With the prospect of jail time over his head, AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo had some sober counsel for his 23-year-old son and successor, Azenathi Zanelizwe Dalindyebo.
He advised him to stay away from dagga and alcohol abuse, and more importantly, that public politics is not for royals.
The king’s advice obviously stems from his personal experience after his decision to break away from the ANC and openly join the DA, which caused a furore and created more enemies for him.
The king’s move was viewed through different lenses. Some argued it was his constitutional right to join whichever political party he wished, while others considered his an unthinkable move and a compromise of his own struggle credentials.
Mlibo Qoboshiyane, the ANC provincial spokesperson, even considered it a deviation from what the king’s father, Sabata Dalindyebo, stood for, further quoting the terrible experience of the late King Sabata’s persecution by the apartheid government which forced him into exile.
The role played by traditional leaders in politics is not new. One of the first influential ANC presidents was Albert Luthuli, chief of a certain Zulu group in Groutville, KwaZulu, in the early 1900s.
Chief Luthuli spoke openly against what he believed was a system of exclusion that only benefited a few.
In 1975 an influential Zulu prince, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, started the Inkatha National Cultural Liberation Movement which later became the Inkatha Freedom Party, or IFP. Even though some argue that at its inception the IFP was an organisation started to fight for the rights of traditional leaders, the fact is that currently it is a political party and at some point the IFP membership benefited from Buthelezi being a member of the royal household.
Buthelezi was also once both a political party leader and an adviser to the Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini. He subsequently went on to accuse the king of aligning himself more to the ANC, in spite of a view that the royal house should be apolitical.
Interestingly enough, a few years later when the king was seen to be supportive of the IFP by some ANC members, the ANC accused the same king of meddling in party politics and further argued that a king should be above party politics and should be defending the right of all to belong to whichever political party of their choice.
The intriguing point about both the IFP and ANC accusations is that each only recognised the separation of royalty from politics whenever the so-called support of royals was not favourable towards their own interest.
The question one can therefore ask is was this really about a line between politics and traditional leadership, or was it that each party wanted to secure the support of the king, and watched carefully to see which side he came out on.
Then there is the Congress of Traditional Leaders which has always been aligned to the ANC. Even at its inception in 1987 it received support from the United Democratic Front and the ANC. Not only that, but it was instrumental in the anti-apartheid front in the homelands and it represented the ANC at grassroots while the ANC was burned by the apartheid government.
First and foremost, it is important to establish that kings are citizens before they are traditional leaders, in the same way that all other traditional leaders are. They are therefore eligible to vote for a political party of their choice.
In terms of political alignment, there are a whole a lot of traditional leaders who are ANC MPs – Nkosi Mwelo Nonkonyane, Nkosi Mandla Mandela and many more.
The argument that their political affiliation does not matter because they are not kings is misleading. The fact is, they are influential leaders and under their jurisdiction are a number of subjects who look up to them and are likely to be influenced by their political choices.
Currently there is no law or regulation in this country preventing traditional leaders from participating in politics or limiting the extent to which they can participate.
This is unlike Zimbabwe, for instance, where it is unconstitutional for any traditional leader to take part in party politics.
Chapter 15 (Principles to be observed by traditional leaders) of Zimbabwe’s constitution clearly states:
l Traditional leaders must not be a member of any political party or in any way participate in partisan politics;
l act in any partisan manner; and/or
l Further the interest of any political party or cause.
With this issue entrenched in their constitution there is in Zimbabwe at least, some understanding of this debate.
In South African however, the dynamic is different. Not only is there is no law preventing traditional leaders from participating in party politics, but if there was one, you would see a lot of people losing their jobs considering the large number of traditional leaders who are employed by the ANC or who are ANC MPs.
To some extent the debate on whether traditional leaders should be involved in public politics is an old debate, much like the discussion about church leaders and politics. It is however, one likely to be used by the state to pursue its own agenda.
During apartheid for example, the state used its power to strip away those traditional leaders who were aligned to political parties and supported only those who would be submissive to government rule.
My point here is that traditional leaders have always been involved in politics and it seems the main issue about Dalindyebo is not that he openly joined a political party, but it’s about which party he joined.
According to the ANC, the DA is a symbol of apartheid. Qoboshiyane made this clear when he reminded the king of what the apartheid government had done to his father.
But one may ask, how different is Dalindyebo’s cause from that of Luthuli?
Is Dalindyebo not canvassing against the ANC after having observed that it is no longer on track regarding its orthodox principles?
Dalindyebo’s stance has been evident since he called the ANC “corrupt hooligans” and further argued that the ANC has distorted Mandela’s legacy.
One could conclude that traditional leaders have always played a role in partisan politics and that role will not change because one of them joined and publicly endorsed the DA.
One can also conclude that Dalindyebo’s advice to his son was not that the prince should not become involved in politics, but that he should not openly join a political party other than the ANC, in order to avoid making enemies for himself.
