Summary - The government has finally published its White Paper on traditional leadership and governance, together with the draft Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill through which the policy outlined in the White Paper will be implemented. The White Paper was drafted after extensive consultation both with traditional leaders and with organisations opposed to traditional leadership. Thus it is a compromise document that does not go as far as traditional leaders would have liked. Nevertheless, the Coalition of Traditional Leaders has recommended that the White Paper be accepted; it gives substantial recognition to the institution of traditional leadership and is a document with which traditional leaders can live. The White Paper provides for the establishment of national, provincial and district houses of traditional leaders in order to facilitate cooperative government at those levels. The existing traditional authorities are to become traditional councils, which will be consulted by municipal councils on all matters concerning their areas of jurisdiction. Thus they will become de facto primary structures of local government. The councils will also be used to facilitate the provision of state services, which should make life in rural communities much easier. However, this will be possible only if the state provides the councils with the requisite material, financial and human resources. The role of the houses as defined in the White Paper is to act as advisers to the corresponding legislatures on matters of custom and tradition only. This is unacceptable to traditional leaders; all issues affecting the lives of rural and traditional communities are our concern. Another problem is that the White Paper does not provide the members of traditional houses with amenities comparable to those of elected representatives. They do not receive salaries but are paid sitting and travelling allowances only. Nor do they receive the medical aid and pension benefits that their elected counterparts receive. The houses are understaffed and none of them have a budget under their own control. In essence, the White Paper supports our view that it is wrong to juxtapose traditional leadership and democracy as if the two are mutually exclusive. Governance through the institution of traditional leadership is democracy. We agree with the minister’s words in the foreword to the White Paper: “… the institution…not only has a place in our democracy but… it has the potential to… play a significant role in the reconstruction and development of the country…”
The government's White Paper on traditional leadership and governance has finally been completed. This is a most welcome development as it brings about some certainty on the government's intentions for the future of the institution of traditional leadership. The question of whether or not the policy satisfies the hopes and expectations of the institution and of those who believe in its efficacy is another matter. The reality though is that government policies were never expected to meet all the expectations of all those whose interests may be affected. The good thing about the existence of policy is not merely that appropriate legislation can now be formulated and enacted, but that in the future it can always be changed should it prove to be unworkable.
The White Paper has been published simultaneously with the draft Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill. It is through this bill, as well as those which provincial legislatures are expected to pass, that the policy outlined in the White Paper will be implemented on the ground. The role of traditional leaders will thus be defined separately in the Constitution, the White Paper, the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill, and in legislation from each of the six provinces where traditional authorities operate.
The Congress of Traditional leaders of South Africa (Contralesa) is campaigning for the recognition of traditional leadership structures in the three provinces where traditional authorities do not operate, the Western Cape, the Northern Cape and Gauteng. Potentially, therefore, three more provincial laws may yet be added. In terms of the Constitution traditional leadership is a concurrent competency between the national and provincial spheres of government. Thus there is a danger for too much emphasis being placed on the regional variations among traditional leaders at the expense of the vast similarities that exist between them.
At the time of writing neither Contralesa nor the Coalition of Traditional Leaders (comprising Contralesa, the national and provincial houses of traditional leaders and the Royal Bafoking of North West Province) had had the opportunity to consider and pronounce on the White Paper and the National Framework Bill. Traditional leaders, however, through their own determination and the subsequent realization on the part of government of the need for close co-operation with the former, made significant inputs into the process of drafting the White Paper.
It has to be stated that a great number of their views were taken into account and have informed the final outcome of the process. The fact that organizations and individuals that are traditionally and ideologically opposed to the institution were extensively consulted has, with the wisdom of hindsight, contributed enormously to the legitimacy of the document. The document understandably does not go as far as traditional leaders would have liked. This can be attributed to the need to appease and accommodate opponents.
A national task team appointed by the minister for provincial and local government drafted the final document after taking account of contributions from diverse points of view. The task team included traditional leaders who were selected by the minister of provincial and local government without consultation with the coalition of traditional leaders. This displeased the coalition as their presence gave the impression to some observers that those traditional leaders had a mandate from the coalition. To resolve the impending impasse between the ministry and the coalition it was agreed that a Joint Political Reference Team be formed comprising three politicians - Eastern Cape MEC Gugile Nkwinti, North West MEC Darkey Afrika and Johannesburg Mayor Councillor Amos Masondo - and three Coalition representatives - Nkosi Mwelo Nonkonyana (Zanenvula), Nkosi Hulumeni Gumede and Mr Steve Phiri.
