By Matongela Robert Tapiso
I am happy to state that tribes were able to manage their own affairs before the dawn of modern-day ideologies and systems.
Tribes required versatile shared tribal leadership that facilitated to build fortified communities of the old. The contemporary tribal leaders therefore need to emulate the strategies that were used by their predecessors to manage their communities well.
Traditional leadership is sacred and requires spiritual connectedness with the ancestors in order to establish and propel concrete foundations. Chiefs being traditionally orientated are custodians of their tribal cultures and thus are supposed to serve and protect their communities without fail. Above all chieftainship must trust and respect all members of their communities equally well. In truth old traditional ways passed down through generations need not be forgotten as the fragile nature of chieftainship requires that no subject should be discriminated no matter what.
In the past chiefs were known to be self-sufficient but to the disappointment of the progressive world, traditional leaders have become trapped in active partisan politics. Coupled with unlimited dependence syndromes on the government of the day, many traditional leaders have conceded defeat to the powerful force of politics to rule their lives. As to a great extent politics is conflict-ridden while conversely traditional institutions are naturally for all the two are horribly divergent forces. Often in Africa we copy vices, ideologies and etiquettes that are discarded elsewhere because the involvement in politics by nobilities, aristocrats and kings was witnessed in Europe around the 6th and 7th century where they formed primitive democracies. As they became richer than the other citizens they became selective and domineering instead of caring and more exploitative than serving. This led to a revolution against them and a great deal more of unrest between the two forces resulting in subsequent economic, political and social stagnation.
Chieftainship by nature is not supposed to be taken lightly as it appears to be these days. In fact the involvement of chiefs in politics is frankly speaking a dividing tool that discriminates followers along political lines leading to favouritism and unrestrained dominion. In order to avert this each citizen is supposed to be accorded equitable justice instead of favouring the few that belong to a ruling party. Trusting all subjects regardless of their party affiliation therefore is a commendable step in the right direction. Political party business is made possible by wielding political power that vanishes like dew in the morning while traditional organisation is sustained by the strength of a vibrant culture that embraces all people. This means that democracy should be accepted by traditional leaders with strict compliance because of the equal love they should have for their subjects irrespective of gender, sex, education, political or social standing.
In more generic perspectives, in today’s impoverished societies Namibia included, traditional leaders opts to be identified with members of the ruling parties more than they do with alternative parties erroneously nicknamed opposition parties. This is remarkably absurd as some of the qualities of a chief are caring, serving, protection, developing trust and showing respect for all community members. A discriminating traditional leader is similar to a father who favours or disfavours some of his children. Such a leader is not worth the virtues of a traditional leader. Chiefs in poverty stricken parts of the third world are forced by such circumstances to behave like tourists, political commissars, military attachés or security guards. Oftentimes, they are consciously or sub-consciously used as political baits in campaign trails for aspiring candidates of ruling parties to bar their subjects from voting for candidates of alternative parties. In fact chiefs need not be picked at random to attend political rallies of any kind as they are not political experts. Traditional chiefs have to be paid traditional visits not to be dragged to scenes that indoctrinate them to divide and rule their people. This is inconceivable and uncalled for as the cherished traditional powers could one day be swallowed by the power of politics. For this reason traditions should be preserved while jealously sustaining democratic ideals in our country and beyond.
Several countries around the globe have witnessed statesmen and their parties come and go and have also seen others coming in to take the political centre stage. Put differently any party can become a ruling party or an alternative party at some stage or another. Actually an alternative party today can be the following day’s ruling party. Traditional leaders therefore should know that alternative parties are like reserves at a sports field waiting to replace the incapacitated player so as to improve the focus of attaining the mission of the game. Likewise no single party is destined to rule forever unless unemployment is curbed, the gap between the rich and the poor is nipped in the bud, the poverty pool is subsided, the economy benefits all and the tax system is addressed. It therefore becomes sensibly unwise for honourable chiefs to show hurt towards alternative parties because what might happen if an alternative party wins the election? Are such chiefs also going to abdicate their thrones? This is unethical and is devoid of traditional acumen. In fact chiefs are supposed to be neutral and accommodate all political parties because traditional institutions are not political zones but are solely social structures that accommodate all subjects. Traditional palaces are truly sacred grounds where partisan politics should not be entertained.
In the nutshell, all progressive traditionalists should expect chiefs to:
- be politically unbiased and care less about politics
- regard all political parties as concerned national parties and not consider some as outcasts
- refute being treated as political commissars as this idea belittles them
- be focussed and use tribal vision as an instrument to love all subjects regardless
- Resist political brainwashing, cheating and indoctrination into dividing subjects on political grounds.
Enough literature has been written on tribalism. Traditional leaders should reason that tribalism does not necessarily connote sour tribal verbal confrontations between tribes but also implies that the mere usage of the traditional leaders as political decoys and pacifiers in the execution of a political programme involves tribal connotations at political level. Tribalism in Africa is rooted in politics where political tribalism involves the segmentation and division of existing tribal setups for political gain because according to Ambrose Bierce (1842 – 1928), “politics is the conduct of public affairs for personal gain”. So beware!
Loading …