The Sunday News
Saul Gwakuba Ndlovu
LAST week’s issue of The Sunday News published a very thought-provoking article by Micheal Mhlanga on tribalism in which the author tried to justify that concept, and quoted a couple for what one can conclude to be either social anthropologists or sociologists to support his presentation.
The word “tribalism” as used and understood by scholars generally means “tribal organisation”; but in African communities it has been twisted to mean a biased attitude or predisposition towards people on the basis of their tribal origin or affinity. The attitude is either negative, disdainful or scornful, or positive, commendable or approbative.
In this popular African meaning, “tribalism” is to the word “tribe” what “racialism” is to the word “race”. It does not make any sense to condemn racialism in one breath and praise tribalism in the next. Here we are looking at racialism as meaning the practical application of racism, the distinction being merely a semantical position adopted by some modern students of sociology.
When discussing the merits and demerits of tribalism, we need to look at the post-colonial African states whose boundaries were determined at the 1884–85 Berlin Conference. It is very important to bear in mind that the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) endorsed those boundaries by strongly emphasising their permanence and inviolability when the OAU was founded in 1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The OAU Charter states this fact.
It is a matter of conjecture what the African continent would be like were it to return to its pre- Berlin Conference status with its numerous largely tribal based micro-states.
Admittedly, the Berlin Conference arbitrarily adopted colonial boundaries many of which cut across families, clans and tribes as is the case throughout the breadth and length of the entire African continent. Those are the boundaries the OAU, now the African Union (AU), adopted and maintains without any change.
If we now recognised a need to change those boundaries on the basis of tribal affinity, that is to say tribalism, there would be so much upheaval on the continent that its results would be too ghastly to contemplate, as the late South African Boer prime minister, John Balthazar Vorster, would say.
In today’s African states, two important factors have to be considered. One is that a large number of people have in the last 30 years moved from the rural areas to urban centres. Rural communities are tribal, whereas urban communities are cosmopolitan and, thus, non-tribal.
Urbanisation is occurring at an alarming rate, a social process that almost keeps pace with the continent’s rural educational services output. In many African countries, a large number of educated Africans leave rural areas for urban centres where material comforts are more easily available. That process weakens the socio-cultural fibre of every African tribe.
The effective and efficient organisation of any tribe anywhere depends on the tribe’s geographical location. Urbanisation adversely affects that spatial factor and deprives many tribes in the rural areas of intelligent people who can economically, socially, culturally and politically benefit the tribe.
Here we are discussing “tribalism” as a constructive organisational system, and not as a negative attitude and practice meant to benefit some tribes at the expense of others. Tribalism as an organisational mechanism was practiced by a number of mining communities during the Southern Rhodesian regime days when in large mining centres such as the Wankie Colliery, hand-picked elders were appointed tribal chiefs known as amfumo. Their major duty was to preside over and resolve conflicts and disputes within members of their respective tribes.
There were cases when disputes would occur between and even among people of different tribes, and the amfumo of the tribal communities concerned would be called upon to settle the issues.
It was understandable to use such an administrative mechanism as labourers at various mines comprised people of well more than 30 tribes. Those people were originally from rural areas where Bantu traditions, customs and moves prevailed, each community practicing its own culture and speaking its own language or dialect.
However, urbanisation is inevitable and suitable for the creation of multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural national states where people identify themselves nationally and not tribally. Inter-tribal and inter-racial marital relations, bolstered by such multi-ethnic cultural institutions as churches play a very significant role in blending together country’s citizens.
That is what some politicians and other social scientists refer to as “unity in diversity”, a reference to communal cooperation as a nation in spite of distinctions and/ or differences. What binds a country together is the communal sharing of a common socio-economic destiny and a sense of security as a household bound together by its members’ common interests.
A town’s residents are sentimentally attached to their town, and are proud of its achievements, development and beauty. They do not regard themselves first and foremost as belonging to their respective tribe whatever it may be.
It is of much interest to recall that during the liberation struggle most freedom fighters regarded themselves as “Zimbabweans” above whatever else, and that was what they were called worldwide. It would have sounded most unrevolutionary for a Zanu or a Zanu cadre to introduce himself or herself at the OAU or the United Nations as a Shona or a Ndebele, let alone a Nambya, Nkalanga, Ndau, Zezuru, Mkaranga or Manyika.
There were, of course, some cadres who did not deeply appreciate that they were first and foremost “Zimbabweans”, sacrificing their dear lives for the liberation of Zimbabwe of which Mashonaland, Matabeleland, the Midlands and other regions are integral parts.
It was not easy to enlighten them on this matter especially if they were from a rural background where tribal sentiments and practices were a part of their socio-cultural world. A truly uniting national attitude is not tribal or tribalistic, discriminatory or disdainful against one another on whatever basis or for whatever reason. It is rather all embracing at all times, offering national opportunities and resources to all on the basis of equality in times of both need and of plenty.
-Saul Gwakuba Ndlovu is a retired, Bulawayo-based journalist. He can be contacted on cell 0734328136 or through e-mail: [email protected]
