|
Qualitative studies, undertaken at the HSRC over the last two years, shed some light on the hardiness of traditional leadership, despite strong opposition from some quarters. Firstly, without re-opening the debate about ‘who is an African', there is a need to highlight the fact that most of the people affected by traditional leadership are African by indigenous descent and some of the intricacies of their lives are related to their normative and survivalist lifestyle linked to their social history. There is therefore a need to relax the idealist presumptions of individualism and of absolute aspirations towards self-sufficiency by all people living in areas under traditional leadership and those who embark on circular migration between the urban and the rural. At the same time one must caution that this is neither ‘separate development' nor ‘post-modernism', but a call for a closer analytical interest in people's social and survival values. Rural land remains a security asset For far too long it has been assumed that the rural social life will disappear, as some recent studies have suggested, asserting that African people in rural areas all have ‘urban aspirations'. Contrary to this, rural areas under traditional leadership have proven to be a reliable social-security net for urban-rural circular migrants and for farm workers chased off farms, some due to farm employers trying to evade land reform processes. The idea of security of land under traditional leadership needs to be seen within the broader context of security of livelihoods and therefore as an asset in traditional leadership areas. Far from the ‘market value' aspiration, people see land under traditional authorities as a stable entitlement compared to the combined vicissitudes of the harsh market forces and unemployment in the urban setting. 
What appears as patriarchy in traditions of governance and succession to property is underpinned by kinship and although this is a feature of ubukhosi it also contains an element of inheritance of property generally. The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, which aims at alleviating the situation, does not seem to make much of a difference to the situation on the ground.
Changing the role of women There is a need to differentiate between practical measures to relieve women from patriarchal subjugation on the one hand, and on the other hand, measures to influence social ideology to change over time. Women ‘regents', who sometimes temporarily hold power on behalf of their sons or brothers, have made suggestions on how to alleviate their subjugation to patriarchy and achieve fair treatment from amakhosi structures, government, and other members of royal family. But there is consensus among these female regents that it would take time, even for them, to agree on having the title of the real amakhosi bestowed on them. Until then, the role and treatment of regents leaves room for improvement. Patriarchal practice and patriarchal ideology are treated differently by both men and women. Women seem to wish away the former and struggle to criticise patrilineal inheritance as ideology behind patriarchy. Under such circumstances, attempts to implement change by proclamation of legislation that is not sensitive to the dynamics of tradition, equality and change could be problematic - especially because conservative traditional leaders are not distancing themselves from tradition by promoting equality and fairness. Traditional leadership within a democracy Then there is also the argument that traditional leadership is no longer defensible since the State apparatus took over every element of work that traditional leaders once performed. Closely linked is the argument that traditional leadership is an anomaly in a specificallydefined form of democratic system. But these are countered by the contention that traditional leaders practice a different form of democracy - one that is not overly concerned about how the system came into being, but about impact, negotiating the practical issues of social welfare on a caseby- case basis. This results in the differences that exist between customary justice and the State justice system, the latter being based on very rigid laws. There may be substance in the argument that communities operate in different ways; the generic bureaucratic packages of the Western form of democracy to which ‘those who need' must help themselves, are not the only form of democracy that people may wish to have. Academics hesitate to analyse this terrain lest they be judged as betraying the rights and relationships between the individual and the State. Lastly, without resolving the issues of ‘relationship between traditional leadership and government'; ‘what kind of a justice system'; and ‘what kind of a democracy' is being offered by traditional leaders at local level, the government's close intervention on traditional leadership matters will always be a sensitive matter. Difficulties in the work of the Commission on Traditional Leadership Claims and Disputes are a case in point. Besides the political difficulties of its work, the conceptual framework for tackling its mandate remains unclear. 
Our research has shown that there are many issues involved in the analysis of traditional leadership which should be resolved at a conceptual level, as practical work hinges on this. This resolution should allow clearer working direction on issues such as: - Local government should employ participatory methodologies and invite input from indigenous knowledge in developing Integrated Development Plans and Land Use Management Plans in rural areas;
- Devising research that is carefully designed so as not to see rural governance in isolation from land issues, poverty alleviation, urban-rural linkages and socio-cultural issues; and
- The currently ‘sensitive' corporate sector should perhaps be persuaded to partner and form alternative legal instruments that enable the use of rural land to decentralise the economy to rural areas. The current difficulties around local economic development in rural areas seem to point to a critical need for a spatial economic redress, without invasion into forms of social and asset security of these areas.
This work shows a need to develop alternative conceptual and analytical tools if traditional leadership and the socio-cultural aspects of life in rural areas under traditional leadership are to be understood well. More information is available in the full reports on www.hsrc.ac.za, listed below: Dr Pearl Sithole is a senior research specialist in the Democracy and Governance research programme.
|
