Chieftaincy and Kingship in South Africa (2024)

Introduction

In a democratic society, the observance of chieftaincy faces many problems. One of the key issues relates to chieftaincy operating on principles that are antithetical to democratic ideas and values. For example, a chief is not elected into office by popular vote, but through lineage, and is thus in office for life. This system is patriarchal, has largely excluded women from the office, and supports customary laws that are oppressive to women. In such a system there is a lack of representation and downward accountability.[i] As its authority places community before individuals, it constitutes a non-democratic form of governance.[ii] However, notwithstanding the fact that the position of a chief is inherently non-democratic, chiefs do they offer opportunities for everyday participation as opposed to periodic voting. These opportunities arise through gatherings such as Kgotla in Lesotho, where community members are able to voice their concerns and opinions.[iii]

Chieftaincy is more than a political institution. This practice has a much deeper meaning, as locals perceived this as something more than a set of rules laid down by individual leaders. Rather, it represents the importance of unity in both social and political life.[iv]

Conceptualisation

What is a ‘Chief’?

A chief or traditional leader is defined as an individual who, by virtue of his or her ancestry, occupies a stool of an area, and this person has been appointed to it in accordance with the traditions and customs of the area. This individual has traditional authority over the people who live in that area.[v] A chief is further defined as ‘a traditional leader of a specific traditional community who exercises authority over a number of headmen in accordance with customary law, or within whose area of jurisdiction a number of headmen exercise authority’[vi]

Roles and functions of the Chief

The primary role of the chief is to regulate social behaviour within the community that he or she has control of. Chiefs are not in control of service delivery as it is the local government’s responsibility. They are social leaders rather than government institutions.[vii]

Section 212 of the Constitution of South Africa states that:

(1) National legislation may provide a role for traditional leadership as an institution at local level on matters affecting local communities.

(2) To deal with matters relating to traditional leadership, the role of traditional leaders, customary law and the customs of communities observing a system of customary law –

a. national or provincial legislation may provide for the establishment of Houses of Traditional Leaders; and
b. national legislation may establish a Council of Traditional Leaders. [viii]

Where do they derive their authority?

Traditional leadership is inherited through kinship ties. During the pre-colonial era for one to assume the leadership position one had to be related by a tie of kinship or based on their common ancestry. Thus traditional leaders qualify for office by their ancestry alone and therefore require no special training.[ix]

Background

Chieftaincy was – and still is - a common form of authority within Black African communities. For example, during the pre-colonial period “communities were fluid and the Amakhosi [Chiefs] had ill-defined authority over the imizi (homesteads) in their jurisdiction. Bound together by ties of kinship, marriage or clientelism, they derived their authority from the allegiance of subjects and functioned through the distribution and redistribution of accumulated tribute, usually in the form of cattle.”[x] This means that the authority of the Amakhosi stemmed from ritual, symbolic and patronage power. Traditional leaders performed a wide range of functions for their societies, ranging from providing safety and security, safeguarding tribal sovereignty, allocating and distributing land and settling land disputes, providing spiritual leadership and the administration of justice.[xi]

Chieftaincy under British Colonial Rule

Under British colonial rule, the British administration experimented with two different systems aimed at governing the indigenous population. The first involved using colonial bureaucracy to weaken the institution of chieftainship, a system particularly favoured in the Eastern Cape.[xii] The Chief’s powers were controlled through the system of direct, magisterial rule. All the districts of the Transkei were headed by a White magistrate who served as both the judicial and the administrative officer. These districts were further divided into locations headed by an appointed headman, who in some cases was a chief or an individual with no traditional authority.[xiii]

The second system involved the use of local indigenous rulers to control and administer the population, a system known as ‘indirect rule.’ This system was adopted in colonial Natal. Theophilus Shepstone, the Secretary for Native Affairs during British colonial occupation, implemented this form of administration which became known as the ‘Shepstone System.’ This method changed the nature of the chieftaincies as it created a system of dependency on the colonial government.[xiv]

Indirect rule, however, was divisive and alien to the systems of Chieftaincy which had rested historically on patrilineal lines, particularly as the chiefs became vassals of the colonial bureaucracy. The colonial office of the Governor-General granted the title of ‘Supreme Chief of Indigenous People’ to the office-holder, and the Shepstone System gave the Governor-General powers to appoint and fire traditional leaders. This undermined the traditional succession of chiefs, and as a result traditional leaders found themselves to be in an ambiguous position where, on the one hand, they had the obligation to serve their constituency, while on the other hand, they were required to administer the interests of the colonial government. Those who collaborated with the colonial government undermined their own legitimacy, and those who sided with their people were deposed. Being a chief during colonial occupation was thus a precarious occupation torn between keeping alive traditional structures and surviving the culturally inconsiderate regime of the British.[xv]

Chieftaincy under Apartheid

William Beinhart (1985) asserts that modern chieftaincy has been viewed as a creation of the state. In his book, Chieftaincy and the Concept of Articulation: South Africa ca. 1900-1950, Beinhart states:

It is widely recognized that the current form of chieftaincy was entrenched in the latter period when government officials accompanied by tame anthropologists and black information officers scoured the rural districts for the remnants of chiefly lineages. Tribes were defined, tribal and regional authorities were created, and some of the chiefs were installed with much pseudo-traditional ceremony. Chiefs were also given salaries and scope for personal gain. In this way the state hoped to secure a conservative or reactionary rural hierarchy which would help to defuse broader national struggles.[xvi]

During the pre-colonial era, traditional leaders played an important role in traditional life as they were responsible for the daily administration of their area as well as for the lives of indigenous people. Their leadership was based on governance of the people and the leader was accountable to their subjects. The South African Act of 1909 controlled ‘native affairs’ under the Governor-General, and the government’s primary concern was to prevent and avoid a revival of the military power of African chiefdoms.[xvii] As such, a system of direct rule was adopted and imposed upon the chiefdoms. In outlining the implementation of this system Banks & Southall (1996) have illustrated how Chiefdoms were transformed into units of local government, stating:

This was effected by introducing an administrative system that cut across tribal boundaries. A grid of twenty-seven magisterial districts, that paid scant regard to the old political units, was imposed on the tribal pattern.... The districts themselves were subdivided into locations, approximately thirty to a district, and over each was placed a headman, appointed to the post by the administration.... Although, in fact, succession to office was almost invariably inherited, in law the headman was appointed by Government and was subject to bureaucratic rules of censure and dismissal. The chiefs, as such, were all but ignored. The main reduction of authority was in the judicial sphere. No chief or headman was permitted to decide any criminal case and even in civil cases their role was merely one of arbitration. They had no power to enforce their decisions and any litigant not satisfied with these decisions could bring his case to the magisterial court.[xviii]

During the era of colonialism and, following that, Apartheid, government administration complicated matters through the introduction of foreign hierarchical titles into the traditional leadership system, including ‘paramount chief,’ ‘subchief,’ ‘independent headmen’ and ‘supreme chief.’[xix] The title of ‘supreme chief,’ Bekker (2008) argues, was introduced by the previous colonial regime to give the Governor-General ruling power over Africans, and later over the State president. Other levels, such as paramount chiefs, independent headmen and sub chiefs were introduced to elevate or demote certain Africans to higher or lower positions.[xx]

Traditional leadership under the New Constitution

Under the post-1994 South African democratic constitution, issues of traditional authority were negotiated to address the damage done to traditional systems of leadership by previous administrations. In discussing the role of the chieftaincies and kingships in the post-Apartheid period, mention must be made of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), a liberation party that was founded on the 21st of March 1975 by a group of patriotic women and men who were under the leadership of Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The IFP draws its support base largely from Zulu ethnic groups. The party places particular emphasis and value on traditional leadership and authority. The party’s focus on ethnic interests over national unity were criticised for contributing to the divisive programme of the party, which led to civil war between ANC supporters in KwaZulu-Natal and IFP members. This further led to the party’s withdrawal from CODESA negotiations. The party further threatened to boycott the first democratic elections.

