Maravi

Chiefs and politics of poverty

Chiefs and politics of poverty
By The Post Editor
Tue 15 June 2010, 08:10 CAT

It is painful to see traditional rulers taking positions that are in conflict with those of their subjects. It is equally painful to listen to chiefs being denounced and called all sorts of names by their people. Sometimes we find ourselves in a conflict between our loyalty to our chiefs and our obligations to our country.

Sometimes our people are forced to condemn the actions of their chiefs, of men and women whose integrity and devotion they have never questioned and whose contributions to the wellbeing of the community was far greater than their own. But loyalty to the nation, to the country takes precedence over loyalty to a chief.

It is foolhardy for any leader, traditional or otherwise, to go against the people. It is no use for a chief to take a position or an action to which the masses are opposed. The interests of the chief should not be allowed to be in conflict with those of the community.

Where there is a conflict, the chief should subordinate his own interests to those of the people. And in saying this, we are not in any way trying to take a morally superior tone to that of some of our chiefs who have found themselves in conflict with their people.

But there is need also to realise that our country has embarked on a type of politics that sets our people against one another; that sets our chiefs against their subjects – politics that puts us in conflict with one another.

This grieves us, because some of our chiefs are great men and women who have inspired their people in so many ways, and nothing would have given their people greater joy than being on the same side of the political spectrum with them. It is painful to see chiefs and their people being in opposite and antagonistic camps.

The worst example of this is that of chief Mwanachingwala of the Tonga people of Mazabuka who has more or less become an MMD cadre while the great majority of his people are supporters of the opposition UPND. Another painful example is that of chief Mukuni of Livingstone who, although the Constitution of our country forbids him to do so, does not hesitate to campaign for the MMD in elections while his people are supporters of the opposition.

But what is causing all this? We have no doubt that poverty, and sometimes greed, is part of it. What can one expect from chiefs who have been undermined and weakened in so many ways by the current political system?

Our political setup is inherently opposed to the strengthening of traditional rulers. Our traditional rulers have lost prestige because they have very little, if not nothing, to give to their people. Our traditional rulers today don’t have a meaningful source of income to support themselves and their families, let alone to run their royal establishments.

In the pre-independence days, we had the native authorities through which income was collected on behalf of our royal establishments by the colonial authorities.

This income enabled some of our royal establishments to build and run their own schools and hospitals and to provide meaningful administrative systems for their kingdoms or chiefdoms. They had relatively enough income to pay salaries to their indunas and other officials and also meet their own personal obligations.

But in today’s Zambia, it’s almost impossible for a chief to survive if he doesn’t have a strong family to finance him because after taking away the income that came through the native authorities, our government has not adequately compensated the chiefs for that loss of income. The allowances chiefs get from the government are far from being able to meet their basic needs.

A chief is a human being like all of us. They have families and family responsibilities; they need to feed their children and send them to school. All this needs money, which the chiefs do not have. Most of our chiefs have been forced to become businessmen and compete with their subjects. There are inherent problems in this. Generally, our chiefs cannot go looking for jobs and work because their traditional duties are full-time.

And in some cases, they are actually not allowed to leave their palaces anyhow and go for work. Sometimes it’s not even easy for them to run businesses because tradition does not allow them to move around offices looking for contracts or business. And unlike in the olden days when subjects did all sorts of things for the chiefs without being paid, no one today works for the chiefs without being paid, for mahala. This means that to get any little work done, the chief has to find the money. But from where?

Today for a chief to eat nshima, he has to buy the mealie-meal or personally grow the maize. For the chief to eat fish today, he has to buy it. This never used to be the case because the chief never personally cultivated his own fields, they were cultivated for him by his subjects.

The chief never went to the river to catch his own fish because it was caught for him. Today no one works for the chief but the chief is expected to work for everyone for mahala. Today no one pays the school fees for the chief’s children. And this unemployed man is expected to find money for his children’s school fees.

In those days, the chief was the most affluent in any area. This cannot be said to be the case today. To be made chief today is to be condemned to poverty if one really wants to follow tradition and do only those things chiefs are allowed to do.

Many chiefs today are running their royal establishments from personal pockets, from the income they generate from businesses established or properties they acquired before ascending to the throne.

Our chiefs control land in their areas on behalf of their people, but seldom do they get a benefit from this. Of course, there are some chiefs who have resorted to selling their people’s land and pocket the money. This is not desirable but in some cases, it’s understandable.

And until we address some of the challenges and the many problems our chiefs face, this practice will continue. Some of our chiefs do these things not out of greed or vanity but simply to survive and be able to meet the basic needs of their families. This is not to say all the chiefs are suffering in the same way.

There are chiefs who have made a fortune from corruption, from abusing the resources of their people. These are not difficult to spot. It is usually such chiefs who politically prostitute themselves against their people. And because of their corruption, they have to be always in good terms with those in government for fear of being arrested and prosecuted.

Our chiefs are like priests who live from the contributions and goodwill of their congregations. But whereas some of our pastors live very comfortable lives from their congregations’ contributions, our chiefs are not getting any contributions from their subjects.

We expect them to work for us but we don’t care about their welfare, their plight; we don’t want to pay them for the services they render to us. There cannot be duties without rights just as much as there cannot be rights without duties. If we want our chiefs to work for us, we should also be prepared to work for them.

Why should chiefs work for mahala when no one else in the nation, including the pastor, works without being paid? All our politicians are paid even just for sitting at the National Constitutional Conference.

If we want the services of chiefs, we should find ways, one way or the other, to pay for them. And some of these chiefs are highly educated people or professionals who today we are forcing, using tradition, to live poor lives that we ourselves are not prepared to live.

If we want chiefs and the services they render, we should be prepared to pay the price that having them demands. And until we address the issue of financing our royal establishments, it will be very difficult to stop them from prostituting themselves with the politicians in control of government resources.

Labels: CHIEFS, POVERTY

posted by MrK @ 3:55 PM