CHAPTER THREE
3.1 TRADITIONAL LEADERS AND GOVERNANCE IN SOUTH AFRICA
3.1.5 Contextualising traditional leadership under apartheid regime (1948-1994)
The Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 was taken as the first step by the apartheid government to set a strategy for divide and rule. Studies showed that the notorious Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 'bolstered the power of chiefs by modernizing and expanding their tax basis to include all the members of the tribal authority' (Harries, 1989: 103). The designers of this law needed to revive chieftainship. For Amtaika (1996: 23) the apartheid regime resuscitated the institution of traditional leadership through its policy of separate development, therefore the institution became an essential element in the 'masculine and hierarchically ordered view of the Zulu nation in the KwaZulu Bantustan'. Some studies suggested that Bantu Authorities Act (BAA) divided the very same chieftaincy it was intended to revive. This legislation produced collaborators and resisters. Those who collaborated in the promulgation betrayed their own subjects. Mare and Hamilton (1987: 27) observed as follows:
The Bantu Authorities Act of that year both did away with the NRC and made provision for tribal and regional authorities, redefining and re-emphasizing the resolve of white political authority to maintain control through untraditional static and strong 'traditional tribal' structure. What must be borne in mind is that while the origins of these structures lie in the policies developed by the colonial authorities in Natal from the mid 19th century onwards, their purposes have changed overtime. Initially they served as an economic and political link between pre-capitalist society and colonial administrators. Today chiefs and tribal authorities (with some notable exceptions) form part of the control mechanism over an African population superfluous in the long and short term to capitalist labour needs.
The above citation demonstrates how the institution of traditional leaders was changed by those in power. The BAA provided three levels of administration.
Through the BAA the apartheid state employed a range of institutions at its disposal so as to maintain racial segregated order. This Act offered an opportunity to the apartheid state to have a close link with those who supported or who served as collaborators with it in a wide range of issues such as land and implementing segregation policies. Mare and Hamilton (1987: 28) argued that Verwoerd was convinced that 'the three-tier system was one to re-instate or reintroduce traditional tribal democracy to African people'. Conversely, it is unclear whether BAA was really needed to revive chieftaincy in South Africa. Mare and Hamilton made two conclusions, firstly, they noted that apartheid needed to weaken the institution so as to continue ruling with the colonial bureaucracy; lastly, it needed to rely on the
institution for administration matters (Mare and Hamilton, 1987: 27). Relying on the institution for a number of issues was entrenched in Natal for decades. Ntsebenza (2002: 6) reminded that traditional leaders in the rural areas of the former Bantustans enjoyed unlimited powers 'over a range of activities'.
Observers showed that the National Party government made policies such as BAA because of a growing pressure from within South Africa and the international community. As Mare and Hamilton (1987: 29) eloquently put it:
The 'wind of change' of African nationalism that swept through the continent after the Second World War set an example as they forced aside the direct control of the colonial powers. Verwoerd acknowledged the effect of international pressure when he commented that 'we cannot govern without taking into account the tendencies in the world and Africa'.
It is through the wind of change that tribes and chiefs rejected BAA. The former African National Congress (ANC) President Chief Albert Luthuli made clear that they reject BAA (Mare and Hamilton, 1987).
Researchers like Mngomezulu (1999: 18) have been critical in demonstrating historical facts that show the relationship between chiefs and BAA. He criticised King Cyprian from the Zulu Kingdom for opening a fertile ground for ploughing apartheid policies by supporting the implementation of BAA. There was also a warning that the acceptance of BAA by Cyprian should not be understood to mean that all Zulus accepted it and that not all chiefs should be seen as 'collaborators'. Mzala (1988) argued that when Verwoerd went to address chiefs at Mona (outside Nongoma) in October 1955 they refused to adopt and implement such legislation (BAA). Instead, they requested to be given more time to think about it. Tapscott (1996: 293) argued that 'under the Bantu Authorities Act, the powers of chiefs were considerably strengthened but, at the same time, their popular legitimacy was undermined as they were compelled to introduce unpopular laws such as the
"Betterment Schemes" which resettled communities against their will'.
There are numerous lessons to be learnt from these quotations. Firstly, there is a need to understand historical facts that would add value in our contemporary debates.
Secondly, there were lesser chances for apartheid policies to be unanimously welcomed by chiefs. This suggests that the relationship between chiefs and governments has never been smooth, as other studies seem to suggest. Lastly, any legislation that involves governments and chiefs cannot be easily implemented; as the government would wish it to be instead time would be needed so that traditional leaders would adapt to that particular legislation.