The Sunday News
Phathisa Nyathi
After several months we come to the end of the discourse on the institution of chiefs in the Ndebele State. We observed the transformations that it underwent following conquest. While the spotlight was focused on the succession rules and procedures, some effort was made to provide cosmological underpinnings for the numerous cultural practices attending the succession rules and procedures. It has always been our view that cultural practices are informed and guided by a community’s worldview and political objectives.
We argued that the institution was thoroughly a political one serving interests clearly in line with those of the king and the state in general. Various strategies were highlighted which sought to make the institution an appendage of royalty. At the end of the day, the chief ruled at the pleasure of the political authority. If he chose to go counter to monarchical dictates, he knew the consequences pretty well.
The initial appointment of a chief was based on both merit and other partisan considerations including kinship. Beyond this initial appointment, the succession rules applied, all based on the principle of “like father, like son, udiwo lufuze imbiza.” If the initial appointment identified positive leadership traits, it was assumed these were passed on to the progeny of the pioneering chief.
The chief was the eyes and ears of the king, the monarch’s long arms that extended his presence to far flung parts of the State.
The chiefs were political, spiritual, cultural, legal and administrative officers of the state. As leaders of the male side of a village, they led their subjects in raids that brought cattle and human captives. The chiefs thus became very rich members of society who, on that account, were targeted as marriage partners for the royal princesses. The royal princesses, unlike common women, upon their marriage took large herds of cattle with them to their husbands’ households. Princess Sidambe Khumalo took with her a large herd of cattle to her husband Siyatsha Fuyane, so did Princess Famona Khumalo when she married Chief Hole Masuku. She also inherited another large herd of cattle when her mother Queen Lozikeyi Dlodlo died of Influenza, Ifuleza, in 1919.
Resistance to conquest was led by the chiefs. There was so much at stake for them. For some, their wives who were royal princesses encouraged them to fight. This was the case with Princess Famona Khumalo King Lobengula’s daughter who prevailed over her husband Chief Hole Masuku to fight the colonists who had destroyed the state in 1893 and sent her father packing. Royal princesses benefited from the status quo. One reason why Princess Sidambe Khumalo hated western education was that it had been introduced by whites who had destroyed her father’s kingdom. The riches and privileges that used to accrue to her on account of her privileged status were discontinued.
Conquest was a disastrous socio-political experience for the chiefs. As leaders of the initial resistance to colonial penetration in 1893, they were hated and targeted for incarceration and retribution. Some had their homes torched and their chieftainships terminated. Their privileged positions were no longer tenable. They thus welcomed any opportunity that presented itself when they could try to reassert their positions through the reinstatement of the erstwhile state. That golden opportunity presented itself in March 1896 at full moon when the same occupation forces had gone to the Transvaal on a disastrous Jameson Raid.
In that year, there were several deaths reported among the herds of cattle, a source of wealth and influence among the Ndebele. To further aggravate the situation, the colonial authorities shot some healthy cattle as a way of controlling the spread of rinderpest (indalimana). Carcases of dead animals were not to be consumed, but burnt. The Ndebele believe, “ilahlwa ngomlomo.” The Ndebele were angry at the strange veterinary measures of the white colonists.
As if that was not enough, that year, 1896-97 agricultural season, rains failed. Further, the little there was by way of crops was decimated by large swarms of locusts. Enough is enough. We rather die than face this situation of tribulations, servitude and calamities attributable to the presence of the white man. “Okungasikufa yikuphi? Madoda lolani incukuthu!” exclaimed Mpotshwana Ndiweni as he exhorted his people to take up arms and fight the oppressor.
Indeed, the people of ENgodlweni, near Umzingwane River, led by Mkhwananzi, took up arms against the native police, amagqokane, and abemiribhini ebomvu.
Soon the war spread to other parts of the former Ndebele State. Chief Maduna Mafu engaged the whites in his area. Many were killed. Chief Maduna Mafu was finally captured in the Mpatheni area and brought up for trial in Bulawayo. There was just one witness that was going to testify against him. The poor fellow was struck by lightning before the trial took place. That was what saved Chief Mthikana Mafu’s son, Chief Maduna Mafu who continued as chief of Godlwayo in the post Ndebele State period. At Inyathi, native commissioner Graham, uMehlwenduku was killed. He and his men had engaged in the cruellest and most horrendous of actions by tying Maphungo Mabhena to a horse which dragged him along till all his brains were scattered on the ground and his skull shattered beyond trace.
However, there were Ndebele chiefs who had chosen not to side with their own people. Instead, they remained loyal to the white masters. Some had of course married some royal widows and feared the restoration of the erstwhile Ndebele State was going to bring back the king who was certainly going to deal decisively with the treacherous chiefs. Efforts at state restoration did not succeed. Some captured resistors were hanged in Bulawayo. The hanging tree, umganunkomo, along J M Nkomo Street still stands though not receiving the attention it deserves.
It was all over for the chiefs. A repressive colonial regime was entrenched; chiefs were salaried by the same regime that destroyed their former state. The queens too were salaried with native commissioners in the districts as ears and eyes of the colonial regime. It was native commissioners’ offices that assessed the conduct or loyalty of chiefs and decided on the level of their salaries. The chiefs’ mistrust by the new state continued till there was a new threat from gathering nationalist storms.
The government then needed the chiefs on side against the nationalists.
Those chiefs perceived to be on the side of the white regime were regarded as sell outs by the nationalist parties that were then leading the armed struggle from Zambia, Mozambique and Angola. Some of the chiefs, regarded as political quislings, were killed by the guerrilla forces. Those chiefs that supported the armed liberation struggle were imprisoned by the colonial regime. Chief Vezi Maduna of Godlwayo was one such example. Chief Sigombe Mathema of Enqameni was another example and, in his case, was relieved of his chieftainship.
As the war intensified, chiefs were drawn more and more onto the side of the white colonial regime. At some stage some of them were taken on a tour of countries such as Israel and South Africa as part of a campaign to make sure they hated the nationalists who were labelled as communists. The chiefs were progressively hated more and more by the nationalists who were soon to become the new rulers of an independent Zimbabwe.
Perceptions of and attitudes towards chiefs continued in the post independence era. In the rural structures of governance they were sidelined through the institution of ward and development committees, Wadcos and Vidcos. The chiefs were at their weakest politically, but not for much longer. Once again, as in the colonial period, when there was increasing political opposition to the government, their status was improved as part of efforts to win over their support. This was achieved through various administrative measures. The role of Wadcos and Vidcos was de-emphasised. The rest is current politics.
