Chiefs’ demands must not be dismissed without consideration

important occasion in Zimbabwe’s socio-cultural calendar, an event that offers the country’s hereditary leaders an opportunity to articulate their views and wishes about the country as well as about themselves as leaders of communities comprising many wards.
They certainly did say their views and wishes some of which were political, others cultural and yet some socio-economic. The chiefs drew the Government’s attention to a rather surprising fact: that 80 percent of their number were not given farms during the land acquisition and resettlement campaign. They also requested that they should be given fire-arms, at least one to each chief; that their motor vehicles should be replaced; that they should be issued with diplomatic passports; that they should be exempted from paying toll-gate fees, and that their monthly allowances be increased from $300.
Some public opinion makers criticised not one, not two, but all these demands, saying in effect, if not in fact, that chiefs were unnecessary drain on the fiscus, especially during these economically hard times.
Some of the criticism clearly implied that chieftainship is an “archaic” cultural institution that should be relegated to the country’s historical archives with an appropriate derogatory caption or epitaph.
The question about farms is quite pertinent in that every chief is the owner of his or her area, holding it in trust for the people in the chiefdom. It is, therefore, grossly unfair to give land (farms) to people who are subjects of the chiefs and leave out the land owners without any.  I am referring to commercial farms, of course.
This issue can and should be extended a little further by saying since the vast majority of the black people of Zimbabwe are subjects of one chief or another their resettlement ought to involve their chiefs. After all, many areas are named after chiefs.
However, that is another issue very remotely related to the demand for a commercial farm for each chief.
Otherwise how do we justify calling an area “kwaMarange” or “kwaGutu” or “kwaCharumbira” or koBango or “koMalaba”, all these being names of chiefs of those various areas, if the traditional custodians of those areas are ignored in the exploitation and appropriation of the resources of their areas?
Surely, basic natural justice demands that if commercial land is being given to people in Chief Malaba’s territory, the chief and his subjects should be given priority and not somebody else from say Chief Santontola’s area, or from Mainge Street in Rimuka in Kadoma who will then wax rich and fat while Chief Malaba’s people and himself covetously watch with thirsty throats, empty tummies, bare backs, cracked feet and salivating mouths.
The demand to have firearms for personal protection makes a lot of sense considering that all chiefs are chief arbitrators in various civil cases involving their subjects. They also occasionally get involved in arresting wanted and suspected criminals.
In the colonial era, chiefs were legally described as “having the role of constables”, and were duly armed, including headmen. It is actually a very serious oversight on the Government’s part not to have armed chiefs soonest after independence.
I am of the belief that judges, prosecutors, senior army and police officers are all necessarily armed, the weapons being Government issues; so should the chiefs.
As for paying at tollgates, it would make much sense if such an exemption were to apply to the chiefs’ vehicle only if and when the chief is actually in that vehicle rather than the vehicle per se. Chiefs are supposed to be mini-kings vana mambo, inkosi, izinduna bohe, kekgosi.
The fact that Zimbabwe has chiefs but is a republic should not confuse our thinking on this issue. It is a constitutional anomaly found in several African republics, including South Africa. The fact that we are living with in Zimbabwe is that we have hereditary chiefs as an integral part of the country’s constitutional government.
However, since their traditional role is entirely internal, their demand for diplomatic passports is not justifiable.
Chiefs fall under the Ministry of Local Government, Rural and Urban Development which, unlike that of Foreign Affairs, has officials who seldom, if ever travel abroad. If, however, the Government were to consider issuing diplomatic passports to our chiefs, it would be quite in order for them to pay the stipulated fee and not to get them free of charge.
Diplomatic passports are generally regarded as privilege for those in the field of diplomacy and are properly trained in the management of international relations. Traditional chiefs may use some diplomacy in matters involving their respective chiefdoms, say Chief Chivi dealing with Chief Charumbira or Chief Masendu consulting Chief Madlambuzi (his neighbour) on issues of mutual interest and value to them. Diplomatic passports are not needed for such inter-chiefdom contacts just as no visas are required for Masendu to pay Chief Mpini’s subject a purely social visit.
Could it be that some of the chiefs had in their minds when they asked for diplomatic passports a foreign trip organised for them by the Smith regime in 1964 in preparation for his Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on 11 November 1965?
Accompanied by a senior Ministry of Information official, Mr Christian “Branchy” Ndlovu, the chiefs were flown to a number of countries, including some Caribbean states. Their message was the black people of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) did not support African nationalists but them, that is to say the traditional chiefs.
The trip was a vain attempt by Ian Smith’s regime to hoodwink the world by using the chiefs who were by then pitiable agents of that minority administration. No nation fell for their ruse.
The demand for their $300 monthly to be increased is obviously unrealistic; some observers may say it is selfish.  Why? Because in Zimbabwe today only a few professionals earn that princely sum of cash monthly.
Oh! In addition to having a free motor vehicle, free electricity, they now would like their hefty $300 to be increased!  Our chiefs live in an utterly different socio-economic environment from that in which their subjects are struggling tooth and nail to keep body and soul together, hence this highly unfeeling demand.
Let us educate our chiefs so that they can appreciate that their people are living literally from hand to mouth. The vast majority of Zimbabweans (90 out of every 100) is unemployed, and lives on slightly less than a $1 per day.
And what about our chiefs? A breakdown of their $300 monthly allowance gives us a very comfortable $10 a day!  That is how well off Zimbabwean chiefs are compared to their subjects.
Finally, people who say chieftainship should be done away with because it is “archaic” should bear in mind that the institution is supported by people in the rural areas, and that about 80 percent of Zimbabweans live in those areas.
It is not possible for one to comment objectively on the chiefs’ demand for their vehicles to be replaced without a full knowledge of the conditions on which the Government issued them with the vehicles they wish to be replaced in the first place.
Those conditions (assuming there are any) would most probably cover usage, time before the expiration of which the vehicle will not be replaced, and service record as well as mileage covered by the vehicle.
The Government would have most probably drawn a list of conditions, including the above at the time of the issuance of the vehicles.
Whatever is the situation, one important condition that could never be left out of a list of conditions is that a replacement would be made only on the surrender of the old vehicle with its original engine and chassis intact.
It would be grossly irresponsible for the Government to give the chiefs new vehicles and let them keep the old ones which are ostensibly no longer serviceable. That would be theft by conversion of public property.
l Saul Gwakuba Ndlovu is a retired Bulawayo-based journalist. He can be contacted on 0734 328 136 or email [email protected]