Chieftaincy, the State, and Democracy: Political Legitimacy in Post-Apartheid South Africa

4. The Contested Nature of Politics, Democracy, and Rights in Rural South Africa

108 | chieftaincy, the state, and democracy The Contested Nature of Politics, Democracy, and Rights in Rural South Africa Politics is bad for the community. . . . They [traditional leaders ] will not be able to control us. Now is democracy and people should do things being united. [He] may be a traditional leader but [he does not have] more rights. To understand the legitimation process in rural South Africa, it is important to recognize that these areas have not been immune from the broader sociopolitical changes that have occurred since the early 1990s. Indeed, it is one of the assumptions of the multiple-legitimacies framework that there are competing worldviews in the rural areas. In particular, the norms, rules, institutions, and symbols associated with the post-apartheid constitutional order raise expectations and influence authority relations in these areas. It is thus a mistake to believe that those living under traditional leaders, or the traditional leaders themselves, are somehow unaware of the fact that the new democratic dispensation provides opportunities for more political choice, participation, and accountability. At the same time, to expect people in South Africa, specifically those in the rural areas, to define and understand democratic norms in the same way as citizens do in the West is equally misguided (Schaffer 1998; Schatzberg 2001; Karlstrom 1996). Instead, it is important to focus on the ways in which preexisting and newly introduced notions of authority are blended together and mutually transformed, especially with respect to understandings of politics, democracy, and rights. Politics, Democracy, and Rights in Rural South Africa With the introduction of democratic discourse and practices into the rural areas since 1994, local populations are beginning to learn a new political vocabulary as well as new ways to interact with their leaders. four contested nature of politics, democracy, rights | 109 Obviously, the introduction of this discourse as well as the new electoral practices does not occur in a social or cultural vacuum. Instead, the rules and processes that make up the periodic ritual of elections are embedded in local understandings of authority. Specifically, the notions that traditional leaders are “the leaders” of the community and that the chieftaincy is a symbol of unity provide a lens to understand the changes occurring at the local level as well as a way to give meaning to politics, democracy, and rights. Make no mistake: questions concerning politics, democracy, and rights are salient to those living in rural areas. For many people these abstract principles take on considerable importance with respect to development, and there is a keen awareness that development issues are linked to the concepts of politics, democracy and rights. More generally, there is a clear sense that the post-apartheid government ’s most important task is to improve the quality of life of its citizens. For example, in the three case studies, while only 30 percent believed that life was better since 1994, 56 percent of the informants stated that the most important job for local government was to bring development.1 These changing expectations applied to traditional leaders as well. While most informants stated that traditional leaders were not involved with development issues before 1994, a majority believed that these leaders were now working on such issues. Perhaps of more importance was the attitude among most people that traditional leaders should be working on these issues as the leaders of the community. Politics as Violence, Disunity, and Development In Mvuzane, Kholweni, and Ximba, the idea of “politics” was rarely discussed openly, and questions about politics were oftentimes left unanswered . On numerous occasions, people would agree to share information only if the issue of politics was not raised. For example, even when the word “politics” was brought up during the course of a conversation— which in Zulu is simply ipolitic2 —many individuals would be visibly disturbed and would change their demeanor. Such reactions were not surprising given the fifteen-year civil war in KwaZulu-Natal in the 1980s and 1990s between the Inkatha and African National Congress political forces, in which over twenty thousand people died. Over this period, there developed a deep fear of violence throughout the entire province, even in those areas that remained peaceful (Johnson and Zulu 1996: 189). What was surprising, however, were the distinctions made between politics and other community activities, which not only were accepted but 110 | chieftaincy, the state, and democracy were encouraged. For example, while it was difficult to discuss ipolitic, it was...