Most of the debate that has been sparked by the death of chief Kaizer Matanzima has focused on an assessment of the type of ruler he was.
A minority that benefited from the Bantustan system saw him as a leader who empowered people. Chief Mwelo Nonkonyana of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa described Matanzima as a ”statesman among statesmen” and ”liberator of black people”.
However, for the majority of South Africans Matanzima was, as the Mail & Guardian put it, ”…a ruthless man who cared little for the welfare of those he presided over”.
Missing in the debate is the controversial manner in which the paramount chieftaincy of so-called Emigrant Thembuland was created, paving the way for the appointment of Matanzima, an ordinary chief, as paramount chief. The promotion of Matanzima was critical in the emerging system of indirect rule in which chiefs were destined to play a pivotal role. As a paramount chief, Matan-zima would be the head of the Transkei Territorial Authorities that was established in terms of the 1951 Bantu Authorities Act.
Although a chief, Matanzima was not born in the lineage of the paramount chief of abaThembu. This position belonged to Dalindyebo Sabata and his descendants. The area that is referred to as Thembuland comprised Umtata, Mqanduli, Xhora (Elliotdale), Engcobo, Xhalanga (Cala), St Marks (Cofimvaba) and Glen Grey (Lady Frere) districts.
In the scheme that would make Matanzima a paramount chief, the last three of these districts were excised from Thembuland and formed Emigrant Thembuland, later called Western Tembuland. The argument for the division of Thembuland was based on the migration of a portion of abaThembu to the Glen Grey areas in the 1830s, hence the term ”emigrant Tembus”.
As early as the 1940s Matanzima was adamant that Emigrant Thembuland was independent and that he was its paramount chief.
He based his claim on a colonial position dating back to March 1870, which recognised two regions that comprised Thembuland: Thembuland proper and Emigrant Thembuland. In a letter dated March 7 1870, the Cape colonial secretary indicated to the government agent, JC Warner, that the paramount chief of abaThembu at the time, Ngangelizwe, should be ”aware that the government does not recognise the slightest right on his part to exercise authority over Emigrant Tambookies [Thembuland]”.
It is important to note that factions of abaThembu contested the colonial position. They argued that abaThembu had one paramount chief who had jurisdiction over the whole of Thembuland, including Emigrant Thembuland.
Before the implementation of Bantu authorities, when the role of chiefs was marginal in the administration of residents in the former Bantustans, colonialists rejected Matanzima’s claim.
However, when tribal authorities were introduced and Matanzima had given his support for their establishment, the attitude of the apartheid state towards him changed. For example, the chief magistrate assured Matanzima in a letter dated June 19 1956: ”In view of the reconciliation between you and chief Sabata, which was discussed at the time of the Bhunga, he [the secretary for Bantu Affairs] will not take any disciplinary action against you for persisting in calling yourself chief of the emigrant Tembus and for failing to attend the paramount chief’s tribal court when summoned to do so.”
At the same time the chief magistrate displayed hostility towards Sabata and began to embrace Matanzima. He embarked on a character assassination of Sabata. In one of his letters the chief magistrate drew a comparison between Sabata and Matanzima: ”I have done everything in our power to uphold the prestige and authority of a drunken, dissolute, irresponsible young paramount chief, particularly against … chief Matanzima, an intelligent, well-educated ambitious chief who is doing much for his people.”
What the chief magistrate did not say, though, was that, unlike Sabata, Matanzima was unwavering in his loyalty to the apartheid regime.
Apart from demonising Sabata, the state embarked on further attempts to marginalise him. Firstly, there was a drive to identify ”agitators” who were alleged to have led the campaign against Bantu authorities. This was an attempt to isolate Sabata from his supporters. This witch-hunt culminated in the deportation on May 30 1958 of the leading members of the anti-Bantu authorities campaign in Thembuland: Jackson Nkosiyane, Bangilizwe Joyi, Twalimfene Joyi and McGregor Mgolombane.
At the same time a one-man commission, led by the under-secretary for native affairs, CB Young, was set up early in 1958. It was supposed to conduct an inquiry on the tensions in Thembuland. Sabata’s supporters submitted a memorandum setting out their position regarding Bantu authorities in Thembuland. Matanzima and his brother George also submitted a memorandum in which they cited the letter dated March 7 1870 to the government agent regarding the division of Thembuland.
The results of the inquiry were announced in a meeting of abaThembu held on June 11 1958. Young made two significant announcements: the deportation of the leaders of abaThembu named above and that Matanzima had been appointed chief over the St Marks and Xhalanga districts. This paved the way for the installation of Matanzima as paramount chief.
Evidence shows that the paramount chieftaincy of Emigrant Thembuland was imposed by the apartheid regime in its project of indirect rule. The crucial question that arises with the death of Matanzima is whether the post-1994 South African state will perpetuate the myth by appointing a successor to Matanzima, or whether it will allow abaThembu to express their wishes on the matter and exercise their options accordingly.
Dr Lungisile Ntsebeza is senior researcher at the University of the Western Cape’s programme for land and agrarian studies