Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

As indicated by F. Nyamnjoh (2003) in the 1950s and 1960s, modernization theorists predicted that traditional rule would soon become outdated and would be replaced by “modern” bureaucratic offices and institutions. Nyamnjoh further contends that even underdevelopment and dependency theorists did not seem to give chiefs and chieftaincy much of a chance; they saw chieftaincy as lacking in mobilizational ability for social and political change. However, political scientists, sociologists, historians, and educated traditional leaders in Africa acknowledge the resilience of chieftaincy institutions (cf. Nyamnjoh, 2003, pp. 233–250; Chief Linchwe II, 1989, pp. 99–102). Today, new scholarship in Southern Africa such as that by Lungisile Ntsebeza (2005) is paying attention to chieftaincy, intrigued by the manner in which the institution remains part of the cultural and political landscape constantly negotiating and renegotiating its position within the modern institutions of countries such as Botswana. This entry examines the place of traditional rule in Africa, using Botswana as an example.

Botswana enjoys a good reputation for its record of good government and democracy. Over decades, Botswana has demonstrated to the world an immense socioeconomic strength driven by a combination of modern and conservative traditional leadership despite diversification of socio-economic bases. The country's leadership has been able to face and overcome challenges of great magnitude, such as the scourge of HIV/AIDS. Several scholars have attributed the country's pillars of modern democracy and ability to withstand 21st-century socioeconomic challenges to its traditional government system (cf. G. Somolekae & M. H. Lekorwe, 1998). In Botswana, there are intangible but identifiable group sensibilities toward democratic discourse, a discourse that is situated within culture, leadership, and development. In this entry, traditional rule in Botswana and its contemporary methods for avoiding and resolving conflicts in the past and the present are examined. The role of chieftaincy (bogosi) and the kgotla system is emphasized. Bogosi and the kgotla institution are deeply ingrained in Botswana society, and the chiefs (dikgosi) are a critical component of chieftaincy. In fact, one cannot conceive of chieftaincy without a chief who is placed at society's helm. A few relevant examples will be cited as illustration for Botswana's historic and contemporary tools for dialogue, consultation, and mediation. However, the entry does recognize limitations that still exist within the bogosi institution.

On several occasions, the kgotla institution has been cited in contemporary studies as an institution that encourages mutual knowledge, appreciation, respect, and tolerance (cf. Somolekae & Lekorwe, 1998).

Bogosi and the Kgotla: Agents of Sustainable Democracy and Development

One important feature of the precolonial Tswana traditional rule was the use of tribal assemblies or kgotlas and the conduct of public affairs, including the tradition of peacemaking, that took place through the kgotla. Tswana institutions of governance, such as bogosi (chieftainship) and the kgotla system, have continued to be relevant to the lives of Batswana.

Earlier studies suggested that the kgotla had been a central element in the traditional machinery of Tswana government. Kofi Darkwah (1996) argues that before 1966, the kgotla may be said to have been not just a public meeting place but also the seat of the government or administration of the community. As Isaac Schapera (1994) notes, the central kgotla of the kgosi was the public assembly where he not only delivered judgments and laws but also listened to the people when matters of public interest were discussed. Chiefs (dikgosi) presided in large kgotla meetings (pitso or phuthego), where after lengthy discussion in which “all” could participate, the Kgosi had the right to make final decisions on all matters. The chief exercised authority over a large area (a district today) through a hierarchy of relatives and officials, including close advisers and ward headmen (P. M. Mgadla & A. Campbell, 1989, p. 49). During the 19th century, BaNgwato in what is today the central district and BaTawana of Ngamiland (northwest district) extended their political control over other groups considered of lower status than the Tswana dominant groups. The so-called minority groups included San/Basarwa, BaYei, Bambukushu, BaKalanga, BaBirwa, and BaTswapong. BaNgwato and BaTawana were among those who considered themselves superior to others because of their strong political and administrative system, which included monarchy, as well as courts of laws and an economy based on large-scale animal husbandry. In both the Ngwato and Tawana hierarchical system of government, the whole area under their thraldom was divided into “counties” with senior Tswana each in charge as chief's representatives (baemedi ba kgosi). The chief's representatives would supervise their areas and ensure that the paramount chief's (kgosi e kgolo's) property, such as cattle, ivory, and furs, was properly guarded. Representatives of the constituent wards expressed their opinions at the main kgotla on behalf of their charges. The constituent ward far from the administrative center of the traditional rule also had its own small kgotla, which gave certain semiautonomy from the paramount chief and invested the group with the authority to regulate some of its affairs and to address the chief.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading