williams takes a position between those who see the chieftaincy as an indigenous democratic form deserving recognition and protection, and those who view it as incompatible with democracy. Williams describes a network of formal and informal accommodations that have influenced the ways state and local authorities interact. By focusing on local perceptions of the chieftaincy and its interactions with the state, Williams reveals an ongoing struggle for democratization at the local and national levels in South Africa.
J. Michael Williams is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of San Diego.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780253004079 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Indiana University Press |
| Publication date: | 12/23/2009 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 300 |
| File size: | 644 KB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Chieftaincy, the State, and Democracy
Political Legitimacy in Post-Apartheid South Africa
By J. Michael Williams
Indiana University Press
Copyright © 2010 J. Michael WilliamsAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-253-35418-1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Chieftaincy, the State, and the Desire to Dominate
Without traditional leadership, there would be no community. It is like tea without water.
We, the people of South Africa, recognize the injustices of our past; honour those who suffered for justice in our land; respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
The current political order in South Africa is one that reflects both continuity and change with its apartheid past. Its transition to democracy in the early 1990s, heralded around the world as a "miracle," resulted in one of the most progressive constitutions in the world that sought to establish strong democratic institutions. As such, it is not surprising that the leaders of the African National Congress (ANC), the majority party since 1994, have continually made solemn promises to "democratize" and "transform" the lives of ordinary citizens. Indeed, in many ways, there have been notable positive changes since 1994, and South Africa has enjoyed nearly fifteen years of relative stability and peace. At the same time, many of the legacies of the apartheid era remain intact and are conspicuous to citizens and visitors alike. The economic and social legacies, such as the growing income inequality, the rising number of shantytowns in the urban areas, and the continued racial tensions, are the most visible, but few students of South African politics appreciate the significance that the institution of the chieftaincy has in the daily lives of many South African citizens. Yet as one of the most vivid political reminders of the apartheid past, the institution of the chieftaincy demands careful scrutiny, especially in evaluating the quality of democracy and the nature of state-society relations in South Africa.
For the leaders of the post-apartheid South African state, there is perhaps no political institution that has caused as much contention, and as much angst, as the chieftaincy. Indeed, the more than two thousand mostly hereditary rulers that make up the chieftaincy institution have been a source of agitation for the government since the transition period in the early 1990s. For this reason, the decision to officially recognize and protect this institution in the post-apartheid constitution was itself controversial. Admittedly, given the plethora of issues that exist in post-apartheid South Africa, such an assertion might be interpreted as mere hyperbole. Yet given the ambitious goals of the ANC to fundamentally change the lives of ordinary South Africans, the potential of the chieftaincy to facilitate, or to discourage, this process should not be underestimated. Indeed, the claims of the chieftaincy that it "represents" local populations and that it should have "autonomous" authority over them are declarations that should be taken seriously, as they demonstrate the ongoing struggle between the chieftaincy and the state regarding which of these institutions has the right to exercise its authority. In short, the presence and influence of the chieftaincy in South Africa is real, and the success or failure of South Africa's democratic experiment in some ways depends on how it is incorporated into the new political order.
For many within the ruling ANC, the coexistence of the chieftaincy with more democratic institutions has been simply a short-term necessary evil, which was itself the product of a transition littered with difficult accommodations. Despite the fact that at its founding in 1912 the ANC welcomed the participation of chiefs in its organization and many chiefs were active in the ANC throughout the anti-apartheid struggle, many believed that the apartheid regime had effectively de-traditionalized and de-legitimized this pre-colonial institution. In this vein, it is the view of a number of politicians, journalists, and scholars that at some point in the future the chieftaincy must be abolished in order for South Africa to become truly democratic (Ntsebeza 2005; Mamdani 1996; Munro 1996). Depending on one's definition of democracy and one's vision of what type of social order is most appropriate for South Africa, this may be true, but whether South Africa should have recognized the chieftaincy during the democratic transition is a topic that misses more compelling issues.
The more interesting question, and the focus of this book, is how the chieftaincy seeks to establish and maintain its political legitimacy, vis-à-vis local populations as well as the state, in the post-apartheid period. Since 1994, the chieftaincy has been forced to share its authority with a new set of institutions, which are based on a set of norms, rules, and processes that are distinct from its own. For example, one obvious difference is that while post-apartheid institutions are premised on the twin principles of majority rule and free and fair elections, the chieftaincy is based on decision making through consensus and on the hereditary right to rule. Similarly, while the ANC promotes the vision of a pluralist and diverse South Africa, many people in rural areas perceive the chieftaincy as representative of the unity of the local community, and in many cases "strangers" are met with distrust.