In an effort to prevent a boycott of the first democratic election by the IFP, the Constitution was amended to read that the provincial constitutions would provide the institutional roles, authority and status of traditional monarchs. This was particularly applicable to the Zulu Monarch in KwaZulu Natal. However, powers and responsibilities given to traditional leaders in the Constitution was less than their representatives had lobbied for during the negotiation process.[xxi]

Chapter 11 of the Constitution of South Africa recognizes the role and status of traditional leadership according to customary law. A number of amendments and legislative proposals have been adopted, including different programmes that have been implemented for the purposes of ensuring that traditional leadership contributes to the development of society.[xxii] For example, the legislation has managed to transform the composition of traditional councils in order to reconcile these councils with a measure of democratic consolidation. The current requirements are that 40% of the council must be elected, and one-third must be women. Furthermore, legislation opened channels for traditional councils and municipalities to work more cohesively to ensure that traditional councils have a voice in government and may also enter into partnerships and service delivery agreements with the municipalities.[xxiii]

In addition, a ‘House of Traditional Leaders’ has been established, in terms of the then Council of Traditional Leaders Act, 1997 (Act 10 of 1997), as mandated by the Constitution. Their objectives are to promote the role of traditional leadership within a democratic constitutional dispensation, and enhance unity and understanding among traditional communities and advise national government.’[xxiv] In all six provinces where houses of traditional leaders were established, their primary role has been to ‘enhance the cooperative relationships within national and provincial government, while the establishment of local houses of traditional leaders deepens and cements the relationship between municipalities and traditional leaders on customary law and development initiatives.’[xxv]

In the quest to deal with the issue of traditional leadership the government passed the Traditional leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003. This Act places an obligation on government to promote and protect the institution of traditional leadership. It also provides a specific framework on how the relations between traditional leaders and authorities of government should be governed:

5. (1) The national government and all provincial governments must promote partnerships between municipalities and traditional councils through legislative or other measures. (2) Any partnership between a municipality and a traditional council must: (a) be based on the principles of mutual respect (and recognition of the status); and (b) be guided by and based on the principles of co-operative governance. (3) A traditional council may enter into a service delivery agreement with a municipality.[xxvi]

One of the biggest challenges has to do with reconciliation of traditional leaders and the democratic government. The country’s political system is founded on the Western European model, which at times contradicts the values of other South African cultures, more specially those whose leadership focuses on hierarchy of authority. Within some of these cultures their political authority is centralized, which allows chiefs and kings to intervene in social conflicts.[xxvii]

Current traditional Monarchies and its kings

In one of the government’s efforts to rectify wrongdoings of both the colonial and apartheid regimes, a decision was taken to redesign traditional leadership positions. The rationale for this change was that according to custom, there are generally three levels of traditional leadership positions recognized; Kingship, Chieftainship and Headmanship.[xxviii]

There are currently only seven legitimate Kingships in the country. In 2003 former President Thabo Mbeki appointed a panel of experts to investigate traditional leadership disputes and claims dating back to 1927. The panel discovered that out of the 13 paramount kingships, only six were qualified to be recognized as Kingships or Queenships. However, current president Jacob Zuma has given his assurance that those traditional leaders who were found to be illegitimate would not be dethroned, but that the title will come to an end on the death of the current incumbents.[xxix]

President Zuma further mentioned that two kingships have been recognised, but it is still to be decided who the rightful incumbents are. These two kingships are Vhavenda, in Limpopo under the leadership of King Mphephu Ramabulana, and AmaNdebele under King Makhosonke Mabena of Mpumalanga. It was also stated that while these six Kingships will be phased out, the successors of the incumbents will be recognized by relevant premiers as principal traditional leaders.[xxx]

In July 2010, following a six year study into traditional monarchies, the South African Government took a decision to reduce the number of traditional Kingdoms from thirteen to seven. The motivation behind the move was to end the tension that had developed among rival leaders and to save taxpayers’ money, as each kingdom was subsidized by Government.[xxxi]

The following kingdoms were eventually phased out:

The Bakwena ba Mopeli (Free State)
The AmaRharhabe (Eastern Cape)
The Batlokwa ba Mota (Free State)
The Ndzundza-Mabhoko (Mpumalanga)
The AbaThembu base-Rhode (Eastern Cape)
The Amampondo ase-Nyandeni (Eastern Cape)

