Nomboniso Gasa, Business Day
KING Goodwill Zwelithini made a fiery speech in Kokstad
recently in which he declared 2015 to be the Year of the Regiment. He urged
male initiates to be "his regiment and defend African culture against
critics".
His call to arms must be understood in the broader context of
claims of power over land, resources and customary law.
Almost every week a story breaks about mining companies that,
under the protection of some traditional leaders and powerful political
figures, disregard regulations and the legal requirements for mining. The stark
reminders of this deeply flawed process are recent reports on the IvanPlats
mine in Mokopane, Limpopo.
King Zwelithini’s speech is also one of the multiple ways in
which traditional leaders make decisions in areas of life that are historically
not within their scope in African cultural systems. Their entry into these
areas did not result from fluid and organic growth and changes of African
cultures. It is part of the legacy of colonial distortion of African cultures
and customary systems which vested power in one ruler (in the image of the
European systems).
The apartheid system entrenched this colonial distortion and
hand-picked traditional leaders who were strategic in the apartheid project.
King Zwelithini and many others have come to believe that they — and only they
— are the bearers of the "truth" of African cultures and systems.
Other voices are silenced, by all means necessary.
Before dealing with aspects of the king’s speech, let us
consider the occasion and its significance. Those who know the history and evolution
of the "Zulu Kingdom" are aware that King Shaka abolished male
circumcision among the Zulu people and replaced it with the formation of
regiments, who formed part of his conquering army.
The nature of the ceremony in Kokstad is a result of
processes of recent change that continue. In this instance, the reintroduction
of the initiation school resulted from external influence — the medical
awareness campaign led by the World Health Organisation on HIV/AIDS prevention.
The group of initiates comprised young men from different
linguistic and cultural backgrounds, including Hlubi, Zulu, Sotho and coloureds
(as described by Benny Khobo, who is in charge of the process). It was
undertaken under the auspices of the Indlondlo Circumcision Institute. This is
hardly how initiation used to be practised, by any stretch of the imagination.
The decidedly militaristic tone of King Zwelithini’s speech —
a "call to arms" — is part of continuing efforts to intimidate
critics of recent laws and policies that cement colonial distortions which
exaggerate chiefly power over land and people. The specific trigger is the
unconstitutional blanket land claim the king recently announced. He recruited
the initiates to be part of his regiment, whose responsibility is to
"defend African culture against critics".
Threats to his control over land through the Ingonyama Trust
is at the core of King Zwelithini’s wrath. According to a report that the
Ingonyama presented to Parliament last year, the trust is busy converting
"indigenous land rights" to leasehold. It increased the rental fee
for such leases tenfold over the past 10 years.
The report also revealed that millions of rand are
transferred by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to the
Ingonyama Trust. It receives money from other sources, too, such as mining,
game reserves and other tourists attractions.
Emboldened by President Jacob Zuma’s call to traditional
leaders to "put their best resources together and claim for land on behalf
of their people", King Zwelithini was the first among many traditional
leaders to announce their intention to claim land. The vast area of land
earmarked for the claim cuts through different provinces and falls outside the
scope of the current law. The claim goes back to the 1800s.
The government has not told those who jumped on the bandwagon
of "tribal" claims that the cut-off date remains 1913. This silence
creates uncertainty and gives the impression that the claims are valid.
"This land was not taken from trusts, which are now
popular in the country, but was taken from traditional leaders, and your
fathers and mothers," King Zwelithini said. It is important to remind him
that land was seized from the people.
Africans had different systems of land ownership in the past,
including purchasing land as groups and forming trusts. Land that was under the
control of traditional leaders was held in trust on behalf of communities.
The power of traditional leaders derived from the people, and
without this, they were vulnerable. Multiple forms of land ownership and
plurality of voices were encouraged and allowed to flourish, throughout Africa.
The king also called for the "unity of Nguni
people" in the fight for land. But against whom? Unity and peaceful
coexistence of all people is what’s important.
How will this manifest when people decide to claim land
independent of traditional leaders’ big claims, which is their right according
to the constitution? What will happen to those whose claims straddle the
borders between different kingships? Will they be called part of those against
whom "African culture" must be defended?
King Zwelithini attacked the "critics of the Traditional
Courts Bill" for raising the violation of women’s rights. The critique of
the status of women is based on real and lived experiences: dispossession of
widows; discriminatory inheritance practices which, when brought to the
attention of some traditional leaders, are confirmed; denial of women’s right
to own land in their own name in some communities; and exclusion of women from
decision-making forums, among other practices.
These issues are well recorded in Parliament and the National
Council of Provinces after women have spoken with their own voices, in
provincial and national hearings on the bill.
Scholars and activists have been at pains to point out that
not all communities — and certainly not all traditional leaders — discriminate
against women. The binary approach that the king and many others have adopted
is unhelpful. It is dangerous to take a stance that says people are
anti-African culture if they are critical of some practices, or are in favour
if they support the big land claims by the king, the Traditional Courts Bill
and Traditional Affairs Bill.
We need a nuanced discussion that takes into account the
complexity of the issues and, most important, puts the substantive rights of
all people at the centre of public debate, legislation, policy debate and
programmes that are adopted and implemented. Such a conversation can only take
place if the king, other traditional leaders and the government recognise the
accountability to, and participation of, people as an integral part of African
cultural systems and democracy.
It is crucial that the government provides leadership and
clarity on these issues. This can be done through revisiting all government
policies and asking this fundamental question: does this policy strengthen the
substantive rights of all people, including those who live in the former
bantustans?
This must be done through a careful review of all
legislation, policies and programmes. These cut across government departments,
including justice and constitutional development, co-operative governance and
traditional affairs, rural development and land reform.
Perhaps King Zwelithini may want to reconsider his position
on the "critics of African culture". He might want to take a leaf
from the African forms of knowledge creation and look at the role of griots,
izanusi, elders, community members and others. That requires an open and candid
discussion about the second dispossession that is happening in KwaZulu-Natal.
It demands an honest discussion about the blanket land claims
he and other traditional leaders plan to lodge. Difficult as this may be, it is
necessary and it is urgent. That, after all, is the way many African societies
build and expand knowledge.