These differences are not trivial, nor are they necessarily incompatible, but they do represent conflicting worldviews about the nature of authority and the right to rule. Thus, what is important to analyze is how the recognition and protection of the chieftaincy in the interim (1993) and final (1996) constitutions put into motion a struggle between the chieftaincy and the state over which moral-order worldview would achieve hegemony at the local level.
As this analysis reveals, there are no clear "winners" or "losers" in this struggle. Instead, one of the results of this interaction has been the mutual transformation of both the state institutions and the chieftaincy, and the blending together of the different political norms, rules, and processes associated with each. Understanding how this mutual transformation unfolds and the implications this has on the legitimacy of the chieftaincy and the legitimacy of the state are the central aims of this book.
The starting point for this analysis is based on the current political reality that the chieftaincy remains an important political force at the local level. In previous research on the authority of the chieftaincy, there is a general consensus that in much of sub-Saharan Africa, and specifically in South Africa, people still rely on the chieftaincy to address their daily needs (Logan 2009; Beall 2006; Bratton, Mattes, and Gyimah-Boadi 2005; Oomen 2005 and 2000). The reasons why people continue to access their chiefs and the question of whether people accept chiefs as legitimate rulers remain open to debate (Oomen 2005; Rouveroy van Nieuwaal 1987 and 1996). This political reality, in my opinion, requires a different type of analysis that does more than simply wish the chieftaincy away, but rather seeks to understand the process through which it continues to exercise authority.
To analyze these struggles over political legitimacy in South Africa, I examine the dynamics among the chieftaincy, state institutions, and local populations in three chieftaincies located in the KwaZulu-Natal province. My analysis situates these local experiences into the broader political environment and compares the processes of continuity and change in these three chieftaincies with what has occurred in other chieftaincies throughout South Africa. This comparative case study focuses specifically on how the chieftaincy and local populations have negotiated the introduction of specific norms, rules, processes, and institutions that are fundamental to the ANC's policies of transformation and democratization. In particular, I analyze how the introduction of free and fair elections, elected local government institutions, and development projects has affected the legitimation process at the local level. In most cases, these "modern" institutions, as well as the underlying democratic political principles, were first introduced to many rural South Africans in the post-1994 period. An examination of the struggle between the chieftaincy and the state to exercise authority reveals the syncretic nature of authority at the local level. Through a "the multiple legitimacies framework," I will explain how the chieftaincy has sought to establish and maintain its authority in the midst of these political changes.
THE CHIEFTAINCY IN SOUTH AFRICA: FACT OR FICTION?
Despite assurances that an examination of the chieftaincy in South Africa was a worthwhile research project, it was three weeks after I had arrived in South Africa, in September 1998, when I began to appreciate for the first time the complexity of the chieftaincy in the South African political and social environment. In the University of Natal-Durban bookstore, looking for recent books on the chieftaincy, I asked one of the employees if she knew where I could find such publications. After the receptionist at the front shyly confessed she was not sure, she asked another employee, in all seriousness, whether the chieftaincy would be in the fiction or nonfiction section of the bookstore.
After they shared a mutual laugh at my expense, I quietly browsed the bookstore on my own, finding a few historical accounts of the chieftaincy in the history and sociology sections, but nothing on the role of the chieftaincy in contemporary South Africa. I left wondering what I should take away from this encounter. At the time, I was embarrassed and a bit worried — embarrassed that I had shown my true colors as an outsider who knew very little about "real" South African politics and worried that this institution that I had read so much about in academic books and articles was somehow not real. Looking back, I see now that it was my first real indication that for many people in South Africa, not to mention those who live elsewhere, the chieftaincy remained a mystery and that any analysis of the chieftaincy requires an initial examination of who these chiefs are, what they do on a daily basis, and how the post-apartheid state has sought to accommodate this institution.
According to the most recent government survey, there are more than 2,400 individual kings, queens, chiefs, and headmen in South Africa, who reside in seven of the nine provinces. Those occupying these positions are sometimes referred to as "traditional leaders," and the institution is often referred to as "traditional leadership." It should be noted at the outset that the use of these terms itself is a source of much political and academic dispute in South Africa. For some, the use of the term "traditional" is controversial, as it implies that this institution and its leaders have remained unchanged over time and somehow provide an unproblematic link with the pre-colonial past. Nevertheless, the terms "traditional leaders" and "traditional leadership" are in common usage in South Africa, and these terms are used in the constitution and in many statutes. In this same vein, there are many traditional leaders who find the terms "chief" and "chieftaincy" disrespectful because these are titles that were used during colonialism and apartheid.
At the local level, this issue is usually avoided as most everyone refers to the institution in his or her indigenous language. While the government has officially adopted the terms "traditional leaders" and "traditional leadership," I have decided to use the term "chieftaincy" to describe the institution itself and to use the term "chief" to describe those particular leaders with this title. I have not made this choice for any normative reasons, and readers should not infer any conscious or unconscious motives other than the fact that I believe the terms "chieftaincy" and "chief" allow for a more fluid narrative. When I refer to the chief's assistants, I will use the appropriate Zulu terms: induna (headman), plural form izinduna; iphoyisa (assistant to induna), plural form amaphoyisa. In addition, there is another set of assistants to the izinduna who are simply referred to as "traditional councilors." There are some instances where I will refer to the chief and his assistants as a group, and for the sake of convenience, I will simply use the term "traditional leaders."
Each of the 2,400 traditional leaders mentioned above has jurisdiction over a specified territory. The eleven kings and queens rule over sizable areas of land and have authority over a group of chiefs. For example, in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, King Goodwill Zwelethini, who came to power in 1971, is the leader for the 280 Zulu chiefs who live in this territory — some of which was formerly part of the Zulu Kingdom, which was an independent political entity from 1816 to 1879. While the kings and queens are supposed to be nonpartisan and exercise mostly ceremonial responsibilities, this has not been the case in KwaZulu-Natal, where King Zwelethini has often been involved in provincial and national politics.
Each chief in South Africa has authority over a specified territory as well. Currently, there are 774 different chiefdoms in South Africa. Beginning with colonial rule in the early nineteenth century, the labels that the government has attached to these territorial units have changed. For example, during the nineteenth century, beginning with British colonial rule in the Natal and Cape colonies, chiefs were given authority over particular "reserves" or "locations." After the election of the National Party (NP) in 1948, and with the passage of the Bantu Authorities Act in 1951, these areas were renamed "tribal authorities." In addition to creating tribal authorities at the local level, this act also created "regional authorities," which consisted of a group of tribal authorities, and it also created a number of "territorial authorities" that had jurisdiction over the regional authorities and the tribal authorities (see map 1). During apartheid, many referred to these areas collectively as Bantustans or Homelands — the point being that under the apartheid regime all black South Africans belonged to a particular Bantustan, and they were required to reside there unless they received permission from the apartheid government to live and work in the so-called white areas. The areas designated as Bantustans for the 80 percent of the population that was classified as black constituted only 13 percent of the territory in South Africa, which resulted in overcrowding and overuse of the land. Those who lived in these areas were under the control of chiefs and under the jurisdiction of customary law.
Keeping track of the different labels that have been used to describe the chieftaincy areas is itself a challenging task. Most recently, with the passage of the Traditional Leadership Governance and Framework Act (TLGF Act) in 2003, what were previously referred to as "tribal authorities" were renamed "traditional councils" and the regional authorities were replaced with "local houses of traditional leaders." Because all South Africans are now recognized citizens of the Republic of South Africa, the terms "Bantustan" and "Homeland" are no longer officially used to describe the areas where there are traditional councils or local houses of traditional leaders. At the same time, the boundaries of the chieftaincies have remained unchanged from the apartheid era, despite the use of a different label. Unlike the pre-colonial period, where chieftaincy boundaries were much less defined, the current territorial units are the product of state law. In fact, in the offices of the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG), which is the national government department responsible for the chieftaincies, there exist voluminous maps of these areas, along with files that dutifully record the exact coordinates of every territorial unit as well as the history of each "tribe."
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Chieftaincy, the State, and Democracy by J. Michael Williams. Copyright © 2010 J. Michael Williams. Excerpted by permission of Indiana University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
ContentsAcknowledgmentsAbbreviations
1. Introduction: The Chieftaincy, the State, and the Desire to Dominate2. "The Binding Together of the People": The Historical Development of the Chieftaincy and the Principle of Unity3. The Making of a Mixed Polity: The Accommodation and Transformation of the Chieftaincy4. The Contested Nature of Politics, Democracy, and Rights in Rural South Africa5. The Chieftaincy and the Establishment of Local Government: Multiple Boundaries and the Ambiguities of Representation6. The Chieftaincy and Development: Expanding the Parameters of Tradition7. Legitimacy Lost? The Fall of a Chief and the Survival of a Chieftaincy8. Conclusion: The Chieftaincy and the Post-Apartheid State: Authority and Democracy in a Mixed Polity
NotesBibliographyIndex
What People are Saying About This
Makes an important and substantive contribution to our understanding of political change in South Africa.