By Nontlantla Skenjana

Through generations, power battles have characterised changes in location, society, culture, relationships and development. Territories have been central in establishing authority, because there can never be a King without a Kingdom or a President without a Nation.

South Africa has been one of the many victims of this notion during the colonial era, where native land was seen as a possible conquest to establish the British authority. The tussle between the Boers and the English resulted in the Anglo-Boer War between 1898 and 1902, which was a power battle with each wanting to establish or expand its authority at the other’s expense. However, an agreement was reached, to break away from Britain and the Union was established in 1910.

Long before the apartheid government, battles and wars were fought among the native tribes in order to establish the pre-colonial kingdoms some of which exist today. When the Settlers started claiming territories, there were kingdoms already established under the patriarchal leadership of traditional authority. These kingdoms became a force to be reckoned with during the Frontier Wars and it was clear that the English and the Boers had to accept co-existence in some areas. Some of the notable chiefs and Kings that put up a stiff resistance to the invading forces included: Dingaan, Shaka, Mzilikazi, Moshoeshoe, Mswati, Faku, Hintsa and Mhlontlo.

At the Union of South Africa, the prominent leadership of the natives was made up of the clergy, traditional leadership and the educated professionals. This is the generation that put forward the notion of unifying the natives in the agenda of South African politics, and entrenched political activity within communities. This unity was seen as a threat to the Union and led to the then South African Government arrogating itself power to create pseudo fiefdoms through a divide and rule strategy (d'Engelbronner-Kolff: 11). This was meant to destabilise the unity of the leadership and the nations, which was done through the introduction of stringent pass laws and the ascription of kingship to those who were willing to cooperate with government.

In some instances, kingdoms were divided into two merely to weaken them and turn them into more manageable units although the kingdom’s authority was not necessarily separated.  Some kings and chiefs were regarded as rebellious and were dethroned, particularly the kings of AmaMpondomise and AbaThembu bakaDalindyebo, for refusing to be subjects of the Union.

Traditional leadership sustained its authority during the colonial era in the face of internal battles and a clear distinction of tribes perpetuated by the homeland system that was introduced by the apartheid government. When the democratic government came into power, traditional authorities became a major stakeholder in the process and could not be ignored. This resulted in their inclusion in the Constitution and, because of the nature of traditional territories, their participation was formalised in the affairs of the State nationally, provincially and locally. This brought hope among communities that there would be effective cooperation between traditional authorities and their formal local government counterparts

However, this enthusiasm was short-lived because with the introduction of wards that are under the leadership of the Ward Councillor, the Traditional Authority fraternity felt undermined right in their backyards. It has been argued that traditional structures are not democratic and therefore cannot be seen as representing the view of the majority, especially women. The Traditional Leadership Framework Act was enacted to deal with these concerns. However, there have been delays in its adoption. Recognition of traditional authorities has become imperative in the development of rural areas as the land is still largely communal under the authority of the chief or king. Many projects have been frustrated in their inception and others cannot progress because of failure to consult and observe sensitive protocols.

Swanepoel et al (2006: 11) argues that most of the conflicts are as a result of many issues, some of which are expounded on below:

•    Unclear boundaries: There has been a lot of conflict centred on the clarity of roles, duplication of tasks and cooperation between local government and traditional leadership. Legislation continues to emphasise cooperation between the parties for the socio economic development of communities.

•    Clashing interests: Traditional leadership has argued that they have the interest of their people at heart while the local government has a temporal interest dictated by the electoral term. This has been a bone of contention, particularly in cases where the ward councillors do not reside in their ward of responsibility.

•    Dependency: Local government is the constitutionally recognised custodian of the local budget for the socio-economic development of their area of demarcation, including rural areas that are under the communal authority of a traditional authority. This incapacitates traditional authorities in implementing programmes as they do not have a budget unless local government cooperates with them.

•    Misunderstanding: There have been a number of misunderstandings between the parties due to lack of accountability to each other and cooperation, and mainly poor communication. This has resulted in power struggles as to who should report to whom and what protocols must be followed for development to take place.

•    Unresolved prior conflicts: The misunderstandings have at times led to distrust and traditional leadership feels undermined by local government.

Unless these concerns are addressed, development may continue being derailed by leadership struggles that have characterised our communities.

Swanepoel et al (2006) further explore Chambers’ Deprivation Trap (1988:112), which identifies powerlessness, vulnerability, physical weakness, poverty and isolation as a web that will trap those who come into it. These factors contribute to feelings of discouragement, bitterness and disgruntlement resulting in even greater conflicts and a continuous cycle of dissatisfaction for communities. Many rural communities have been victims of this trap and find themselves at the mercy of their leaders to release them. However, as stated above, the isolation, vulnerability and powerlessness of the leaders perpetuate the trap and continue the cycle.

There are success stories of good relationships between traditional authorities and ward councillors that have led to improvement of the lives of the poor. However, there has also been passive participation by traditional authorities in the affairs of the municipalities, which contributes to apathy against community participation initiates. It has become clear that because of the nature of our societies, it is necessary that these structures cooperate. It will take the willingness of all parties concerned to make it work, have an understanding of each other’s role and share a common vision of developing their communities for the improvement of livelihoods. Perhaps with rural development becoming a key priority, these power relations will be clearer and greater cooperation will be seen in local governance. However, deliberate measures need to be taken to ensure that there is real cooperative governance in the rural areas currently dominated by wasteful conflicts between traditional authorities and formal local government structures.

References:
•    d'Engelbronner-Kolff F.M., Hinz M.O. and J.L. Sindano. (Eds). 1998. Traditional Authority and Democracy in Southern Africa. Windhoek: New Namibia Books.
•    Swanepoel H. & De Beer F. 4th Edition. 2006. Community Development – Breaking the Cycle of Poverty. Lansdowne: Juta SA.
•    Nkosi Phathekile Holomisa: 18-19 October 2007. http://www.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/5103_Amoateng_Harnessingtraditionalgovernance.pdf. A Workshop on Harnessing Traditional Governance in Southern Africa - “Past, Present and Potential Role of Traditional Structures in Public Service Delivery”.