Chiefs And Rural Local Government In Post-Apartheid South Africa

Fred T. Hendricks, L. Ntsebeza
{"title":"Chiefs And Rural Local Government In Post-Apartheid South Africa","authors":"Fred T. Hendricks, L. Ntsebeza","doi":"10.4314/AJPS.V4I1.27348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Colonialism caused fundamental damage to the role of chiefs. It disturbed the pre existing redistributive lineage system, undermined the foundation for the existence of chiefs and limited their tradition-based and personalised form of authority. It transformed chiefs from independent representatives of various people into government officials, appointed by the new colonial power and paid a salary. Shorn of their judicial power and prevented from performing their traditional functions, their pre-existing worlds of authority were dwarfed by the overpowering force of the colonial state. In broad terms, this depiction of the impact of colonialism on indigenous forms of authority may strike a chord of familiarity. Y et it presents only a partial picture. If indeed chieftaincy was robbed of the internal dynamics vital to the autonomy of chiefs, how is it that they have survived for so very long? If part of the reason for this longevity of chieftaincy is the fact that some chiefs had become co-opted into the local arm of the colonial state how does one explain the persistence of their apparent legitimacy? This paper will provide some tentative answers to these questions by attempting to paint a fuller picture of the various and changing roles of chiefs in the context of an emerging democratic order in the former bantustans of the Eastern Cape. Irrespective of the fact that a large number of chiefs became colonial stooges, and despite the fact that many rural residents would be hard pressed to provide a precise definition of the contemporary role for chiefs in a democratic South Africa, chiefs have been recognised in the country's Constitution of 1996 as well as in legislation affecting the former Reserve Areas. This recognition causes tension and inconsistency in the Constitution. On the one hand, the Constitution enshrines democratic principles in the Bill of Rights while on the other, it acknowledges the role of unelected traditional authorities. There are large disparities between rights","PeriodicalId":158528,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Political Science","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/AJPS.V4I1.27348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Introduction Colonialism caused fundamental damage to the role of chiefs. It disturbed the pre existing redistributive lineage system, undermined the foundation for the existence of chiefs and limited their tradition-based and personalised form of authority. It transformed chiefs from independent representatives of various people into government officials, appointed by the new colonial power and paid a salary. Shorn of their judicial power and prevented from performing their traditional functions, their pre-existing worlds of authority were dwarfed by the overpowering force of the colonial state. In broad terms, this depiction of the impact of colonialism on indigenous forms of authority may strike a chord of familiarity. Y et it presents only a partial picture. If indeed chieftaincy was robbed of the internal dynamics vital to the autonomy of chiefs, how is it that they have survived for so very long? If part of the reason for this longevity of chieftaincy is the fact that some chiefs had become co-opted into the local arm of the colonial state how does one explain the persistence of their apparent legitimacy? This paper will provide some tentative answers to these questions by attempting to paint a fuller picture of the various and changing roles of chiefs in the context of an emerging democratic order in the former bantustans of the Eastern Cape. Irrespective of the fact that a large number of chiefs became colonial stooges, and despite the fact that many rural residents would be hard pressed to provide a precise definition of the contemporary role for chiefs in a democratic South Africa, chiefs have been recognised in the country's Constitution of 1996 as well as in legislation affecting the former Reserve Areas. This recognition causes tension and inconsistency in the Constitution. On the one hand, the Constitution enshrines democratic principles in the Bill of Rights while on the other, it acknowledges the role of unelected traditional authorities. There are large disparities between rights
种族隔离后南非的酋长和农村地方政府
殖民主义对酋长的角色造成了根本性的损害。它扰乱了先前存在的再分配世系制度,破坏了酋长存在的基础,限制了他们基于传统和个人化的权威形式。它将酋长从不同人民的独立代表转变为政府官员,由新的殖民势力任命并支付薪水。他们被剥夺了司法权,无法履行传统职能,他们原有的权威世界在殖民国家的压倒性力量面前显得微不足道。从广义上讲,这种对殖民主义对当地权威形式的影响的描述可能会引起熟悉的共鸣。但它只反映了部分情况。如果酋长制确实被剥夺了对酋长自治至关重要的内部动力,那么他们是如何存活这么久的呢?如果酋长地位长久存在的部分原因是一些酋长被殖民国家的当地分支机构收编,那么如何解释他们表面上的合法性持续存在呢?本文将对这些问题提供一些尝试性的答案,试图更全面地描绘出在东开普省前班图斯坦出现的民主秩序背景下酋长们的各种和不断变化的角色。尽管大量酋长成为了殖民地的傀儡,尽管许多农村居民很难对酋长在一个民主的南非的当代角色给出一个精确的定义,酋长已经在1996年的国家宪法以及影响前保护区的立法中得到了承认。这种认识造成了宪法的紧张和不一致。一方面,《宪法》将民主原则载入《权利法案》,另一方面,它承认非选举产生的传统当局的作用。权利之间存在着巨大的差距
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信