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

6. The Chieftaincy and Development: Expanding the Parameters of Tradition

168 | chieftaincy, the state, and democracy The Chieftaincy and Development Expanding the Parameters of Tradition Inkosi is trying. The government is doing nothing. Yes [inkosi should be involved in development], though nothing is happening . We depend on the inkosi in all our needs. Inkosi is not used to doing this [development]. Some trying now. Educated people need to do things [with development]. No [inkosi should not have a say on development]. [They] need education. Inkosi likes changes but does not know how. In former times, people did not know anything about development until a few years back. They had no problem with the life they had until this idea of development came. One of the most critical issues for those living in the former Bantustan areas is the implementation of rural development projects. Given the devastating development policies during apartheid, this is not surprising. What I did not expect, however , was the extent to which those living in these areas expected that the chieftaincy should be actively involved in the rural development process. How traditional leaders have responded to these expectations and how local populations evaluate the performance of traditional leaders concerning development is the central focus of this chapter. It is important to point out that the local dynamics I explore here took place in 1998–99, which was well before the passage of the TLGF Act (2003) and the Communal Land Act (2004); thus, the development function of the chieftaincy was not formally defined or proscribed. In different ways, each of these acts has formally entrenched the chieftaincy into the development process even further than was the case in 1998–99. This is important because before the passage of these acts it was assumed that the issue of rural development was beyond the official jurisdiction of the chieftaincy and that its role with respect to development would be six the chieftaincy and development | 169 minimal (Republic of South Africa 1998b). For a variety of reasons, this has not been the case. Instead, traditional leaders have sought to expand their authority over development even though it is an issue that appears unrelated to their traditional responsibilities. Development in Rural South Africa: Rising Expectations and Mixed Results The promise of development and the establishment of a better life for all have been staples of the ANC’s political rhetoric since the transition period.1 Such promises, however, have never been simply about providing much-needed services to those who were disadvantaged during apartheid. Instead, the delivery of development has been one of the crucial components of the ANC’s understanding of democracy in South Africa. Nelson Mandela’s remarks during his first State of the Nation speech in 1994 made it clear that democracy in South Africa encompassed much more than the so-called first generation rights: Our definition of the freedom of the individual must be instructed by the fundamental objective to restore the human dignity of each and every South African. This requires that we speak not only of political freedoms. My government’s commitment to create a people-centered society of liberty binds us to the pursuit of the goals of freedom from want, freedom from hunger, freedom from deprivation, freedom from ignorance, freedom from suppression and freedom from fear. These freedoms are fundamental to the guarantee of human dignity. They will therefore constitute part of the centrepiece of what this government will seek to achieve, the focal point on which our attention will be continuously focused. The things we have said constitute the true meaning, the justification and the purpose of the Reconstruction and Development Programme, without which it would lose all legitimacy. When we elaborated this Programme we were inspired by the hope that all South Africans of goodwill could join together to provide a better life for all. (1994b) But to what extent is this rhetoric meaningful to ordinary South African citizens? For many, especially those living in the rural areas, the issues of elections, local government, and development are interrelated. As we have seen, one of the hallmarks of the post-apartheid era has been the general expectation that the political reforms in the early 1990s would bring socioeconomic changes as well. In this way, people in South Africa appear 170 | chieftaincy, the state, and democracy to have adopted an understanding of democracy that encompasses both substantive and procedural dimensions (Africa and Mattes 1996: 6; Mattes 2002: 31). In other words...