Traditional Leaders and good governance in Zimbabwe

 

By Brian Maregedze

The Family & Religious Studies advanced levels paper one (November-December, 2021) has an interesting question which reads, ‘To what extent do traditional leaders uphold good governance?.’ The three keywords are, ‘upholding good governance’ since framing of good governance is contested in legal, religious, and political spaces. The first decade of Zimbabwe’s independence had the state mild, if not hostile to traditional leaders due to colonial rule experiences, where some chiefs were labelled collaborators in favour of the oppressive settler regime. However, the Robert Mugabe led administration warmed up to traditional leaders around the late 199os and this coincides with the rise of a formidable opposition, civil society, and trade unionism critical of the government.

In the early 1980s, traditional leaders were perceived as anti-nationalists since some of them were arguably beneficiaries of the oppressive settler regime. Lazarus Nzarayebani, then MP for Mutare South cited by Ranger (2001:47), said:

“At Independence in 1980, we did revolutionarily so well. Ours was change; change in administration of our public affairs and public lives… Some institutions where necessary must simply be allowed to wither away. One of these institutions might be chieftainship.”

Ironically, the government, led by Robert Mugabe went on to pursue the same strategies of incentivising traditional leaders, buying luxurious cars, making sure they have access to electricity in their rural homes, among other ‘luxuries.’ 

Key functions of traditional leaders as outlined by the constitution of Zimbabwe, section 282 (1) are;

1.        promoting and upholding the cultural values of their communities,

2.      facilitating development,

3.      administering communal lands.

4.      They are also charged with protecting the environment,

5.      resolving disputes in their communities, and exercising any other functions conferred or imposed on them by an act of Parliament.

On the other hand, traditional leaders are prohibited from doubling in partisan politics by the constitution of the land, furthering interests of any political party or cause.

In 1997, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) listed characteristics of good governance as including participation of citizens, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, accountability, and strategic vision. Jeffrey Kurebwa uses three main lenses to account for good governance by traditional leaders, that is;

1. Advisory role to government and participation in the administrations of rural areas.

2. Developmental role, complementing government’s efforts in mobilizing rural communities in implementing developmental projects, sensitizing them on health issues such as HIV/AIDS, promoting education, encouraging economic enterprises, inspiring respect for the law and urging participation in the electoral process.

3. Conflict resolution.

Some of the traditional leaders who in the past have been on the spotlight for publicly declaring their political party allegiance include Chief Fortune Charumbira. More notable is a study undertaken by Rukuni (2015) in Bikita District confirming that 94 percent of traditional leaders in the district were politically aligned to the ruling ZANU-PF and were using their positions to punish those who belonged to opposition political parties. Chief Serima from Gutu is also known to have been critical of the constitution of Zimbabwe in regard to the rights of chiefs in choosing a political leader of their choice. Chief Serima believes it violates their individual rights. Therefore, it remains a contested topic since constitutionally; it is prohibited for chiefs to be partisan while they are some who have the full conviction that it is in violation of their rights like any other citizen in Zimbabwe.

Image: Chief Fortune Charumbira

Zimbabwe’s highly polarised political environment exacerbates the situation of traditional leaders with those who question government policies as they are conveniently labelled opposition party mouth-pieces, sell-outs, traitors and, in some cases, viewed as threats to national security. Chief Nhlanhlayemangwe Ndiweni of Ntabazinduna belongs to those who are labelled negatively in state narratives. To his supporters, he is viewed as a victim of the state for being apolitical.

On another note, traditional leaders also play a crucial role as custodians of culture by promoting the adherence of sacred days in rural areas, enforcing matters relating to environmental and civic regulations. The Emmerson Mnangagwa led administration has also faced criticisms from ‘fearless’ chiefs, such as Chief Murinye for arguably not arresting corrupt politicians. However, the same Chief Murinye arguably doubles in partisan politics, which shows that some chiefs support ruling regimes. All in all, the extent to which traditional chiefs uphold good governance becomes complex, especially in a polarised political environment such as Zimbabwe.

For feedback, email; bmaregedze@gmail.com