Marriages of (In)convenience and Politics of Traditional and Democratic Leadership in Botswana and South Africa

Introduction

In Africa, and in other developing nations, the modern society is interfaced with both the traditional and democratic governance systems. The existence of these two systems is acutely visible in the rural areas where they are represented by traditional and democratically elected leaders. Rural communities fall within plural administration where they are spatially located within local municipal (democratic) boundaries and traditional leaders (Tshishonga & Sithole, 2022). Democratic leadership structures have access to financial resources for service delivery, while traditional authorities are not similarly resourced (Hagg, 2019). From the co-governance point of view, this interface creates tensions with implications for the rural populace (Logan, 2009). Thus, traditional leaders do not have a say on how the allocation of resources and how such resources are used by elected officials. The tensions between these institutions are further exacerbated by unclear roles, powers and representation of traditional leadership within the democratic dispensation especially within the municipal councils. The lack of clarified roles, powers and functions (Ntsebeza, 2004), contribute towards the ‘exclusion, exploitation and hierarchisation’ of traditional leaders (Hagg, 2019, p. 187). At the core of the challenges faced by the traditional system is its struggle to transit from traditionality to modernity. Constitutionally recognised democratic structures such as municipal councils especially in the rural districts in both Botswana and South Africa are barely coping with demands for service delivery.

The proponents of the traditional leadership system advance the stance that traditional leaders could play an active role in development and therefore reduce poverty and inequality only if they are well resourced (Hagg, 2019). The opponents of traditional leadership system such as Claassens & Cousins (2008); Gumede (2019) and Ntsebeza (2006) are reluctant to use traditional leaders for service delivery. Gumede (2019, p. 22) argues that if traditional leaders and structures are to be retained, they should be democratised. In its current form, traditional leadership governance is accused of undermining social and gender equality, freedom of choice and basic human rights (Gumede, 2019). Gumede further asserts that traditional leadership does not only undermine democracy, but also suffocates development and growth. Thus, without reconciling these two key institutions based on a sound governance system, poverty-stricken rural and peri-urban communities will continue to live in conditions of disparity and uncertainty especially when it comes to service delivery and community governance issues.

Central to both traditional and democratic leadership, is the institutionalised power, impact, and self-confidence to bring about social change and developmental service delivery. In the context of community development, this chapter argues that the co-habitation of traditional and democratic leaders will remain problematic for local and community governance unless the traditional governance system is transformed to better serve modern democratic society. In spite of a general shift towards democratic and liberal societies, traditional leadership is still considered as relevant and important to the development of communities, given their centrality in actualizing participatory democracy. Traditional leadership is fluid and fluctuates due to the traditional norms and laws of respective communities, coming with different expectations. In contrast, the democratic leadership and governance is grounded on democratic practice and good governance principles such as accountability, transparency, equity and equality, participation and social justice (Heywood, 2019). Based on democratic and good governance, both institutions are challenged to exercise their responsibilities in order to ensure that effective goods and services are delivered to all citizens (Ndulo, 2018). Thus, the marriage of convenience between the two systems should be based on acknowledging the strengths of each for the benefit of communities.