Neither despotic nor civil: the legitimacy of chieftaincy in its relationship with the ANC and the state in KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa)

Abstract

Are South African chiefs rural and peri-urban despots or have they transformed to legitimate representatives of local interests in the post-apartheid era? This article argues that the legitimacy of chieftaincy in KwaZulu-Natal is not only based on constitutional and legal recognition, but that chieftaincy may rely on different forms of ‘basic legitimacy’. Chieftaincy is neither despotic nor civil but occupies an intermediary position between local citizens and the state. This junction position provides chiefs with specific opportunities to gain power but also requires a navigation between cooperation and conflict in the relationship with the ANC and the state.

Neotraditional authority contested: the corporatization of tradition and the quest for democracy in the Topnaar Traditional Authority, Namibia

“…The power of the kaptein rested on two pillars: state recognition and the memory of his father's resistance to forced resettlement in the past. What is striking in comparison to my findings from KwaZulu-Natal is that different forms of ‘basic legitimacy’ (such as the value of order, organizational capacity and cultural belonging; see Krämer 2016) are very limited resources for the legitimation of power in the Topnaar case. For example, ordinary Topnaar complained over and over again that the neotraditional leadership had failed to improve their economic situation since Namibian independence.…”

“…This article therefore examines two closely related themes: first, the triangle of tradition, capital and the state; and second, resistance to neotraditional leadership and local activism for democracy – the latter theme is central to a broader public and academic debate on the legitimacy of neotraditional authority in a democratic system (see, among others, Baldwin 2016; Krämer 2016; Kyed and Buur 2007; Mamdani 1996; Myers 2008; Ntsebeza 2005; Oomen 2005; Trotha 1996; Williams 2010; Zenker and Hoehne 2018). This debate is essentially about the (normative) question of whether neotraditional authority hinders democracy.…”

“…Two puzzles confronted me during my fieldwork, in its aftermath, and specifically in comparison with my experiences and findings in KwaZulu-Natal (see Krämer 2016). First, why had there been such a forceful critique and contestation of neotraditional leadership in the Topnaar Traditional Authority since at least the late 1990s?…”

Building Fiscal Capacity with Traditional Political Institutions: Experimental and Qualitative Evidence from Sierra Leone

“…Other scholars argue that TPIs' legitimacy stems from their performance. 11 For example, TPIs maintain public order and political stability (Kramer 2016), preside over systems of customary law that many people perceive as fair (Sawyer 2008), help their communities obtain important services from government (Williams 2010), and organise local input (e.g., labour and materials) to produce local public goods (e.g., road maintenance) (Baldwin 2019). Consistent with the idea that TPIs are perceived as legitimate, survey results from 31 African countries (Afrobarometer, round 8, 2020) show that traditional leaders are more trusted, seen as less corrupt, have higher approval ratings, and are perceived as better…”

<i>Naam</i> Making in Dagbon and the Legitimation of Traditional Authority

“…Evidence abounds of the chieftaincy institution having been transformed into civil chieftaincy in the words of Von Trotha (1996), being neither despotic nor civil but occupying an intermediary position between local citizens and the state 6 Section 76 of the 2008 Chieftaincy Act, Act 759 stipulates that: "cause or matter affecting chieftaincy means a cause, matter, question or dispute relating to any of the following: 1) the nomination, election, selection or installation of a person as a chief or the claim of a person to be nominated, elected, selected or installed as a chief; 2) the deposition or abdication of a chief; 3) the right of a person to take part in the nomination, election, selection or installation of a person as a chief or in the deposition of a chief; 4) the recovery or delivery of stool property in connection with the nomination, election, selection, installation, deposition or abdication of a chief; and 5) the constitutional relations under customary law between chiefs; "deposition" means destoolment or deskinment. Open Journal of Social Sciences (Krämer, 2016).…”