Feature - Power of chiefs begins to be questioned

Ongoing chieftaincy disputes in a country where chiefs hold great power over rural populations has stalled developmental projects and drawn the intervention of King Mswati's palace officials. "Chiefs are the gatekeepers of an area, seeing to the people's needs, and they act as a bulwark against outsiders who have designs on their area. But because their positions are so powerful there are always fierce succession battles," said Duduzile Lushaba, a community development officer in the central Manzini province. Competing claims as to who is a rightful chief, sometimes pitting clans against each other, mean some areas have not had a chief for up to two decades. Because developmental initiatives and grants from foreign donor agencies cannot proceed without the approval of a chief, some areas are lagging behind in infrastructure, health and other improvements. Swaziland has over 300 chiefs. The positions are hereditary, but can also be given to senior members of the royal family, the ruling Dlamini clan. A chief is considered a "son of the king", an honorary prince, and King Mswati's representative at the local level. "Chiefs are a blessing and a curse. They are respected traditional leaders, whose word can end feuds between neighbours and settle family inheritance issues. But there are complaints that they have been politicised, and their role is vaguely defined in the new national constitution," said an attorney with Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland). Few outsiders understand the role chiefs play in Swaziland, where four out of five people live as landless peasants on communal Swazi Nation Land. Chiefs distribute this land, providing an area to grow crops, graze cattle and build a home for each person who undergoes the kukhonta (initiation into a community). The rite is simply a pledge of allegiance to the chief, acceptance of the newcomer by the community through a council of elders, and payment of a cow as gratitude to the community. A study by Women in Law in Southern Africa's Swaziland branch noted that when the head of a household dies, the chief may give the land to others if the family fails to keep it productive. "Because of AIDS, there are more child-headed households. The children cannot farm the land, but instead of giving it to others as a trust until the children are mature, the land tends to be taken from them permanently, denying children their heritage and future income," said the report. Legally, every Swazi must list his chief on official documents: birth, marriage and death certificates, court documents, drivers licenses and national IDs, bank loans and sometimes business contracts. In a nation ruled by custom as well as statutory law, a person "belongs" to a chief, who by tradition must account for his or her actions. If a chief's subject should be jailed for a crime, the chief would not be held accountable, but chiefs are often asked to account for subjects by palace officials. If attendance from a chieftaincy is sparse at national royal functions, like the Incwala festival, or an insufficient number of maidens from an area attend the annual Reed Dance, a chief will have to explain. Chiefs often impose fines on subjects who fail to attend national functions. They will also fine residents who do not join communal workgroups to maintain a chief's homestead or tend his fields. The Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) has reported this custom to the International Labour Organisation as a violation of labour laws and workers' rights. "This is a form of slave labour," Jan Sithole, SFTU secretary general, told IRIN. But traditionalists argue the work is no more than "tribute" to the king through a chief, to show gratitude for living rent-free on Swazi Nation Land, which is known as "King's land". The Swaziland Democratic Alliance, an umbrella body of banned opposition parties, labour organisations and human rights and legal groups, has called for an end to the power of chiefs to evict residents. They cite the late Chief Bhekimpi Dlamini and other chiefs, who threatened to evict from ancestral lands any subject who joined a political party. The chiefs argued that because political opposition parties are banned by royal decree, party members are criminals, and chiefs must defend their communities against known criminals. "Chiefs are part of a monarchical system, and they are defending their privileges. They know that when democracy comes, they will lose their power," said Bongani Masuku, president of the South African-based pro-democracy group, the Swaziland Democratic Movement. In a curious passage from a new national constitution that is mostly written in dry legal language, the chiefs are defined in traditional parlance: "The chiefs are the footstool of the Ngwenyama (Swazi king), and the Ngwenyama rules through the chiefs." No attempt is made to democratise traditional structures in the palace-authored constitution, and chiefs will remain as palace appointees not subject to popular election. But resistance to the imposition of chiefs appears to be spreading. In addition to a half-dozen chieftaincy disputes, the people of Macetjeni began the kingdom's current "rule of law" crisis by refusing to accept King Mswati's older brother, Prince Maguga Dlamini, as their chief. The prince took over two chieftaincies, replacing popular chiefs. Two hundred residents said they would not follow him. They were rounded up by the army in a midnight raid in 2000, and deposited in an open field without food or shelter 100 km away. When the Court of Appeal ordered their return, and later ordered the jailing of the police commissioner for blocking the ruling, the government refused to comply, leading to the resignations of the full Court of Appeal bench. As a result, Swaziland has been without its highest court since last November.