Patekile Holomisa
A SECOND LOOK
One of the ironies of post-colonial Africa is the ease with which its new rulers find comfort within the governance systems of their former oppressors, while they all invariably seem not to know what to do with the indigenous systems that have somehow managed to survive the colonial onslaught.
There is usually no debate about whether or not the inherited white man’s courts, his Parliament, his executive arm of government or his economic systems should be retained or discarded. The debate is all about which Africans must occupy the newly vacated seats of power – political, economic, social and even cultural.
The result, as evidenced by the various scourges afflicting most African states, is that the lot of the black masses does not change for the better; if anything, matters become worse. The wisdom behind the strategies employed by the colonial masters, to communicate their policies to the people while they rule, escapes the new rulers.
Attempts to annihilate the institution of traditional leadership having failed, the colonial and, in South Africa’s case, apartheid masters adopted conciliatory stances. Under the pretext that they were according them due recognition as rulers of their own people, these masters used traditional leaders to communicate and implement their policies and laws of oppression. It was, of course, a carrot- and-stick kind of policy in terms of which those who collaborated would be rewarded with better salaries and/or political positions, while the recalcitrant would be punished by demotion, imprisonment, banishment, exile, torture and even murder.
On the surface, co-operation by traditional leaders with colonial and apartheid governments was an act of betrayal against their own people. However, due to the fact that our people have always understood the predicament in which traditional leaders found themselves, there was never a call of any serious nature, during and after apartheid, for traditional leaders to be done away with.
Except for some malcontents within the South African National Civics Organisation, no leading members of the liberation movement ever seriously publicly called for the abolition of the institution. Ubukhosi (the institution of traditional leadership) is here to stay. The wise thing for people in policymaking positions to do is to accept this simple fact.
Ubukhosi is like a two-edged sword. Depending on the person wielding it, it can damage; it can easily be used to injure and cause harm; equally it can be used to defend and therefore build. It is common knowledge that service delivery in rural areas has gone smoothly in areas where government structures had good relations with traditional leaders, while the opposite has been true of those areas where relations have been bad.
In the minds of the followers of traditional leaders there is no confusion as to how politicians should relate to traditional leaders. Politicians are subjects who have been given mandates to fulfil certain functions. They are seen as emissaries who should obtain mandates from the people to be communicated to the government.
They are expected to conduct periodic visits to the Great Place to give reports on what they have done with the mandate given to them. In other words, politicians, of whatever level, are not supposed to regard themselves as equals or alternatives to their traditional leaders.
An erroneous point of departure is the notion that if government resources and services are taken away from traditional leaders and are placed at the disposal of politicians then the people will abandon the former in favour of the latter. Besides anything else it is immoral for people to be made to choose between traditional leaders and service delivery – they deserve and are entitled to have both.
Local government, like any other level of government, does not own land. In the urban areas land is owned either by the banks, through mortgage bonds, or by holders of title deeds who have managed to pay off their bonds. In the rural areas tribal or communal land is owned by the tribe as a collective. Despite the fact that under apartheid laws the state is the legal owner of tribal land, factually and morally the tribes own the land and, unless one is spoiling for a fight, no one can deal with it as he pleases.
Under African tribal law the custody of the land is entrusted in the traditional authority, that is, the head of the tribe and his counsellors. As trustee of the land the traditional authority is required to act at all times in the interests and according to the wishes of the owners of the land, the people.
Land is so vital to the people’s well- being that extreme caution has to be exercised whenever one deals with its use, administration and change of ownership.
Mini-wars are commonplace even today, occasioned by actual or perceived alterations to boundaries depicting sub- headmen’s wards. The situation worsens where it concerns boundaries between fellow headmen, amakhosi or kings.
Local government being about service delivery, the availability and control of land to it becomes crucial. The government and the Municipal Boundaries Demarcation Board must at all costs ensure that no traditional authority territorial area is divided between more than one municipal council.
