Maravi

Wise observations from chief Chibesakunda

Wise observations from chief Chibesakunda
By Editor
Thu 31 Dec. 2009, 04:00 CAT

The role of a traditional leader in today’s Zambia seems to be a very difficult one. So much is expected of our traditional leaders but yet so little is done to help them meet these expectations.

Our chiefs are expected to serve the people by what we might today call community building. However, the reciprocal relationship between traditional leaders and the people is disappearing. While in the past traditional leaders needed the people as much as the people needed them, today this restraint is frequently absent because of deterioration in the traditional check and balance system.

Today while there are some traditional leaders who are doing everything possible to lift the standard of living of their people, there are also instances when traditional leaders have extended their authority beyond what is proper to enrich themselves and not the people as a whole. We have cases of traditional leaders who are selling land and pocketing the proceeds for personal use.

There are also many cases of traditional leaders receiving brown envelopes for their own personal use, with no benefit to the community as a whole. The sense of appreciation for traditional leaders and their important role in making sure that everyone in the village is cared for is disappearing.

If our traditional leaders are important and are needed in our contemporary politics, then we should be straightforward about formalising their roles with as little ambiguity as possible.

Most of our honest traditional leaders have a very difficult existence. The support, financial or otherwise, being given to them by the government is not adequate for them to live and perform their duties. They are plagued with many problems and difficulties; they have been undermined and weakened and yet we want them to deliver as they used to do when they were strong.

We have not done anything meaningful to empower our traditional rulers so that they can play a meaningful role in uplifting the lives of their people. Probably, our traditional rulers should stop relying on government – a government that has let them down, undermined and weakened them for more than 45 years.

They should probably start to chart their own path and do things for themselves and by themselves. For instance, we don’t see any reason why historically powerful, effective, efficient and orderly traditional institutions like the Barotse Royal Establishment should continue to rely on a government, a system that has failed them for more than four decades.

There are many ways the Barotse Royal Establishment can at least finance its own activities. There is no alternative to them getting involved in fundraising ventures, in business activities. Dependence on funding from the government and brown envelopes from the president will not help them run such a big and complex institution.

The Barotse Royal Establishment had assets that could help them raise funds. Some of these assets today are under the control of the government. There is need for them to claim back these assets. If the government wants to use these assets that historically belonged to the Barotse Royal Establishment, its either they buy or lease them.

There are many properties – schools, hospitals, courtrooms, offices, and so on and so forth – that historically belonged to the Barotse Royal Establishment that were taken over by the government without compensation. This was not necessarily a bad thing in itself if there was reciprocity. But today, the Barotse Royal Establishment is impoverished when it is a donor to the government. This relationship has not worked well and there may be a need to give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar so that he can directly take care of his own needs and those of his people.

In saying what we are saying, we are not in any way advocating for the restoration of any agreement, the Barotse agreement. We are merely pointing to the fact that the Barotse Royal Establishment is not able to meet its needs and to do so, it needs to get back what belonged to it. The schools, hospitals, courtrooms, offices and other assets that have been taken over by the government can in one way or another be utilised to raise funds for the Barotse Royal Establishment.

What we are saying about the Barotse Royal Establishment can also be true about other royal establishments in this country. We are merely using the Barotse Royal Establishment as an example.

We see no reason why the Barotse Royal Establishment should not directly run Liuwa National Park and make money from it to finance its operations and enable it to participate meaningfully in the efforts to lift its people out of abject poverty. We also can’t understand why the Barotse Royal Establishment is not playing a beneficial role in the timber business.

They should have the primary concession over all timber in Barotseland and sub-concessions should be obtained from them for the benefit of their people. They should also have a meaningful and beneficial role in other sectors where natural resources that were historically under their control are being exploited.

There is really no good reason why this once very rich and powerful royal establishment should today be so poor and weak. The approach needs to change. There is no need to keep pursuing a path that has failed them for close to half a century and has left their people poorer, weak and hopeless.

In saying all this, we are not in any way advocating for cessation. We are merely advocating for meaningful local government in which all traditional rulers across the width and breadth of our country are empowered to play a meaningful role in the lives of their people.

There is no good reason why the Central Government in Lusaka should claim exclusive rights to exercise dominion over everything when they have failed to deliver anything meaningful over all these decades; when poverty instead of reducing is deepening, when a once powerful and rich kingdom like that of Barotseland today has the highest poverty levels in the country. The leadership of the Barotse Royal Establishment had no right to sit on their laurels and pretend everything is okay or will be sorted out by someone in Lusaka. Well, this would be okay if someone in Lusaka would sort out the problems. But for over 45 years, no one has succeeded in doing so.

They should not continue depending on the government processes to promote traditional leadership when the underlying assumptions and purposes of the traditional leadership system seem to be different from the current governmental structure and its underlying assumptions and practices. Well, the issues may overlap, but the means of addressing these issues are often divergent. This represents a problem in formalising the complex and ambiguous roles into a structured system akin to a bureaucratic system.

Perhaps a reconstruction of traditional leadership, while keeping a hand-off approach on the governmental functions of elected officials, may help revitalise traditional leadership. The duo authority system between traditional leadership and modern politics that exists in our country today needs to be recognised more formally, more functionally and not only ceremonially.

Clearly, independence has contributed to the erosion of traditional tenure and management systems and the need for village-level initiatives and traditional control management to revitalise some of the resources.

There is also need to recognise that some of the problems our people are facing in rural areas are as a result of the government’s inability to work with the villagers. The government is not as effective as traditional leaders in working with the villagers. There is need for us to recognise the potential force of traditional leaders in the organisation, administration and development of our rural areas. This is one area where traditional leaders may be more effective than government at present.

Clearly, traditional leaders have historical meanings that should not be viewed as static if they are to fit in today’s system of human organisations. At the same time, the numerous structures of authority that already exist in our country should be points for consideration for reconstruction along with those of traditional leadership. A continuing reliance on financial support and external assistance to sustain the life of these systems is starting to prove unrealistic and may be unrealistic in the long run.

It’s clear to us, that the roles of traditional leaders are as relevant today as in the past. And this is dependent on how these roles are defined and the extent of recognition accorded to the authorities of traditional leaders.
The future of traditional leaders can be assured so long as they are able to change with the times to meet the needs of the people. The deference still given to our traditional leaders appears to surpass that shown to elected officials. But while the usual protocol accorded to traditional leaders remain unquestioned, the viability of traditional leaders is today being raised by many people. Why? There is certainly a gap that needs to be addressed.

And this is probably why chief Chibesakunda says there is a deficit between traditional and political governance that should be addressed for the country to attain meaningful development. And chief Chibesakunda observes: “Our rural areas in this country are not developed because of the problem of governance.

We have the traditional system, where most of the poor and vulnerable are operating without budgetary support and state governance whose benefits do not trickle down to the lowest member of society. We need to address this deficit in governance for this country to have meaningful development. Our governance structure is such that as chiefs, we don’t even know if we are below the members of parliament or councillors. Where do we fall? Where do you place the chiefs? We need to define the fusion point for the two governance systems so that we find a way of delivering services to our people.”

Who can disagree with what chief Chibesakunda is saying? Who has the answers to the questions he is raising? The observations and questions raised by chief Chibesakunda need to be addressed because they are legitimate observations and questions seeking honest solutions or answers.

Labels: CHIEF CHIBESAKUNDA, CHIEFS, DECENTRALIZATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT

posted by MrK @ 7:29 AM