Gaye Davis
THIS WEEK’S lightning-fast passage of a Bill allowing=20 for traditional leaders to be paid by central=20 government strikes at the heart of the Inkatha Freedom=20 Party’s political control over KwaZulu/Natal chiefs.
The Remuneration of Traditional Leaders Bill was=20 whisked through the Senate and the National Assembly in=20 two days this week, with the Democratic Party=20 criticising the “undue haste” with which it was being=20 “steamrollered through” and the Inkatha Freedom Party=20 threatening a Constitutional Court challenge.
Presented as “an enabling Bill” to allow the=20 rationalisation of a chaotic, unequal system of payment=20 of traditional leaders, it is likely to result in a=20 thorough-going investigation of who gets paid what and=20 what for. Traditional leaders appointed to serve=20 apartheid, rather than on the basis of inherited=20 entitlement, may find their status in question.
But the Bill will undoubtedly boost the ANC’s standing=20 in the eyes of traditional leaders across the board.=20 Although the interim constitution lays down that their=20 role be recognised, many have laboured under the=20 apprehension that being accommodated in the new=20 political system would see them emasculated.
Expressing National Party support for the Bill, Senator=20 David Malatsi, describing himself as a traditionalist,=20 said: “I did not believe that a party such as the ANC=20 could support traditional leaders, but I am grateful=20 for the fact that they are recognising these people and=20 are giving traditional leaders the support that they=20
The Bill sets the principle that President Nelson=20 Mandela, after consulting the (yet-to-be-established)=20 Council of Traditional Leaders and Commission on=20 Remuneration of Public Representatives, will determine=20 who gets paid what. Mandela will also have the power to=20 make distinctions between different categories of=20 traditional leaders, depending on their status and=20 powers. To do this, a proper survey will have to be=20
It is unclear just how many traditional leaders South=20 Africa has. An official estimate puts the number at 3=20 152. About R90-million a year is paid out to them in=20 wildly unequal stipends and other forms of payment. A=20 chief in one province might earn R2 400 a year, while=20 his equivalent in another might get almost R300 000.
Decrying central government’s “arrogance” and=20 “illegitimate interference” in the “internal affairs of=20 the Kingdom”, IFP Senator Keith Zondi described the=20 Bill as “a clear political ploy on the part of the ANC=20 to gain political control of the province”. It was a=20 “suicidal mistake” to ignore the wishes of=20 KwaZulu/Natal amakhosi, who had made repeated=20 representations to Mandela and would resist any=20 attempts to subjugate them.
ANC senator Mohammed Bhabha countered that the Bill=20 would liberate traditional leaders in KwaZulu/Natal=20 from the IFP’s yoke. “We are freeing (them) from a=20 particular bondage … (of pledging) allegiance to a=20 particular political party and not to the province.”
The IFP’s threatened court challenge revolves around=20 the constitutional requirement that any laws impacting=20 on the institution of traditional leadership first go=20 before the Council of Traditional Leaders for comment.
The council has yet to be established. But Roelf Meyer,=20 Minister of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional=20 Development, told the National Assembly it was never=20 intended to function as “third house” of Parliament.=20 “It could never have been the intention of … the=20 Constitution to prevent Parliament from performing its=20 legislative functions until the council has been=20 established while … the council is not in=20
The Bill’s tabling on June 21 limited time available=20 for public comment severely, drawing criticism from the=20 Black Sash and the Human Rights Committee.
Members of the National Assembly and Senate committees=20 on Constitutional Affairs heard that President Mandela=20 himself had consulted widely with provincial premiers=20 and senior traditional leaders, achieving a broad=20 consensus. It was felt further opinion was not=20
Didn’t this mean that the committees had surrendered to=20 the executive their prerogative, as legislators, to=20 canvas public opinion? Pravin Gordhan, chair of the=20 National Assembly portfolio committee on Constitutional=20 Affairs, said no.
“The president raised his intention to introduce this=20 bill as a matter of public debate a long time ago and=20 began a consultation process. Five of six premiers=20 agreed and senior traditional leaders were brought on=20 board. “Opposition to the bill was not of an order=20 demanding further consultation. “Notwithstanding all of=20 this, an opportunity was given to the public to=20 comment, even if the notice was short.”