Power of ubukhosi lies in unity

From the time of colonial intrusion to present day democratic South Africa, the institution of traditional leadership endured sustained attack, undermining, manipulation, marginalisation and patronisation by systems of governance in which it played no meaningful roles.

The desire has been at all times to do away with the institution either by killing, jailing, banishing, exiling, deposing, delegitimising and/or disempowering the incumbents.

In the course of our struggles against the colonial invaders for the recovery and restoration of all that was unjustly taken from us, we have fought amongst ourselves and against each other. At the end of such struggles we continued to remain divided.

We gained political freedom while the economic wealth remained in the hands of the beneficiaries of colonialism and apartheid. The leaders of our liberation struggles took over the systems and values holus bolus of our erstwhile oppressors.

The National House of Traditional Leaders was formed well after the constitution was adopted, in the middle of Nkosi Nelson Rholihlahla Mandela (Ah! Dalibhunga)’s term of office.

It never had a chance to make an input in its formulation and adoption. Thus rural and indigenous South Africans were cheated. Everyone knows that the constitution is western oriented. It promotes values that are anathema to African values. It disregards the institution of traditional leadership in the law-making processes of the land. It does not give recognition to the African system of justice administration as epitomised by traditional leadership.

It took away all the powers that traditional leaders exercised before democracy. All of the powers traditional leaders had at the local government sphere were taken away and given to municipal councils.

Now, the institution of traditional leadership exists for a purpose. It does not exist for its own sake. We do have legal provision for the creation of structures for the functioning of traditional leaders.

Traditional councils, formerly known as tribal authorities and traditional authorities, are in place albeit with neither material nor human resources; nor do they have buildings decent enough to be associated with an institution as noble to Africans as ubukhosi.

The majority of the existing buildings were built in the era of the Bantustans. The democratic government does not even provide a budget for them to run their operations.

We also have provision for the establishment of Local Houses of Traditional Leaders, which are meant to complement the municipal councils as channels of the voice of rural local communities to local government.

I have not heard much of what they have done by way of improving the lives of the people they serve as traditional leaders.

Maybe this is because in my province, the Eastern Cape, government has not even bothered to establish them.

In provinces, such as KwaZulu Natal, where they exist I do not know of what support they get or what they do to improve the lot of the people they lead.

The national and provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders are no better off than the local houses and traditional councils save for the fact that the chairpersons, deputy chairpersons and members of management committees enjoy salaries and other benefits such as motor vehicles and drivers; and that once in a while the president and the premiers address them at their official opening sessions. Having debated the president’s or the premier’s speech, as the case may be, nothing is ever heard of what these houses are about.

When we, as Contralesa, called for the recognition, transformation and modernisation of the traditional councils, as well as the creation of the houses of traditional leaders, we did so not merely to have traditional leaders holding positions to earn salaries and other perquisites that come with public office. We wanted to create platforms for the descendants of the original rulers of the land to infuse African values into the colonial systems of governance, which our liberators were intent on perpetuating.

There is absolutely no reason why traditional councils are not given the responsibility and resources to provide services for rural development. Regardless of what the apartheid law says, the communal lands are owned by the traditional communities under administration by traditional leaders. It stands to reason that support for agricultural development must be channelled through the traditional councils.

In democratic South Africa our people still travel, at enormous expense, to nearby towns in order to access government services. Yet, it is the most sensible thing to make use of the traditional council establishments as centres of service delivery. Our people should be able to access all government departments in their own villages.

The Houses of Traditional Leaders, locally, provincially and nationally, were long envisioned by the founders of the parliament of the people, the ANC, are meant to be the forums where traditional leaders contribute to the formulation and adoption of policies and laws that govern the lives of the people. Some of the laws that have been passed by the democratic parliament leave a lot to be desired. In fact, a number of them shame the people and the land of our ancestors. This is so because traditional leaders have no say in their formulation, discussion and adoption.

Our parliament is a laughing stock of the world. African norms and values have been cast out of the window in the name of democracy and equality. The young speak as they please with their elders. They insult their mothers and brothers with impunity in the name of freedom of expression. Our courts regularly give judgments in accordance with this new culture of disrespect, banality and rude behaviour.

The Houses of Traditional Leaders would undoubtedly serve to do away with such conduct were they to be part of the legislative organs.

The abiding shame of our democracy, as alluded earlier, is the fact that the royal courts of the land continue not to enjoy constitutional recognition. The only laws relating to these courts are those passed during the colonial and apartheid eras.

Just as with respect to communal land administration, traditional leaders try cases brought before the royal courts on the basis of customary law and the laws of the past.

Twenty two years after freedom government is unable to legislate for these courts and for the administration of ancestral lands.

You will recall that the Communal Land Rights Act was invalidated by the Constitutional Court in response to calls by opponents of African civilisation and culture not to affirm powers that traditional leaders had always exercised over land.

The traditional courts bill was hounded out of the halls of parliament for the same reasons and by the same opponents of African progress.

This entire state of affairs is a cause for resentment on the part of traditional leaders and their people. Some have come to the mistaken conclusion that “if you cannot beat them join them”, by seeking to become politicians themselves.

I am glad that the traditional leaders of the Eastern Cape resolved to not convert Contralesa into a political party, even though, as the democrats they have to be, they left the door open for those who want to form their own political party to do so.

It goes without saying that the strength of traditional leaders lies in their unity. There is nothing feared as much by governments as the unity of traditional leaders across tribal lines. The principle of “divide and rule” suits politicians perfectly.

It would thus be a blunder of all blunders if traditional leaders were to decide to join or form a political party as such. That would destroy the dignity, efficacy and integrity of the institution. They would be lowering themselves to the levels of their followers.

Contralesa still has the potential to once again lead the charge for the restoration of the integrity of this noble institution.

It’s leadership must not look at short term personal gain. It must go back to its roots, galvanise other traditional leaders, who are not its members, behind programmes that foster unity among themselves, but are of relevance to the lot of their people.

It is Contralesa which can legitimately call for the restoration of the African land that was stolen in broad daylight in the wars of invasion.

It is Contralesa that can legitimately call for the equal distribution of the riches found in the belly of the earth – gold, diamonds, platinum, manganese, iron ore, nickel and many other minerals – for the benefit of all our people.

The students who are destroying university property, attacking the state by fighting the police, in the name of the call for a free education, need the voice of traditional leaders. Political parties of all ideological hues have lost credibility in the eyes of these young people. They have agendas.

We should remember that, even if that truth is not told, it was the intervention of Contralesa that led to a negotiated settlement of that prolonged strike in Marikana. We were able to bring to one negotiating table forces implacably opposed to each other, to talk and eventually come to a settlement.

Our country, as are those north of us, is too richly endowed to be allowed to wallow in such poverty when the descendants of the original rulers are still alive.

Nkosi Phathekile Holomisa (Ah! Dilizintaba) is an MP, Deputy Minister of Labour and traditional leader of the Hegebe Clan in Mqanduli. This is an extract from his speech to a traditional leadership summit held in Johannesburg on Friday