The following seven remain recognized as Kingdom:

The AmaXhosa (Eastern Cape) King Zwelonke Sigcawu
The AmaZulu (KwaZulu-Natal) King Goodwill Zwelithini
The AbaThembu (Eastern Cape) King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo
The VhaVenda (Limpopo) King Toni Mphephu Ramabulana
The AmaNdebele (Mpumalanga) King Makhosonke Enoch Mabena
The AmaMpondo (Eastern Cape) King Zanozuko Tyelovuyo Sigcau
The Bapedi ba Maroteng (Limpopo) King Thulare Victor Thulare

End Notes

[i] Beall J, Mkhize S and Vawda S, (2005), Fragile Stability: State and Society in Democratic South Africa, 760. ↵

[ii] Carolyn Logan, (2009), Selected Chiefs, Elected Councillors and Hybrid Democrats: Popular Perspectives on the Co-Existence of Democracy and Traditional Authority, 105. ↵

FAQs

What is the role of a king in South Africa? ›

2.3 Political power

Their role in local politics is still as of old. They are the fathers of the nation, the chief priests, the judges, the rainmakers (in some cases), and so on. They are endowed with the ability to ensure the prosperity and well-being of their people.

Keep Reading ›

Does South Africa have a monarchy? ›

South Africa became a republic and left the Commonwealth on 31 May 1961. On 31 May 1994, South Africa rejoined the Commonwealth as a republic, after the end of apartheid.

Explore More ›

Is the king head of state of South Africa? ›

The Monarch was represented in South Africa by a Governor-General. South Africa became a republic under the Constitution of 1961 and the Monarch and Governor-General were replaced by a ceremonial State President.

What is a chief in Africa? ›

The African chief was more of a leader than a ruler. Packard (1981) observed that, Bashu chiefs can be seen as political leaders. They have the right to claim and receive tribute, to determine the distribution and use of land, and to levy fines for the transgression of certain social and religious pro- hibitions.

Keep Reading ›

What are 3 responsibilities of a king? ›

So what does a monarch actually do? Historically, the role of the monarch was to maintain the peace of the realm, oversee the administration of justice, and to uphold the rule of law in the land. While the king still represented the nation symbolically, it was a far more hands-on, practical role than monarchs of today.

Discover More ›

What are the roles of kings in the traditional African community? ›

The king used influence to build consensus (Banutu-Gomez, 2001;Masango, 2003; Williams, 2003) . Finally, the king was the religious leader and guardian of the kingdom's religious heritage (Masango;Rugege, 1994). ...

Who is the ruler in South Africa? ›

Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa (born 17 November 1952) is a South African businessman and politician serving as the fifth and current president of South Africa since 2018.

Show Me More ›

Is South Africa a monarchy or democracy? ›

South Africa is a parliamentary representative democratic republic, wherein the President of South Africa, elected by parliament, is the head of government, and of a multi-party system. It consists of three branches. The executive branch consists of the President of South Africa and the Cabinet of South Africa.

Read The Full Story ›

Are there kings and queens in South Africa? ›

Tradition continues to play an important role in the lives of many South Africans. South Africa has 10 kings and one queen, as well as thousands of lesser traditional leaders, including chiefs and headmen.

Find Out More ›

Who started apartheid in South Africa? ›

Apartheid legislation. Racial segregation, sanctioned by law, was widely practiced in South Africa before 1948. But when the National Party, led by Daniel F. Malan, gained office that year, it extended the policy and gave it the name apartheid.

Get More Info ›

What is the white population in South Africa? ›

Statistics South Africa asks people to describe themselves in the census in terms of five racial population groups. The 2022 estimates were 81.4% Black or Indigenous South African, 7.3% White South African, 8.2% Coloured South African, and 2.7% Indian South African. Dominant population groups in South Africa.

Learn More ›

What is the concept of chieftaincy? ›

1. : the rank, dignity, office, or rule of a chieftain. 2. : a region or a people ruled by a chief.