Dr Luvuyo Ntombana is an anthropologist based at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein
INSIGHT: King’s role in politics is not the issue, it’s who he backs
He advised him to stay away from dagga and alcohol abuse, and more importantly, that public politics is not for royals.
The king’s advice obviously stems from his personal experience after his decision to break away from the ANC and openly join the DA, which caused a furore and created more enemies for him.
The king’s move was viewed through different lenses. Some argued it was his constitutional right to join whichever political party he wished, while others considered his an unthinkable move and a compromise of his own struggle credentials.
Mlibo Qoboshiyane, the ANC provincial spokesperson, even considered it a deviation from what the king’s father, Sabata Dalindyebo, stood for, further quoting the terrible experience of the late King Sabata’s persecution by the apartheid government which forced him into exile.
The role played by traditional leaders in politics is not new. One of the first influential ANC presidents was Albert Luthuli, chief of a certain Zulu group in Groutville, KwaZulu, in the early 1900s.
Chief Luthuli spoke openly against what he believed was a system of exclusion that only benefited a few.
In 1975 an influential Zulu prince, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, started the Inkatha National Cultural Liberation Movement which later became the Inkatha Freedom Party, or IFP. Even though some argue that at its inception the IFP was an organisation started to fight for the rights of traditional leaders, the fact is that currently it is a political party and at some point the IFP membership benefited from Buthelezi being a member of the royal household.
Buthelezi was also once both a political party leader and an adviser to the Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini. He subsequently went on to accuse the king of aligning himself more to the ANC, in spite of a view that the royal house should be apolitical.
Interestingly enough, a few years later when the king was seen to be supportive of the IFP by some ANC members, the ANC accused the same king of meddling in party politics and further argued that a king should be above party politics and should be defending the right of all to belong to whichever political party of their choice.
The intriguing point about both the IFP and ANC accusations is that each only recognised the separation of royalty from politics whenever the so-called support of royals was not favourable towards their own interest.
The question one can therefore ask is was this really about a line between politics and traditional leadership, or was it that each party wanted to secure the support of the king, and watched carefully to see which side he came out on.
Then there is the Congress of Traditional Leaders which has always been aligned to the ANC. Even at its inception in 1987 it received support from the United Democratic Front and the ANC. Not only that, but it was instrumental in the anti-apartheid front in the homelands and it represented the ANC at grassroots while the ANC was burned by the apartheid government.
First and foremost, it is important to establish that kings are citizens before they are traditional leaders, in the same way that all other traditional leaders are. They are therefore eligible to vote for a political party of their choice.
In terms of political alignment, there are a whole a lot of traditional leaders who are ANC MPs – Nkosi Mwelo Nonkonyane, Nkosi Mandla Mandela and many more.
The argument that their political affiliation does not matter because they are not kings is misleading. The fact is, they are influential leaders and under their jurisdiction are a number of subjects who look up to them and are likely to be influenced by their political choices.
Currently there is no law or regulation in this country preventing traditional leaders from participating in politics or limiting the extent to which they can participate.
This is unlike Zimbabwe, for instance, where it is unconstitutional for any traditional leader to take part in party politics.
Chapter 15 (Principles to be observed by traditional leaders) of Zimbabwe’s constitution clearly states:
l Traditional leaders must not be a member of any political party or in any way participate in partisan politics;
l act in any partisan manner; and/or
l Further the interest of any political party or cause.
With this issue entrenched in their constitution there is in Zimbabwe at least, some understanding of this debate.
In South African however, the dynamic is different. Not only is there is no law preventing traditional leaders from participating in party politics, but if there was one, you would see a lot of people losing their jobs considering the large number of traditional leaders who are employed by the ANC or who are ANC MPs.
To some extent the debate on whether traditional leaders should be involved in public politics is an old debate, much like the discussion about church leaders and politics. It is however, one likely to be used by the state to pursue its own agenda.
During apartheid for example, the state used its power to strip away those traditional leaders who were aligned to political parties and supported only those who would be submissive to government rule.
My point here is that traditional leaders have always been involved in politics and it seems the main issue about Dalindyebo is not that he openly joined a political party, but it’s about which party he joined.
According to the ANC, the DA is a symbol of apartheid. Qoboshiyane made this clear when he reminded the king of what the apartheid government had done to his father.
But one may ask, how different is Dalindyebo’s cause from that of Luthuli?
Is Dalindyebo not canvassing against the ANC after having observed that it is no longer on track regarding its orthodox principles?
Dalindyebo’s stance has been evident since he called the ANC “corrupt hooligans” and further argued that the ANC has distorted Mandela’s legacy.
One could conclude that traditional leaders have always played a role in partisan politics and that role will not change because one of them joined and publicly endorsed the DA.
One can also conclude that Dalindyebo’s advice to his son was not that the prince should not become involved in politics, but that he should not openly join a political party other than the ANC, in order to avoid making enemies for himself.
Dr Luvuyo Ntombana is an anthropologist based at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos