Relevance of - United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

Part I:
Traditional Authority and Democracy
I was recently asked on whose authority do I speak, in light of the fact that I’m not an
elected official, but rather a hereditary ruler. This is the first important issue I want to
mention here. The fact that politicians are elected by voters, whereas chiefs and kings are
selected through rules of succession, is one area of our alleged “incompatibility with the
democratic ideal” (ADF Traditional Governance Issues Paper). Let’s take a moment to
think this through. Setting aside the question of whether elections really reflect the will
of the people, or bring the best people to power, I would like to point out that modes of
selecting traditional leaders are numerous, complex, and almost always involve structured
input from constituents. Yes, it is often royal lineages that produce the future chiefs
and kings, and yes, patriarchal systems often prevent women from holding the highest
traditional offices. But if our main concern is the effectiveness and accountability of our
leaders, then the way they come to power is only part of the picture. In my view, one
doesn’t automatically possess all the necessary leadership skills one needs the moment
one comes to power. Leadership can be cultivated and nurtured from a young age, as it
is in my family, and good leaders continue to learn and hone their skills while they are in
office. Like other leaders, chiefs and kings do a lot of learning on the job, and the best,
most accountable leaders, are always learning from their constituents and their peers, as
well as their mistakes.
The bottom line is that there is no mode of selection, including the most free-and-fair
election, that can guarantee that the person in office will have integrity, compassion,
and the best interests of his constituents at heart. Accountability in office is the only
way to really measure, monitor, and promote these things. In traditional communities,
accountability is achieved in different ways. In the Bafokeng community, my decisions
and policies are subject to review in our general meeting, in meetings at the village
level, by the community representatives that comprise our Supreme Council, and by the
overall Bafokeng administration through formal and informal advisory committees, our
internal auditing department, and consultants such as lawyers and accountants. There
are, therefore, numerous ways in which I am held accountable to my constituents, and my
effectiveness as a leader stands in direct proportion to these things.
It bears repeating again and again that traditional governance is not-as so many persist
in claiming-a fixed set of practices that cannot keep pace with changing times. The fact
is that our systems of governance have changed dramatically over the centuries, adapting
and responding to new state formations, macroeconomic shifts, colonial invasions, and
oppressive regimes. One thing that has kept these forms of Governance in place over such
a vast swath of the continent is that people understand the mechanisms by which their
traditional leaders are chosen, they know how to exert influence over that process, and
they know what options exit to sanction or remove leaders who do not act in their best
interests. It seems fair to ask: does this same degree of accountability and transparency
exist in the selection and removal of elected politicians in Africa? Again, as we look
at these institutions in terms of fairness, transparency, accountability, etc., please let’s
42