adminIN communities and societies various institutions are created to achieve set objectives.
The nature, complexities and operations of these institutions, themselves social constructs, are informed by the cultural traditions, historical experiences and value systems of the particular communities.
A close look at the operations and character of the institutions provides some useful insight into the communities themselves.
The latter are a reflection of the former. This is to say institutions bear the identity marks or fingerprints of the community that created them. The created, as I have often argued, bears the identity of the creator.
This article is a two-part series that seeks to shed some light on the chiefly institution during the heyday of the Ndebele State.
In the first part we shall dwell on the raison d’être for the institution and how its operation and regeneration were calculated to serve clearly identified objectives.
It will be apparent that the institution was one of many that ensured the continued survival of the nascent state within which the ruling elite sought to preserve their cultural heritage and maintain political hegemony.
Where there is a group of people it is imperative that there be institutions that regulate societal behaviour through measures to reduce conflict and where it has broken out, to resolve it.
Individual perceptions and objectives differ and where these clash there is a need for mediation. Group values and the need to preserve the group override personal and individual needs.
First and foremost the king epitomised the state. The state was the king and the king was the state.
The state and condition of the king reflected on that of the state and its people. If he had blemishes and imperfections it was believed those attributes would be found within the community over which he exercised political, administrative, judicial and spiritual authority.
It was for this reason that a disabled individual was disqualified from assuming state power. So, it was with one who was to become chief.
The chief institution was premised on that of the king – at least within the Ndebele State. The king appointed those who would become chief after consideration of many factors such as the ethnic factor, leadership qualities, military prowess, and relationship to the monarch.
Let us expand on some of these factors a little. The Ndebele State had a small population when it came out of KwaZulu-Natal. In terms of defence requirements, it did not meet the required threshold figures.
Incorporation of non-Nguni communities was resorted to in order to boost the defences of the state.
Some of the incorporated men excelled on the military front. However, such men, belonging to various tribes such as Sotho, Tswana (south of the Limpopo River) and Kalanga, Venda, Shona and Tonga (inter alia, north of the Limpopo River) were not appointed chiefs. That was done for a clear reason.
Political power has the potential to unlock the doors to wealth. By keeping political power within the elite group, the Nguni that is, it was possible to maintain a tight grip on wealth. Access to wealth, it must be appreciated, can lead to acquisition of political power, a situation where the elite were going to begin to lose political influence. What normal elite will allow power and wealth to slip through its own fingers?
A run-down of civilian villages (within which the regiments existed) will show that the chiefs were of Nguni extraction.
The institution was a political one. Let us give a few examples: eNqameni – Chief Somhlolo Mathema; uGodlwayo – Dambisamahubo Mafu; eZinaleni/eZisongweni – Mabuyane Ndiweni; iNqobo – Mthini Mphoko Ndlovu; iNhlambabaloyi (iNhlambane) – Thambo Ndiweni, iNtunta – Mhabahaba Mkhwananzi; iNdinana – Mfangilele Matshazi.
Blood relations to the monarch were an important consideration. The reasoning was that the king’s kith and kin, who inevitably were recipients of monarchical wealth spinoffs, were keen to ensure the continued existence of the dynasty.
King Mzilikazi was very much alert to this fact and appointed many of his own maternal uncles/cousins to the institution of chief.
There is no doubt that the Ndiwenis provided more chieftainships than any other group (see Nyathi and Chikomo 2012: The Story of Amangwe: Unpacking King Mzilikazi’s Maternity). We could give just a few examples: KweZimnyama – Tsamayi Ndiweni; uSaba – Langabi Ndiweni; eZinaleni – Mabuyane Ndiweni; Gibixhegu – Khondwane Ndiweni; iNhlambane – Thambo Ndiweni; uJinga – Mletshe Ndiweni.
Two of the chieftainships, namely iZinala/iZisongo and KweZimnyama are directly descended from Khondwane Ndiweni – the man generally referred to as Gundwane in history books. Khondwane was a direct brother to Cikose Ndiweni, King Mzilikazi’s mother. It was no surprise therefore, that the king appointed his own relatives as chiefs, ukukhusela umbuso wakhe.
While the Khumalos were not generally appointed as chiefs, they acted as regents where the heirs-apparent were still young. This was the case among those Khumalos who were not of the royal house such as iNzonda, uDonda weZiziba and aManyangana. It made political sense for him to appoint the Khumalos to hold fort until the heir-apparent reached the age of majority.
However, there were several chiefs who were appointed purely on merit. These were men who proved themselves as leaders or brave fighters in battles.
As noted above, the ethnic consideration applied to avoid loss of power and influence and hence wealth.
We should have pointed out that where a society was patriarchal the chiefs were always men. Indeed men controlled both political and economic power.
The chiefly institution, in addition to its administrative, political and military roles, ensured the preservation of cultural heritage and identity.
The elite had a distinct culture that they brought out of KwaZulu-Natal. One very clear objective of the state was to preserve that culture, more so in the face of increasing populations of incorporates with different cultures that were going to undermine the Nguni culture. The chiefly institution was a custodian of culture.
Patronage was at work to ensure chiefly loyalty to the monarch. The term ukotha was used to refer to this patronage. Faku Ndiweni used to go to King Lobengula’s capital.
He was politically tactful and strategic and did manage to wrest the chieftainship from Thunzi’s lineage which was the rightful one for iZinala/iZisongo.
He went on to consolidate his position by marrying King Mzilikazi’s daughter, the one Princess Nedlana and their eldest son Nyangazonke assumed the mantle of chief.
Faku’s case takes us to another consideration – that of succession and how it was manipulated to ensure continued grip on power by the monarch.
By marrying off his daughters to chiefs, he ensured his nephews snatched the chiefly reins.
It was expected they would be loyal to their grandfather. If indeed, the chiefly institution buttressed the rule of the king, it was to be expected that it would be carefully manipulated and controlled to make sure it did not provide alternative nuclei of power. We shall deal with these and related aspects in the second instalment.
Online Reporter