Ebrahim Harvey left field The stand-off between the rural-based traditional leaders and the African National Congress-led government over their role and powers in the new municipal structure, though in abeyance, in order not to disrupt or prevent the local government elections in December, strikes at the heart of the most important democratic principles our struggles during the apartheid era and the Constitution is founded upon: democratic, one-man-one-vote elections as the basis upon which power would be exercised, and the right to recall. But today a hereditary, conservative and authoritarian traditional leadership, propped up by the previous apartheid regime and the basis for the divisive and hated Bantustan system, has placed ludicrous demands on the government, and if these were not met, warned of preventing polling in affected areas, disrupting the elections and the restructured local government system thereafter. Minister of Home Affairs Mangosuthu Buthelezi has thrown his weight fully behind the demands and made veiled threats.
The basis of the demands is this: fearing that the restructured system of local government, which extends district municipalities into the rural areas, will subvert their un-elected traditional authority, they want to not only be present in the elected councils but also have the right to vote there. This makes an unacceptable nonsense of our democracy. They also want traditional authorities, and not elected councils, to be the primary level of local government and to amend legislation, including the Constitution, to further accommodate their hereditary powers. This in a country reputed to have the most democratic and progressive Constitution in the world. This is perhaps the most unfortunate and dangerous political development since the first democratic elections in 1994. How did it happen that the powerful ruling party could be held to ransom by this conservative clique, whose power is not based on free and fair elections but on archaic traditional and cultural systems that, in this regard, represent reactionary elements in the rural hinterlands?
The problem started when the ANC, in order not to scuttle the peace and negotiations process, from 1992 onwards, accommodated the traditional leaders, partly to win them over politically. They were accommodated in the Constitution, though not to their satisfaction. They are represented in the House of Traditional Leaders that enables them to participate in making laws that affect them, they have six provincial houses, they receive salaries though they are not elected. The government, in an effort to address their concerns, increased their representation in councils from 10% to 20% and postponed the election date several times and the Demarcation Board redetermined some of the boundaries after they raised concerns. But still the demands grow. They want to extend the substantial concessions already won. But for how much longer? If they get their way it will be a serious blow for the democratic functioning of local government. President Thabo Mbkei has made a big mistake by committing himself to amend the Constitution to further accommodate them, if necessary.
Where will all this end? And just how do we strengthen democratic governance by making fundamentally undemocratic compromises with undemocratic forces? What appears to be happening, which has ominous overtones for all, is that it is the threat of disruption of the elections and violence from these quarters that is the main reason for the subdued tone of the government and its willingness to compromise further. This is a short-sighted panicky response that will not solve the problems but instead contribute to further undermining the democratic ethos of the Constitution and strengthening the hand of these “leaders”. If concern that strained relations between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party in KwaZulu-Natal over this matter could lead to large-scale renewed violence is the strategic underbelly of this seeming relent by the regime, it needs to think again. Enough miserable compromises, against the interests of democratic governance, have already been made. The time has come when a line has to be drawn. Already, what we are faced with today is the outcome of earlier compromises. The more the regime gives in to these demands the more it will be expected to give in to more demands. This is the kind of problem that, unless firmly and decisively resolved, could become a much bigger problem later. Can the government be forced into agreements that will have severe and irreversible consequences for democratic local government? It cannot. The regime has adopted a hard-line stance towards the just demands of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, its ally, for a change to its economic policies, which have cost it dearly. And it is belligerent towards People against Gangsterism and Drugs in the Western Cape, threatening to crush it, but is weak-kneed in dealing with the unjust demands of the chiefs. Since this is a matter of great national importance it is necessary that civil society, in particular the trade unions and civic organisations, take a clear and strong stand on it. Democratic and socialist forces cannot sit idly while these leaders make absurd demands and threaten to disrupt elections and violence. Respecting cultural traditions is one thing, but allowing “leaders”, not elected, to impose their will upon the electorate and an elected government is ludicrous. Buthulezi’s weight behind the demands does not justify them and is not a reason to meet them. In fact, it is more the reason why they should not be met. For too long has he used his constituency as a bulwark of reaction. The ANC-led government must realise that the consequences of acceding to the demands, which tear apart the basic fabric of democracy, will be worse than that which they will face if they don’t. Besides, the critical question of accountability of leaders can only be derived from democratic elections and the right to recall, both of which do not apply to traditional leaders. Their view that one cannot expect municipal authority to function and render services in areas under their jurisdiction without their authority being usurped, spells out in a nutshell the contradiction between democratic government and hereditary powers. They hide behind tradition to protect a privileged power base.