Gap in understanding of black lives
SIR — Jean Redpath’s disagreement with my letter regarding traditional leadership (Bearing unwanted gifts, Letters, May 11) is in part due to the inexplicable editing of my letter. In my unedited letter, I pointed out that the sources quoted in support of Athol Trollip’s attack on the institution of traditional leadership happen to be non-African (Chiefs’ rule by patronage not compatible with democracy, April 12). It is salient, I wrote, that we do not read such attacks from black people. We don’t read or hear of people rebelling against any of the 6 151 traditional leaders whom Mr Trollip informs us are being paid by the state.
The Inkatha Freedom Party had warned of the imminent error in the way Parliament was about to adopt the Communal Land Rights Act. But we were not heeded, which led to the Constitutional Court declaring the act unconstitutional.
It is shocking that Parliament has not yet got around to re-enacting the act following the correct procedures. It is this that leaves the majority of the South African people in the absurd paradox of having our land and all the infrastructures on it, including the houses we inhabit, still being classified as land owned by the state and administered by the national department of land affairs.
I called on Mr Trollip to focus his attention on pushing for the correct re-enactment of the act. Caring for rural people, as he wishes to, Mr Trollip should also apprise himself of the terrible situation in which traditional councils now lie and how this has undermined both social cohesion as well as development in rural areas. Where people used to be able to survive and have a life satisfactory to them, we now have famine, despair and ever-rising social conflict.
Ms Redpath claims that traditional levies cannot be justified. But when traditional levies were abolished, no alternative provision was made for funding traditional councils. In fact, no budget is allocated to traditional councils despite the fact that they are statutory bodies.
Ms Redpath asks why the powers of “chiefs” should be legislated. First it is to ensure that the powers and functions of traditional leadership are not diminished, which led to government’s commitment — as yet unfulfilled — to amend chapters 7 and 12 of the constitution to protect an established form of societal organisation.
Second, it is to provide a clear delineation of roles and to avoid overlapping responsibilities.
I am surprised that Ms Redpath sets herself up as an authority on the realities of rural communities, while claiming that I, as the chairperson of the Zululand House of Traditional Leaders and the traditional prime minister of the Zulu nation, am “out of touch”. Her bravado is almost amusing. But I take umbrage at her false accusation that “widows and daughters” have been “booted out of their homes” to make way for me. That is defamatory nonsense.
On the contrary, as soon as we had limited legislative powers in the erstwhile KwaZulu government, I repealed parts of the Code of Zulu Law that made African women minors. Minority status meant our women could be ejected from their homes when their husbands died, and widows could not own homes. I abolished that provision and gave our women locus standi in judicio. I also made it possible for us to have female Amakhosi, so that today women preside in traditional courts and traditional councils.
Much dialogue is still required to bridge the gap in understanding that the white community has about black realities. Ms Redpath’s letter proves my point.