Zulu monarch’s legacy contested, just like our history

Inkosi iyahletshwa. The direct and literal translation of this would be that even a king can be gossiped about. But what it actually means is that not even a monarch is above critical evaluation of his or her personality, actions and omissions. The role of a traditional leader’s imbongi, or praise poet, for instance, is not just to highlight what is good with the ruler. The position also allows the imbongi to speak his mind about the less than savoury aspects of the ruler’s actions.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the recent passing of King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu solicited both praise and criticism. Not only did his reign last for almost five decades, it spanned a turbulent period in SA’s history during which the political contest over the future often turned violent.

In a free SA, post the 1994 elections, the king’s role remained highly contentious, with some constantly questioning its relevance in a constitutional democracy as well as the millions of rands spent by the state in maintaining his lifestyle.

Not one to shy away from expressing his opinion, however controversial, King Zwelithini often rubbed up “modernists” the wrong way as he questioned some of the socially progressive aspects of the constitution — at one stage he said he was unhappy that in a constitutional democracy he had to consult with politicians, who are in their positions for a limited term — and made problematic statements about foreign immigrants living in SA.

On the other side of the debate were his supporters — by no means limited to his “subjects” — who saw in him a symbol of cultural pride and unity, a man who had revived several customs that at some stage looked destined for extinction as a result of decades of colonialism and outside dominance.

In KwaZulu-Natal, even among those who would have seen the king as having been on “the wrong side” of the bloody political divide that set them in opposition to the IFP, there seems to be an appreciation of what they see as the important role he played in securing the status of kings and other traditional leaders in a free SA.

The liberation struggle was heavily biased in favour of urban communities and drew much of its support from urban centres. It was therefore highly possible that, without the voice of traditional leaders, the final constitution could have downplayed the role of governance structures that existed in rural communities.

Of course the debate did not end with the adoption of the 1996 constitution, and it is definitely not going to disappear now with the passing of King Zwelithini. It remains a highly contested issue as SA continues to grapple with what it means to live in a modern democracy within the context of a post-colonial Africa. So too is the king’s legacy, which will remain a source of heated discussions for years to come.

Given our divided past, and the fact that it continues to influence how we see the present — and probably the future — it is unlikely there will ever be consensus on the legacy of some of our most prominent political and cultural players. Nor is it desirable.

But a question arises every time one of these figures dies or when there is reason for them to be celebrated: do we remember only the good and ignore the bad, or vice versa?

The other day, FW de Klerk, the last apartheid head of state and one of the two deputy presidents in Nelson Mandela’s first cabinet, celebrated his 85th birthday. Former public protector Thuli Madonsela took to social media to wish “former president FW de Klerk” a happy birthday. Not surprisingly, her detractors pounced on her, taking issue with the fact, among other things, that she called him “former president” when he was elected under a dispensation that racially excluded the majority of South Africans from voting.

How should we remember De Klerk? Should it only be as an apartheid leader who rose up the ranks of the National Party to become the last apartheid president and a head of state who presided over the bloodiest period in modern South African history? Or should he be remembered as a leader who had the courage to recognise that the then status quo was no longer sustainable and took a brave step towards a negotiated settlement by freeing Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, hence paving the way for a free SA?

Airbrushing history, no matter how inconvenient, can never help us ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.