The responsibility of the reference team was to facilitate agreement on the final document. Thereafter the product would be referred to the ministry and the coalition for endorsement. Such referral to the coalition did not take place and the explanation given by the ministry was that cabinet had given approval to the White Paper without delay. Upon consideration and acceptance of certain amendments by the coalition representatives on the reference team the document was approved and sent to cabinet. The coalition component has since recommended, in its report, that the White Paper be accepted as a compromise document with which we can live. It considers that it is a document that substantially gives recognition to the institution of traditional leadership in ways that should address most of its concerns.
The White Paper provides for the establishment of national, provincial and district houses of traditional leaders. This is meant to facilitate interaction and co-operative governance at the respective levels of government. The existing traditional authorities are to be transformed into traditional councils that will be composed of women as well as men. The traditional councils will be consulted by municipal councils on all development matters relating to their areas of jurisdiction. This means that municipal councils will no longer be seen to impose their plans in traditional council areas without first consulting the traditional leaders.
Traditional leaders have always called for the recognition of traditional authorities as primary structures of local government. The White Paper does not provide for such recognition in so many words. In effect, however, that is what the traditional councils will be in practice. Mutual respect and recognition between traditional councils and municipal councils is to be encouraged. The traditional councils will also be used to facilitate the provision of state services by the various departments of state. This should make the life of rural communities much easier. All of this will, however, be meaningful only if the state provides the traditional councils with the requisite material, financial and human resources.
The role of the houses, at all levels, is premised on the notion that they are to be advisors to the respective legislatures on matters of custom and tradition only. It is of course not acceptable to traditional leaders that their role be confined to these matters. All issues affecting the lives of rural and traditional communities are the concern of traditional leaders.
The White Paper gives limited recognition to the houses of traditional leaders in another inexplicable respect. The houses are meant to complement the legislatures, yet the national house does not have a permanent seat in either Cape Town, where parliament is situated, or in Pretoria, where the executive is sited. Some of the chambers do not have accommodation for a public gallery. Some of the houses do not have adequate personnel. None of them have a budget that is under their own control. With the exception of chairpersons and, in some cases, deputy chairpersons of the houses of traditional leaders, members do not receive salaries. They are paid sitting and travelling allowances only. None receive the medical aid and pension benefits that their elected counterparts receive. Traditional leaders who are not members of the houses receive no medical aid and pension benefits at all. Ordinary traditional leaders do not receive travelling allowances.
Mpumalanga province has provided its traditional authority heads with motor vehicles. This is a commendable and humane move on its part. The Eastern Cape province has bought motor vehicles for the six kings of the province. This again is commendable. The national department of public works is embarking on a programme of constructing royal chambers for the country's kings and reigning queens. We are waiting for the extension of these amenities to all the traditional leaders of South Africa.
We expect members of the houses to be provided with amenities similar to those of elected representatives. Now that the institution is recognized as a reality of South African political life, the natural and logical consequences of such recognition have to be followed. This recognition means that to be a public representative in South Africa you do not have to be an elected politician only; a traditional leader is a public representative.
The White Paper in essence gives credence to the often-stated view that it is wrong to juxtapose traditional leadership with democracy, as if the two are mutually exclusive. If government of the people, for the people, by the people is the essence of democracy, then governance through the institution of traditional leadership is democracy. Ubukhosi is not about the individual holders of royal authority - it is a collective of individuals in leadership positions of different levels, who are in consultation with communities before decisions affecting their lives are taken - it is rule by consensus.
In the words of the minister in the forward to the White Paper, "… the institution… not only has a place in our democracy, but… it has the potential to transform, to contribute enormously towards the restoration of the moral fibre of our society, and to play a significant role in the reconstruction and development of the country, especially in rural areas. It is important that conditions for democratic governance and stability in rural areas are created so that accelerated service delivery and sustainable development can be achieved".
We cannot agree with the minister more. Total and meaningful recognition of the country's 12 kings and reigning queens, 774 chiefs (iinkosi) and 1640 headmen (iinkosana) can only ensure that a stable and democratic countryside is created. There is still the matter of those kings who were deposed or not recognised by the colonial governments. This has to be sorted out through the commission created to look into disputes on the legitimacy of certain traditional leaders.
The matter of the headman tier of traditional leadership can properly be dealt with by provincial legislatures. As stated in the White Paper some are hereditary royal leaders, some are appointed by senior traditional leaders, while the relevant communities elect others. Provincial government remunerates those who are hereditary leaders, as well as those who are popularly elected.
In spite of any reservations we may justifiably have it is my personal view that the White Paper is a document we should all welcome. It does point the way forward.
