Chiefly institution: Considerations of political power, economic wealth

21 Sep, 2014 - 03:09 0 Views
Chiefly institution: Considerations of political power, economic wealth

The Sunday News

chief jahana

The Deputy Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing, Cde Joe Biggie Matiza (right) assists Chief Jahana put on his gown during his installation at his Gwamanyanga homestead, Debshan Ranch, Insiza District recently

Pathisa Nyathi
THIS article is a sequel to the earlier one on the chiefly institution with particular reference to the heyday of the Ndebele State. We did point out one important consideration as far as the institution was concerned — the acquisition, preservation and perpetuation of political power and wealth. However, it should not erroneously be surmised that the institution concerned itself solely with these issues.

Chiefs provided the necessary leadership within their communities. They engendered some esprit de corps so that the community members worked with a common vision. The chief provided the necessary motivation that helped release energy within individuals who worked as a team to accomplish group goals and objectives.

The chiefs were the ears, eyes and mouth for the king. They relayed community needs to higher authority and informed their followers about royal goings-on, injunctions and other matters of import. The chiefs thus became nerve centres in the communication network.

It can be argued that the chiefs were the custodians of culture. They epitomised the cultural identities of their communities and that of wider society. Through the court system they enforced certain community values and ensured their subjects adhered to the norms and customs of the community.

The spiritual dimension was important and the chief had some role to play. There were, for example, rituals attending to the first fruits ceremonies. Some medicines, for ukuchinsa, were relayed from the royal headquarters to the communities under the jurisdiction of a chief — the local representative of the king and the people.

The institution also provided alleviation within their communities. Within each chiefly domain there were cattle that were set aside to provide relief to the poorer members of the community. It was the duty of the chief to see that his subjects were provided for in times of food shortages and other calamities.

Be that as it may, the thrust of this article is to bring out measures and modalities that were resorted to in order to entrench and perpetuate the institution. This is another way of looking at succession issues pertaining to the institution. Our argument is that succession was a socially constructed device intended to retain political power and, by extension, wealth.

Power and wealth were being deliberately directed to consciously identified social units or institutions. In the first place, power was to be kept within the chiefly family. As will become apparent, the patriline was strictly safeguarded so that the office was held by the qualifying son after the demise of his father. The eldest qualifying son took over the reins from his father. Practically, that translated to keeping power within the male line.

This contrasts sharply with the matrilineal arrangement that is practised by the Tonga. We shall, in subsequent articles, deal with the chiefly institution among the Tonga with specific reference to the Pashu chieftainship in Binga where the incumbent is George Nyathi. Power was transmitted through the matriline. It was not so among the Ndebele.

Once a chieftainship had been established, it was perpetuated through the male line. The practice was based on the belief, “like father like son”, or “a chip off the old block” “udiwo lufuze imbiza”. We are interested in unravelling how wealth and power were retained and entrenched within the socio-political and economic institution.

The particular family was not the only institution that was identified to be the beneficiary of the succession arrangements. The elite Nguni group equally benefited from the monopolised political power and hence wealth. Whatever principles and measures were put in place were carefully calculated to achieve certain objectives. The principles in question are fairly well known but what is less appreciated is how they had some bearing on the retention of power and wealth within the identified social institutions and ethnic classes.

A chief was born of a chief. This may not, on the face value, seem to carry much fundamental meaning. When we look closely we see the full essence of this practice. Before one became a chief, and this applied to the king, they married ordinary wives. We should understand the ordinariness of wives in relation to the socio-political and economic statuses of their fathers. It was a economic game of chess by men in which their daughters and sisters were the pawns.

War was used to grab political power and wealth from another king or chief. To avert potential war among the great men, marriage arrangements were entered into as a way of avoiding conflict among the politically powerful and wealthy. A son-in-law would generally avoid engaging his father-in-law in a military conflict which has a bearing on the acquisition or loss of both political power and economic wealth.

Besides, the rich are engaging in exchange of wealth through the marriage arrangement. The chief marries the daughter of another chief or king. As son-in-law, he is accessing wealth from his in-laws through marriage arrangements. The arrangements accentuate wealth creation within the political and social elite.

The chief’s successor had to have his mother being a member of the Nguni group. If, for some reason or other, an Nguni chief married a non-Nguni wife and later married from within Nguni society, the eldest son by the most senior Nguni wife was the heir. This was the case even where the non-Nguni wife had sons much older that the eldest son by the most senior Nguni wife.

Marriage facilitated exchange of wealth. When a Nguni man married a non-Nguni wife that meant wealth was transferred from the Nguni group to the non-Nguni group. As we know, wealth accumulation may lead to acquisition of power. That was not to be so. What superficially appeared to prevail were social stigmas associated with cross-ethnic marriages. The barriers were seemingly social with strong attendant social stigmas. The basic underlying economic considerations passed unrecognised.

Another easy explanation for avoiding cross-ethnic marriages was the need to preserve cultural identity. This was based on the argument that women play a bigger role in the process of socialisation or enculturation particularly in the formative years. The battle for the preservation of cultural identity is lost in the court —egumeni.

What then we end up with is the intensification of taboos and restrictions relating to cross-ethnic marriages. The secondary social considerations reinforce the primary economic ones. Among the Ndebele social separation was entrenched.

There are other qualifications and disqualifications that we need to deal with. We shall, in particular, deal with current shortcomings with regard to chiefly succession within the Ndebele society.

 

Share This:

Survey


We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey

This will close in 20 seconds