Where to now for SA’S royalty?
If our kingdoms fail to transform themselves into agents of community upliftment, they will not only validate the arguments of critics, but they will indeed cease to exist in the near future
Where do we begin?
There is the scathing media statement issued on October 25 2022 by the General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (GIWUSA) which is calling for the abolition of all SA royalty.
In September we had columnist Justice Malala’s article published in this paper under the headline “Why should taxpayers have to fund unelected leeches?”.
These come as we are trying to forget the generalised comments by former president Kgalema Motlanthe in 2018 when he was part of the presidential task team looking at the much-debated land question.
At that time Motlanthe said: “The majority of them [traditional leaders] are acting as village tin-pot dictators to the people there in the villages.”
In the wake of King Misuzulu kazwelithini’s ascension to the throne, we have an added debate about the role of church and government in the affairs of royalty in SA.
Unlike the other arguments mentioned above, this particular one does not necessarily have a problem with the existence and role of traditional leaders, but it is pointing to the obvious fact that government and church leaders are often seen exercising a great deal of authority over traditional leaders.
GIWUSA centres its argument on the following and I quote from its statement:
● “Newly anointed King Misuzulu has been getting R1,277,116 as an annual salary;
“The Zulu royal household this year received R66m from the Kwazulu-natal provincial government;
● “This is even more remarkable in the context of the province that is failing to provide for communities devastated not only by the devastating floods early this year;
● “These gifts to Misuzulu exclude benefits from financial interests and tens of millions of rand in returns from the family’s irrational control of the Ingonyama Trust, a vast corporate entity for which the king is a sole trustee; and
● “Though Zulu royalty is certainly the most prominent, it is by no means the sole parasite on the public ficus and the working-class people.
“Other royals among Xhosas, Pedi, Ndebele, and across the country’s vast rural landscape receive generally less but… they fleece the country’s public fiscus of billions of rand in undeserved salaries and benefits.”
GIWUSA is bringing to the spotlight a very important conversation that we should have, even though I think its argument is badly approached and largely ill-informed.
What remains key to be noted is that the public wage bill in SA is not just huge but unsustainable.
It contributes to the growing levels of inequality and this is a broad debate which can’t be limited to soft targets in the form of traditional leaders.
Politicians, who have been at the centre of conniving and colluding in very sophisticated patronage networks of corruption, remain the main cause and active participants in the bloated wage bill of this country and that’s where you will get the most impact if you want to cut costs.
GIWUSA seems to be obsessed by this Eurocentric system of “elected representatives”. Is there a worse colonial hangover than that which causes our people to reject their own pillars of culture and tradition and opt for these sometimes askari-fashioned public representatives who are elected?
Which traditional leader brought or contributed to the state capture or the wasted nine years?
I think we can all agree that the matter of the unequal benefits that are provided to the kingdoms in SA is a thorny one because it suggests that the government is creating a super Zulu kingdom over others.
Putting that matter aside, I am not sure whether GIWUSA and other critics have actually looked into the contribution of the Zulu culture in the tourism revenue of Kwazulu-natal.
This must be worth analysing because the Zulu kingdom is the custodian of that very culture.
The very concept of coronation is a western construct and it should have nothing to do with us.
In our tradition, once the royal family has identified the next in line of succession it then calls a gathering of the nation where the royal family will announce and introduce the new leader.
This was obviously followed by celebratory festivities and it took place over many days
Those were the times when we were still rich, before the arrival of the white settlers with their guns, the bible and bottle of brandy which were instruments to destroy our culture, wealth and identity.
The House of Traditional and Khoi-san Leaders is also a colonial creation.
Our traditional leaders in the days of old were only interlinked or related through intermarriage so that there was blood connecting us constantly
What remains key to be noted is that the public wage bill in SA is not just huge but unsustainable. It contributes to the growing levels of inequality and this is a broad debate which can’t be limited to soft targets in the form of traditional leaders
I think we need a robust and very honest national indaba which should assess, evaluate and make recommendations on how best to position traditional leadership in a postcolonial SA
as relatives who would then have to avoid war.
So there was no house of traditional leaders to oversee the royal affairs of our various nations.
As a matter of fact in the present day some of the problems faced by the institution of traditional leadership arise from that very house of traditional leadership.
In the olden days, as our culture dictates, inkhosi could not attend funerals, and could not bow before a church leader to receive prayers.
Some of our forefathers were killed by the colonial government simply because they vehemently rejected missionaries and magistrates.
Today we have handed ourselves back to these two institutions that were brought to the continent to destroy our culture.
In accordance with our culture the task of identifying inkhosi did not precede the important task of identifying the next person to be the father of the ruling family and who would therefore inherit family responsibilities — in isintu we say “inkulu yomzi”.
Today I am sure you can see that ubukhosi has been downgraded to a job opportunity.
This is why everyone and anyone through either connections or courts can ascend the throne.
This is why we have this mess.
This is why we lack the opportunity to return to our key fundamental principles of culture and custom.
Amazulu are the ones who are still doing much better than many other tribes in retaining and promoting some of the critical aspects of their culture, but the hand of the white man is there and very firm.
With all sorts of accusations being levelled against the institution of traditional leadership, what then do we do to respond positively and progressively without emotions and nonsensical counter-bashing?
I think we need a robust and very honest national indaba which should assess, evaluate and make recommendations on how best to position traditional leadership in a postcolonial SA.
At the centre of the struggle, led by traditional leaders long before political parties were formed, indigenous communities fought for their land, economy and identity.
That identity is born and promoted through the cultural practices of nations which are organised under the auspices of the traditional leader of the respective nations.
To disband traditional leadership is to reinstate the worst form of colonialism because indigenous people who need cultural guidance from their traditional leadership structures will be left to the ways and means of the West.
It is not the traditional leaders in the main, it is the people themselves who still want their traditional leadership structures, but there is a long way to go because there are rogue elements whose behaviour perfectly validates the anti-traditional leadership arguments and these need to be dealt with through basic instruments like: a clear code of conduct, a performance management system and so on.
Instead of a continued attack on the Zulu Kingdom, it would be best that the rest of our kingdoms get their houses in order first.
You can’t win any battle by simply mounting your defence.
We need to focus more on attacking — for example by creating a national calendar of cultural promotion events and socioeconomic development initiatives for our nations.
By establishing professional kingdom trust funds operating in the best interests of the people and not just focusing on serving the leader; and by mobilising big business people who are citizens of the various kingdoms to help raise funds for infrastructure and productive facilities of the economy so as to create jobs and business opportunities.
Key to such an arrangement is that it must not be structured so as to be the personal pocket of the traditional leader and it must be a trust fund that is run according to the highest levels of professionalism, transparency and accountability.
This would restore the dignity of indigenous people who at present live in abject poverty in rural areas across SA.
If our kingdoms fail to transform themselves into agents of community upliftment, they will not only validate the arguments of critics, but they will indeed cease to exist in the near future.
Dispatch in Dialogue is a weekly feature where thought leaders will tackle topical issues. If you have any subject that you strongly feel must be debated, please send an e-mail to enerstm@dispatch.co.za