Academic sheds light on Zulu right royal disputes drama

TO TRY get to grips with the recent storm surrounding the dispute over the identity of the heir to the Zulu throne after the death of King Goodwill Zwelithini, the Sunday Independent’s Don Makatile spoke to Professor Kealeboga Maphunye, a Professor of African Politics at Unisa.

Is there a case to be made for or against sustaining the institution of the monarchy, here and anywhere else in the world where such practice persists?

The role of royalty differs in many parts of the world. Obviously, there are those who are passionate about this institution. They cite, among other things, the fact that royals (or traditional leaders/authorities in South Africa) play a useful role in communities or societies where such royals are found. Thus, we still have constitutional and other monarchies in more than 40 countries, including the UK, the Netherlands, Monaco, Spain, Morocco, Japan (Emperor), Bahrain, Denmark, Bhutan and Belgium.

In Africa, the kingdoms of Lesotho, eSwatini (formerly Swaziland) and Morocco are the closest examples.

The proponents of royalty argue that such leaders are “born to rule by heritage” or some other nomination and anointing (usually arising from age-old beliefs, practices, and customs).

The critics of royalty argue that such styles of leadership are outdated, encourage patriarchy, or undermine democratic governance processes which are based on meritocracy and competition for public positions.

They also argue that royalty promotes a moribund institution that usually costs the public dearly, as many royal families have to be supported by the states in which they reside.

Shouldn’t the succession be a fait accompli, not mired in controversy?

It was – the king apparently left a will which clearly states what would be done after his death in terms of succession and the distribution of his estate.

What is your sense of the public media storm which, in the eyes of the commoner, is un-royal?

Recent media reports suggest that there is a serious dispute over the king’s will as well as over the succession process. However, globally and in South Africa, this is not unheard of in terms of hereditary rulers, chiefs and leaders

who ascend the throne by virtue of their statuses as members of the royal families.

The king’s will is reportedly being disputed by two princesses (and possibly by one of the king’s wives). We will await the outcome of the court case/s.

Is it a fallacy to expect African traditional disputes – especially at the level of the eminence of the Zulu kingdom – not to play out in the courts?

It is unfortunate that such matters have to be referred to the Westminster or Roman-Dutch types of courts for adjudication as this essentially undermines the stature of African dispute and conflict resolution methods and processes. Moreover, such a referral of these matters also suggests that traditional African ways of dealing with succession and governance disputes or conflicts are inferior.

Please say more …

African traditions (and Zulu customs in this regard) are not immune from the world-wide and human frailties of disputing succession rules or processes, especially on royalty.

Of course, the ideal situation would have been an uninterrupted and probably orderly process of succession; but we must remember that this apparently orderly process can still be disputed; for example, on the basis that it benefited and promoted patriarchy among the Zulu people.

Maybe I am trying to adapt the notion of “African solutions for African problems”. There are surely “home” remedies, influenced by tradition and custom, that could be employed?

The best example is in neighbouring Botswana, where the country’s Kgotla (traditional meeting place) is used to address succession disputes. However, like South Africa, the country also relies on a balanced interplay between the Westminster system and the traditional Kgotla system.

Other similar systems across the continent of Africa include those of Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, eSwatini and Lesotho. However, many traditional African customs cannot be compared with others globally owing to the predominance of the Ubuntu values and philosophy, which is rare to find outside of Africa.

Is the concept of a regent necessarily gendered?

It would appear that this is so for the Zulu royalty tradition, but one could argue that the position of regent is transient and therefore not threatening to the status quo, which is why a woman can be (and has been) allowed to serve as regent for as long as a dispute arises regarding a successor, or should a successor be deemed to be too young to assume the position of an incumbent king when the need arises.

However, it should also be noted that in African customs and traditions, putting women as regents has not always been used as a way of side-lining women. On the contrary, such female regents have in some instances shown reputable and efficient leadership styles among their communities.

I am uncertain about the gender dimension of this dispute (in the case where the regent was a woman). However, the key issue here is about succession disputes (which have historically culminated in full-blown conflict), which is not confined to African or Zulu nationalism and royalty.

Could the Zulu royal dispute not have been avoided totally?

Any succession disputes (or conflicts) are regrettable and should be avoided, especially among African traditional authorities such as the Zulu nation. However, they can never be completely averted as they are part of the human frailties I have alluded to.

What is the best way forward to bring this matter to an amicable close, with no blood on the floor – figuratively speaking?

In my view, the best way to resolve this crisis facing the Zulu nation is to rely on the wisdom of the Zulu traditional authorities, while also relying on guidance from the judiciary.