Should such division occur it will be seen as a diminution of the tribal land concerned and an addition to another traditional authority territorial area. We take as nonsense the suggestion that municipal boundaries will not affect the jurisdiction of traditional authorities even where they straddle tribal boundaries.
The traditional leader is responsible for every square inch of his people’s land, hence if it must be under a municipal council, the whole of it must fall within its boundaries intact. The final Constitution of the country has treated ubukhosi shamefully. It does not accord the kind of respect which would normally be expected from a legal document meant to give legitimacy to a liberated African state.
The interim Constitution accorded far better respect and certainty to the institution. The reason for this was, of course, the active involvement of traditional leaders themselves in the drafting and adoption of that document. The final Constitution was drafted and adopted in the absence of traditional leaders.
While the Constitution allows for the establishment of Houses of Traditional Leaders at the national and provincial levels, if the government of the day feels so inclined, it does not state precisely what it is that these houses are to do.
Traditional authorities are themselves under threat of abolition because they are to exist subject to the relevant laws and customs setting them up and liable to be amended and/or repealed.
The chapter in the Constitution dealing with local government does not make any reference to the existence and the possible role of traditional leaders. This then is the root of the problem facing the preparations for the second democratic local government elections. Traditional authorities have always been the providers of services in their communities. This they have done either by getting funds from the state or, and most importantly, by mobilising their communities to raise funds from their own non-existent sources.
Schools, clinics, community halls, access roads and other essential amenities have been constructed under the leadership and guidance of traditional authorities.
The National Party machinations and designs on traditional authorities notwithstanding, it is nauseating to an African traditional leader to hear self- appointed experts on the institution blandly and pontifically stating that traditional leaders have never contributed to the well-being of their people.
A comparison of lifestyles led by urban people and rural citizens shows that, at the level of morality, the former leaves a lot to be desired. In the urban areas you find people attacking and killing each other without any intervention by those watching until and unless police come to the scene.
In the cities you find people sleeping on pavements, in the open, with no shelter of any decency; you find people rummaging in dust-bins looking for food remnants which may be so stale as to be poisonous. This is all happening in an area which is endowed with the wealth of the nation.
Ubukhosi, the cultural values, norms, traditions and customs, all combine to ensure that, even in the midst of extreme poverty, there shall be respect for human life and dignity, each person shall not sleep out in the open due to poverty, there shall be respect for law and order, and that whatever food there is shall be shared by all. This is the way of life that traditional leaders want to retain for their people.
The present struggle is not about the retention of power for its own sake, it is for the retention of power so that it can be used to safeguard the African value systems which are the bedrock of society.
The Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa (Contralesa), whose members are to be found in all provinces, is in favour of the democratisation of rural local government. Contralesa believes that the elective form of democracy does not have to replace the African form of democracy as epitomised by the institution of traditional leadership.
We continue to propose to the government, on a daily basis, that traditional authorities must be recognised as the primary form of rural local government. These are to be democratised by ensuring that councillors are elected by the people to sit in the authority together with the traditional leaders.
In this way the traditional authority will be made up of political, civic and traditional leaders or representatives, and thus discussions and decisions will be informed by the experiences of the formation from which they come.
For the reasons stated above Contralesa is not in favour of any system which will have the effect of the domination of rural areas by urban town councils. It is for this reason that we propose that another layer of local government be set up and be made up of elected rural representatives and elected representatives from the urban areas.
All heads of traditional authorities falling within the sphere of any such elected structure will be automatic members with rights and responsibilities like other councillors. In other words, the idea that only one-tenth of traditional leaders are to sit on such councils is rejected out of hand by Contralesa.
As stated elsewhere, the present problem around the demarcation does not lie with the Demarcation Board per se but it is in the Constitution and the laws which flow from it. The government should as a matter of urgency hold a meaningful consultative meeting with the traditional leaders of the country as a whole in order to amend the Constitution and the relevant laws.
The current state of affairs wherein traditional leaders find themselves having to defend themselves, their culture, land and poor communities is undignified and is out of step with the declared goal of African renewal.
Patekile Holomisa is an African National Congress MP and president of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa