Local Governance in Lesotho: The Central Role of Chiefs chapter 6

INTRODUCTION

Public debate in Southern Africa about traditional authorities generally revolves around two positions. On the one hand, chiefs are regarded as outdated forms of authority and, therefore, they should have no role in government. An extension of this argument is that the institution of chieftainship is a hindrance to evolution of political democracy and, therefore, the institution should not be recognized by the national government at all. On the other hand, chiefs are regarded as significant forms of authority, particularly in rural areas, and therefore they have a role to play in the government of a modern state. An extension of this argument is that the institution of chieftainship stands alongside the bureaucracy of a modern state and, therefore, the institution needs to be transformed to the effect that chiefs become line functionaries within local government structures.

The debate is long-standing and unresolved. Chiefs have never been as malleable as the national government of the day or the populace might wish. Here, we examine a familiar historical pattern: national governments always prescribe roles and functions, but this has been an intractable problem in the case of traditional authorities. We use Lesotho as a case study of how many chiefs continue to be popularly legitimate authorities in rural communities, just beyond the reach of the national government, despite efforts, first, by colonial governments and, later, by successive national governments to transform them into functionaries of the state.

We argue that chiefs and national governments are always enmeshed in each other’s intentions such that neither party ever succeeds in supplanting the other. The institution of chieftainship has been transformed over time in Lesotho, partly as a result of government interventions, but the new forms have never been in the image of the government of the day. We assert two principles for understanding the existence of the chieftainship in Lesotho. First, the appearance of a dual structure of government in Lesotho is deceptive, and any analysis that proceeds on this basis must confound itself. Such analysis inevitably overemphasizes the difference between the structures at the cost of ignoring the historical process by which both traditional and modern forms of government have evolved together. Secondly, the notion of traditional authority is misleading, for the form and role of chieftainship in Lesotho has changed over time. In other words, we question any analysis that presumes a traditional–modern dichotomy with regard to the existence of a chieftainship in Lesotho.

WHAT IS A CHIEFTAINSHIP?

If one were to ask “what is the chieftainship?” (serena in Sesotho), many Basotho would hesitate to answer. Few people would adopt such a distanced stance as is implied in using the word serena; indeed, it is rarely used in conversation. But if one were to ask “what is a chief?” an answer would be given readily. People describe the chieftainship as Marena a Lesotho, literally the chiefs of Lesotho. There are many marena, approximately 1,558 (Mazenod 1984)¹ – one for every thousand citizens. Although there are formal distinctions of rank between chiefs (e.g., district chief, ward chief), and between them and headmen (bo ramotse), all are popularly acknowledged by the title morena.

Individual chiefs are identified by name, for that relates the person genealogically to predecessors and indicates that the office is a hereditary one. Chiefs are also identified by the area they live in, which allows description of the chieftainship as a set of offices with jurisdiction over settlements. However, the chieftainship is not a static entity. Agencies within and beyond Lesotho have shaped the chieftainship, giving it a heritage which stretches back to pre-colonial African societies, across the world to Europe, and which includes political and economic developments in South Africa.

A stereotypical description portrays a pyramid structure with the office of king at the apex under which there are strata of chiefs and headmen down to a broad base of councillors. This structure is based on a territorial division of authority; small areas administered by headmen are encapsulated in larger and larger territories of succeeding strata of chiefs to the point where the king is vested with authority over the whole country. This description reflects the influence of colonial and post-colonial governments in shaping Lesotho society. However, it obscures the interaction between indigenous and colonial authorities in creating the chieftainship in Lesotho.

There was mutual effort by leaders on both sides to create a hierarchical structure of chiefs, but they had different premises and aims. Whereas colonial officials sought to define authority on the basis of territories, the indigenous leaders sought to incorporate this basis within a model of kinship. Political authority was to be structured according to individuals’ genealogical position in relation to the founder of the Basotho nation, Moshoeshoe I. In sum, chiefs in the past and today proclaim the chieftainship as a dynastic form of authority (Hamnett 1975; Mazenod 1984).

However, subsumed within both models, there are pre-colonial and novel concepts that emphasize personal relationships between chiefs and subjects, and the subordination of chiefs’ authority to the material and symbolic needs of the populace.

Table 1: The pyramid description of the chieftainship

(Source: Mazenod 1984)

The chieftainship is akin to the hub of the wheel, kept in place by the spokes that are the relationships between chiefs and subjects. In sum, the chieftainship is the focal point of society, around which, and through which, Basotho define the nation, the country, and their place in it. As we shall see, this popular understanding of the chieftainship has hindered succeeding governments’ ability to govern in the rural areas.

In view of the above, how should one describe the chieftainship in Lesotho? Each description reveals significant features and important agencies in its development, but no single description is adequate. The descriptions indicate a complex political process in which there have been conflicting notions of what the chieftainship is, and what it should be. There is tension between the impetus to define a hierarchy of political authority over and above the populace, and that which seeks to keep political authority grounded in citizens’ everday concerns and activities. It is this tension which reveals the life and complexity of the chieftainship. The chieftainship is always coming into being, for it has yet to be drawn entirely in the image of any of its makers. The stereotypical description of the chieftainship is illustrated in table 1. The numbers in brackets indicate the approximate number of incumbents.

The emphasis in this chart is on territorial differentiation of authority.³ The paramount chief or king has dominion over the whole country. Territorial sub-divisions demarcate areas of jurisdiction of subordinate chiefs, down to a spatially defined unit: the village. This description reflects Lesotho’s development as a geo-political entity. It is a state that occupies a defined area of land. Within the country there are now ten administrative districts, but the boundaries of chieftainships do not coincide with them in several instances. Within these districts there are smaller demarcated areas, known as wards and sub-wards, while numerous villages dot the landscape.

A British imperial hand is evident in these developments. Following the creation of the Basutoland protectorate in 1870, British officials proceeded to establish an administration on the basis of territorial units. At the time, this territory was described in terms of three loosely defined areas under the authority of three chiefs, the senior heir to Moshoeshoe I and two of his brothers, and one area governed by a magistrate (Lagden 1909, 462). All were in the lowland regions while the vast mountain interior was simply described as “very rugged ground” (ibid.).

By 1884, when Basutoland became a Crown Protectorate, the borders of the country had been demarcated. By 1904, the interior had been demarcated into seven districts (Berea, Maseru, Leribe, Quthing, Mafeteng, Mohales Hoek and Qacha’s Nek). At the turn of the century, Butha Buthe and Mokhotlong were simply small police camps which would later be administrative nuclei for districts that would be demarcated during the 1940s. This practice continued after independence. In 1978, the district of Thaba Tseka was carved out of existing districts, following the growth of a small town, Thaba Tseka, as an administrative centre in the central mountain region (Ferguson 1990, 76, 80).

Colonial officials encouraged spatial demarcation by which senior chiefs were proclaimed as district chiefs and their subordinates were placed in sub-divisions of these areas (wards and sub-wards). Alarmed by the proliferation of chiefs, and by conflicts over territorial claims, the colonial government rationalized the structure during the 1930s, following the Pim Report of 1933 (Hailey 1953, 69; Hamnett 1975, 35–36). A limited number of district, ward, and sub-ward chiefs and headmen were recognized in a government gazette and, thereafter, only these individuals and their heirs were to be accorded official status as authorities. That heritage is evident today. People can readily point out the areas under the authority of particular headmen, and how each area is encapsulated by wards and districts.

However, the colonial description subsumes another description that is based on a patrilineal model of authority that was elaborated by the chiefs themselves. This model originated with Moshoeshoe I who strove to build the Basotho nation into a coherent entity that could challenge the intrusions of colonial settlers. He appointed sons (“Sons of Moshesh” is a common term in the early literature and in local parlance) and brothers subordinate to himself, with authority over particular settlements and immigrant groups. Oldest sons inherited the positions of their fathers, and their brothers were appointed as subordinate chiefs to govern smaller communities within the broader community of the oldest sibling.

This indigenous hierarchy invoked a pre-colonial model of society. Agnatic relationships formed the framework for the transfer of wealth and authority, nominally specified by the link between father and eldest son. Lineages, interconnected through marriages, provided the skeleton for defining individuals as members of a group and for their identity vis-à-vis other groups. Oral genealogical records that traced male ancestors back to a single legendary ancestor, like branches of a tree to a trunk, provided the basis for identifying clans and the relationship between members of different groups.

This model was useful to draw people into the Basotho polity. It defined real and imagined relationships between the many groups on the high veld and, in the context of colonial intrusion, it could be used to unite those groups into a corporate entity. Moshoeshoe’s half brother, Mopeli Mokhachane, for example, brought his own following into the Basotho fold following the numerous conflicts with colonial settlers during the 1840s and 1850s. Thereafter, he was acknowledged as a chief under the authority of Moshoeshoe’s third son, Masopha (Damane and Sanders 1974, 96–97; J. de Miss. Ev. 41 (1866): 46). Characterization of a chief as a father figure, and of his role as a personal leader, indicates that there was a distinctly indigenous premise to political authority which was the antithesis of the colonial perspective that tended to place an overwhelming emphasis on territoriality. Humans were the fundamental resource rather than territory. However, elaboration of authority on this premise alone proved to be short-lived in the face of persistent colonial pressure.

Encapsulation of a population within the territorial borders of the protectorate simply created a group for which political organization had to be developed. Within these confines, Moshoeshoe’s agnates elaborated the kinship model of authority to their advantage. The Laws of Lerotholi provide an apt illustration. The laws were written after Lerotholi became paramount chief in 1891. They are ostensibly a “declaration of Sotho law and custom,” but they have also been a means for senior chiefs to codify a system of authority in the image they desired (Hamnett 1975, 37–40). They were also strongly influenced by colonial officialdom and the missionaries. The rules for succession, for example, coincidentally justified Lerotholi’s position as the paramount chief that had been previously contested. The pertinent rule (Duncan 1960) states that:

The succession to chieftainship shall be by right of birth; that is, the first born male of the first wife married; if the first wife has no male issue then the first born male child of the next wife in succession shall be chief…. Provided that if a chief dies leaving no male issue, the chieftainship shall devolve upon the male following according to the succession of houses.

The significance of this rule belies the fact that Lerotholi was the oldest son of Letsie I’s second wife, and heir apparent because his father’s first wife had borne no sons. The question of who would succeed Letsie had been raised before Moshoeshoe died, and the latter had tried to stipulate that the heir should be a son born to the daughter of Letsie’s first wife. Hamnett (1975, 39–43) has also described similar instances in later years when succession to the paramountcy was questioned, when different principles had to be applied, and, on occasion, when attempts were made to change the laws to suit the desires of the incumbent paramount chief.

Hamnett (1975, 38) described the application of the kinship model as “heredity modified by expediency.” A few principles were elaborated, but the model always contained ambiguities that could not be resolved. Hamnett (1975: 25–35) explained these ambiguities through what he calls the “retrospective” and “circumspective models.” The former refers to the way Moshoeshoe was seen as a founder of a dynasty, with his four sons forming the basis of cardinal lineages. Taken as fixed points of reference, these lineages determine forever the structure of the chieftainship. In each succeeding generation, the eldest son of each incumbent would inherit the position of chief, and together they would form a closed elite group of chiefs. If these chiefs decided to appoint other agnates or supporters as subordinate chiefs, inheritance to the positions would follow along the same lines as for the principal chiefs. However, the model also contained the seeds for chiefs to use the circumspective model. If Moshoeshoe could place his younger sons as chiefs, then other chiefs in each succeeding generation could do the same. In other words, in each generation a chief acted as a new founder of a lineage.

Hamnett provided a convincing explanation of the origins and dynamics of what was known in Lesotho as the “placing system,” by which chiefs were appointed and how the number of chiefs proliferated accordingly. In 1938, the colonial government formally began to rationalize the chieftainship through statutory proclamations. The formal process was to last twenty years. The number of chiefs was reduced, and the statutory authority of chiefs was curtailed and made subordinate to the colonial government (Ashton 1952, 186; Hamnett 1975, 35). The proclamations were a means for the colonial government to clarify territorial areas of jurisdiction, to specify the number of these chiefs in these areas, and to subordinate the authority of chiefs to colonial institutions. However, senior chiefs were very involved in the process, such that individuals whose genealogical ties were closer than others to Moshoeshoe I and his immediate heirs, were confirmed as authorities, thereby re-affirming their status as senior chiefs. Other chiefs and headmen whose genealogical status did not dovetail with this rendition of the patrilineal model, generally lost their legal status as authorities.

In sum, the chieftainship was shaped into a more coherent form than it had in the past as a result of the combined actions of senior chiefs and colonial officials. One needs to be circumspect, however, about any suggestion (Ashton 1952; Jones 1951; Hamnett 1975) that the chieftainship was fixed into a particular form by the 1950s. The possibility of a neat synchronization of the kinship and territorial models, for example, is unlikely in view of the different premises of their creators and the ambiguities in the kinship model. Hamnett’s argument that the political system was reconstructed suggests new tensions as much as resolution of old ones. Furthermore, as much as institutions may be shaped by elites, it is improbable that something so central as the chieftainship could be reconstructed without significant interventions by its subjects. In a different vein, the ethnographic record obscures as much as it reveals. The explanations of Hamnett (1975), Ashton (1952), and Jones (1951), limited the agents who were taken into consideration and compacted the social process, such that the chieftainship could be presented as a finished product.

Our point is that ethnographic description of Lesotho’s chieftainship has alluded to, but obscured a dialectic that can be broadly defined as a struggle over, and a struggle for, the institution. The former struggle has been well documented, for it has involved the visible interventions of government officials and senior chiefs. The struggle for the chieftainship is less visible, however, for it is to be found in the interactions between the rural populace and chiefs, notably those in the lower echelons of the hierarchy. As the circumstances of rural life change, so the rural populace reassesses what chiefs do, and acts to keep the chieftainship relevant to its needs. The rural populace’s struggle to ensure that the exercise of authority reflects their changing needs, means that the chieftainship is never fixed, but always coming into being. We discuss this dialectic below through reference to the political history of Lesotho before and since independence in 1966.

THE MAKING OF THE CHIEFTAINSHIP

In the nineteenth century, Moshoeshoe and his agnates could not have created an indigenous” hierarchy of authority on the basis of kinship unless it resonated with their followers. That hierarchy, as we have seen, invoked prevailing social norms of patriarchal authority. Nonetheless, the formal principles of patrilineality and patriarchy provided only a framework for political authority. The practice of authority required chiefs to substantiate the personal relationship between leader and follower that was implied by these principles. In other words, while the kinship model emphasized command over people rather than territory, so too it demanded personal allegiance of people to a chief. The critical issue for chiefs was how to build up and sustain the allegiance of followers. The key was control over, and access to land. On the one hand, chiefs established their authority by enabling followers to gain access to land. On the other hand, followers sanctioned that authority only if chiefs demonstrated capability to provide land.

This process is reflected in village names. Many villages have a prefix “Ha,” followed by a personal name, thereby indicating their origins. The nucleus of a village would be an original homestead established by a man and his wife/wives. In time, sons would establish their own homesteads in that place and, with immigration of friends and affines, the hamlet would grow into a village. Authority in the hamlet was defined in relation to the founder, who would be regarded by the other residents as the father (Ramotse) of the settlement, and whose name would identify it. Elevation to status as a chief depended on the person’s capabilities to found settlements. For instance, as people came to settle in the mountain region, a notable leader, Lelingoana Sekonyela, first established his own village, Malingoaneng (literally, “where Lelingoana’s people live”), then he appointed his sons as chiefs and sent them with small followings to establish other villages. Similarly, he allowed a Batloung group to settle in the area, and acknowledged its leader as a chief under his overall authority. As each community grew and new hamlets were established, these chiefs appointed their own kin, or acknowledged village founders as subordinate authorities. In each case, the subordinate authorities were fathers to their own subjects, and Lelingoana was the paternal authority over all who acknowledged his status as a chief.

This articulation of the kinship model of authority was different to that of the colonial officials, even of Moshoeshoe and his agnates. The key element of the territorial model is settlement as a physical construct. The colonial government demarcated chiefs’ authority on the basis of the location of villages and people. To chiefs, settlement was a social construct that expressed the identity of a group over which a chief had authority. While the colonial government’s perspective was to define the relationship it wanted between itself and the chiefs, the chiefs sought to define the relationship between themselves and their subjects. While the colonial imperative was to demarcate boundaries of authority, the chiefs’ imperative was to define the locus standi of authority from which it could be elaborated.

The key element of the dynastic model is distinction in social status. The principle of agnatic descent was a means to distinguish status, but it was interpreted in different ways. The colonial imperative was to differentiate authority through hierarchal divisions, in order to place the colonial representative of the British monarchy at the apex. The chiefs’ imperative was to confirm their positions at the centre of their subject groups. Even though the placement of agnates in subordinate positions established a hierarchy, it also expanded the social boundaries of the group in a way that always indicated the centre whence the group originated, namely the senior chief. However, this historical process has occurred in conjunction with attempts by other government agencies to define these boundaries.

CHIEFS AND INDEPENDENCE: THE FIRST TWO DECADES

Like the colonial government, post-independence governments of Lesotho have influenced the chieftainship through legislation, development initiatives, and resource allocation, but chiefs have also influenced the nature of the state. For example, the Chieftainship Act of 1968 (Kingdom of Lesotho 1968, Act 22) attempted to achieve a number of objectives, such as making provision for tenure, the exercise of functions, and discipline. However, the impact arising from implementation of that legislation has to be seen in the context of its acceptability to the chiefs and communities themselves. A similar point can be made about other policies and legislation in areas such as land and local government. In several cases, and especially between 1966 and 1986, chiefs played prominent roles in party politics at national level; for example, the prime minister during that entire period was also a minor chief.

The government elected just before independence was dominated by the Basotho National Party (BNP) under the leadership of Chief Leabua Jonathan. It remained in power until the military coup of 1986. The BNP made little effort during its two decades in power, to create a democratic political order. The national elections held in 1970 were seen by many observers as a turning point in the country’s history, for the result was that the BNP remained in power despite evidence that they had been defeated at the polls by the opposition Basutoland Congress Party (BCP) led by Ntsu Mokhehle. What Khaketla (1971) called a “coup” occurred with the support of the police and paramilitary in order that the BNP should not lose power.

The significance of these events for the chieftainship is that the BNP was the party seen as representing the chiefs (particularly those in the lower echelons) and the Roman Catholic Church, whilst the BCP had stronger ties with the commoners and followers of Protestantism. For example, at any one time, the BNP cabinet contained a number of chiefs and they were often in the majority. Furthermore, the interim National Assembly which was nominated and established in 1973, included all twenty-two principal chiefs (Bardill and Cobbe 1985, 137). This unelected body remained as the country’s legislature until Jonathan’s government was overthrown. However, this link between the chiefs and the BNP became blurred as time went by because of wider patterns of social and political change. Bardill and Cobbe (1985: 147), for example, noted that the political and economic power of the chiefs:

rests far less today on their traditional status and far more on their position as salaried functionaries of the state, as well as on their agricultural and commercial ventures. One result of these developments is that the chieftainship in general no longer provides the same source of interparty friction as it did in the past.

The fact that the BCP achieved an election plurality in 1970 suggests that the BNP’s traditional base was crumbling, so that even if it retained the support of chiefs, it lost ground amongst rural communities, even in remote mountain areas (Ferguson 1990, 109). An additional complication is that Lesotho became independent as a constitutional monarchy and has remained so. However, the political events mentioned here have not left the system of kingship unscathed. In particular, King Moshoeshoe II, the ruling monarch throughout the BNP period, was frequently in conflict with the government. This constitutional conflict also alienated him from those chiefs who were benefiting from participation in the various arenas of political power.

In parallel with these political shifts, the question of the future of the chieftainship found its way onto the policy agenda of the BNP regime. Two examples will be given here. The first is the Chieftainship Act of 1968, which was passed at a time when the position of elected local government was being eroded. These cannot be seen as unrelated trends since the collapse of the nine District Councils, which were part of the colonial legacy, was an element of the BNP strategy to undermine the BCP (which, for the first years of independence was stronger locally than nationally: it controlled all nine councils). The BNP aim, in effect, was to eliminate the limited local democracy that colonialism had introduced, leaving the way open for a system of local administration in which field officers (such as District Administrators) posted by the central government were to work in collaboration with the chiefs. The Chieftainship Act was part of this strategic framework as it formalized the position of chiefs beyond the point reached by the colonial administration. In that sense, it continued a trend of bureaucratizing the chieftainship, without taking away its hereditary base, and without contradicting the Laws of Lerotholi, which had hitherto provided the legal basis for chieftainship.

The second example concerns the administration of land. The Land Act of 1979 (Kingdom of Lesotho 1979, Act 17) ostensibly reduced the powers of chiefs to control access to, and use of land. Historically, Basotho have had inalienable usufruct rights to land. Land was held in trust by the paramount chief on behalf of the nation. The chiefs then allocated parcels of land which families could use but not own. The system came in for widespread criticism from donor aid agencies on the grounds that it was being abused and was not promoting productive use of land. The Act introduced land committees of which chiefs would merely be a part. However, this seems to have been an attempt to satisfy donors and, as we discuss shortly, chiefs were able to conduct affairs much as they had in the past (Kingdom of Lesotho 1987, 44). There have been two reasons for this outcome. On the one hand, there was little attempt by government to enforce the changes. On the other hand, the realities of local power relations made it difficult for the government to usurp the entrenched, local authority of chiefs.

For the chieftainship, the first two decades of independence saw processes of change at work, some of which were the direct result of government policies. In some instances, the chiefs found themselves embroiled in conflict. At times, this was a result of party politics whilst occasionally there were aspects of state policy to be considered. What is clear is that the system of local governance by chiefs demonstrated a substantial capacity for survival despite considerable pressures to prescribe and represcribe their authority.