International African Institute

Chieftainship in Modern Africa Author(s): L. P. Mair Reviewed work(s): Source: Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jul., 1936), pp. 305-316 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International African Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180622 . Accessed: 13/01/2012 10:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and International African Institute are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Africa: Journal of the International African Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

AFRICA
JOURNAL OF OF THE INTERNATIONAL AND
1936

INSTITUTE CULTURES
NUMBER

AFRICAN
IX

LANGUAGES
JULY

VOLUME

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

L. P. MAIR

HE contemporary development of African chieftainship is a questionof considerablepracticalimportance. The attitudewhich it will adopt towards the native chief in his relations with his own people is one of the major questions of policy which every colonial government has to decide. Some hold that a native society can only be satisfactorilyruled by-or through (the words are not quite synonymous)-its traditionalhead; others that the first duty of the civilizing power is to free its native subjectsfrom the oppression and tyrannyof their own rulers;others makeit their aim to steer a middlecourse, and preservethe native authorityin his traditionalposition while adapting his functions to the requirementsof the present day. All have in fact considerablyaltered by their mere presence both the nature and the basis of the chief's authority. Yet they have so far been content with a very incompleteknowledge of the political systemswhich they uphold or condemn. To the advocates of Indirect Rule, it is the sanctity of traditionthat creates the claim to obedience, and for that reasonthe traditionalchief is the ideal instrument for moulding native society in the form that civilization demands; to its opponents, authorityin native societies rests on onesided privileges maintained by the arbitraryuse of force. Neither school of thought recognizes that such an institution as the chieftain-

Instituteof African Languages Cultures is and 'Africa' : theJournalof theInternational otherwise statedthe writersof the articlesare by published the Institute,but exceptwhere aloneresponsible the opinions for expressed.
x

306

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

ship depends for its maintenanceon a complex series of relationships which cannot be reducedto a single attribute. Thus, those who arefor destroying it ignore altogether the question of the considerationsof their own advantagewhich promptthe subjectsto accedeto the chief's claims upon them; while those who wish to preserve it are often in are danger of overlooking the degree to which modern circumstances changing its nature. There are before us then two complementary questions-what were the forces in native society which madethe chief's power effective,and in what spheredid he exercisethat power ? That it consisted, not only in exacting the performanceof duties from his subjects,but also in renderingservicesto them, is, I would suggest, the key to a realunderstanding of this institutionboth in its normalworking and in the distortion which it has undergonein moderntimes. I propose to develop this theory in connexion with the chieftainshipas it exists, and has existed, in Centraland SouthernAfrica. the One might summarize sourcesof the chief's authorityby saying sanctions attached that it depended in part only on the supernatural to his heredity and in part on the due performanceof his functions. By this I do not meanto suggest that any failureor abusewas instantly met by revolt and deposition, but rather that there was sufficient flexibility in the relations between governor and governed for discontent to make itself felt in ways which it was against the ruler's interest to disregard,while there were in practice often considerable checks on the abuse of an authoritywhich was in theory absolute. In the area with which I am concerned the functions of the chief might be of three kinds, magical, political, and economic, and his with the exerciseof these functions. privilegescan be closely correlated Everywhere the paramountchief or king is believed to stand in a special relationshipto the land, and in virtue of this relationship he is frequentlyresponsiblefor the performanceof rites upon which the carry fertilityof the land dependsand which only he can satisfactorily with these magical duties that his out. It is especiallyin connexion hereditaryposition, linking him as it does with the spirits of his predecessors, is of importancein validating his authority. Where the chief stands in this unique relationshipto the supernaturalpowers which control the fortunesof his people, he might seem to hold all the

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

307

trumps. Yet, in at least two tribeswhere this is the case,anthropological inquiry has found that in the political field his actions are circumscribedby the existence of councils of various kinds in which he does not hold a preponderantposition, and whose authorityis equal to his own.' Such facts emphasizethe importanceof looking for the source of politicalpower not in the person of some individualwho may seem to possess certain attributes of supremacy,but in the whole system which works to make authority effective in those spheres where authorityis required. The king's hereditarystatus is certainlyan element in maintaining respect for his authorityeven where, as with the Baganda,he has no magicalpowers. Here his connexion by descent with the mythological founderof the kingdom at the same time justifiedhis claim to absolute ownership of the country and everything in it and guaranteedhis adherenceto the tradition which was formally reassertedat his accession-a traditionwhich, it is worth mentioning, laid down not only the supremacy the king but his duty to respect certainrights of his of subjects. But tradition and mythology remain as ultimate rather than immediatesanctionsfor obedience to authority. It is not to them that we must look for the bases of the everydayacceptanceof the chief's position and performanceof the subjects'duties. That is to be found ratherin the reciprocalnatureof their relationship-in the interpretation of the subjects'duties as returnsfor benefits received. I do not meanto suggest that this was a conscious attitude,still less that tribute or labour were renderedout of spontaneousgratitude,but ratherthat the maintenance political authoritycarriedwith it advantagesto the of sufficientto make them acquiesce in the burdenswhich it governed imposed upon them. What were these advantages? They vary of course with the exact nature of the political organizationin question. I can only speak in detailof the tribe which I know at firsthand, the Baganda. With them the politicalfunctions of the chiefs, who formed a hierarchy appointed by the king and dependentfor their position on his pleasure,consisted of mainlyin the administration justiceand the organizationof warfare.
I refer to the Swazi and Bemba, who have been investigated by Dr. P. J. Schoeman and Dr. Audrey Richardsrespectively.

308

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

I have myself heardan old peasantsay that God showed the Baganda especialfavour in giving them chiefs to settle their quarrels. Warfare with them went beyond the mere organization of defence, in itself a service of some importance,to constitute, in the form of raids on neighbouring tribes, a speedier way of increasing their materialpossessions than any more conventionallyeconomic activity. In economic matters authority might seem at first sight to have carriedwith it a position of pure privilege. In the first place, the subject's right to occupy land, and hence his entire livelihood, depended theoreticallyon the king and practicallyon the chief to whose village he attachedhimself. For failure to render the customary services, as for any other action displeasingto the chief, he was liable to eviction. Those who see in African chieftainshipnothing but arbitrary tyranny may seem to find here an argument for their point of view, but for an analysisof the working of the institution what is relevant is that the services renderedby the peasantare not given in a one-sided submission to supernaturalpower or physical force, but in return for rights of fundamentalimportance. To the Muganda there was no injustice in the fact that these rights were not unconditional. Moreover, he had a readymeans of expressingdissatisfactionwith his chief by moving to anothervillage, and since the chief's economic privileges gave him a motive for desiringto attractand retaina large following, this right was an effectivecheck on tyrannousbehaviour. At the same time,the chief'srightsof eviction and of physicalpunishmentcertainly were an element in securing the obedience of his followers. The rights which a chief could claimfrom his subjectsconsistedof a gourd of beer in every brew, a considerableportion of the goods paid over in compensationfor any offencetried by him, and services when requiredin the building of his houses and the fence which surrounded them. He received also his share of the taxes collected through his agency at the commandof the king, and on the returnfrom a raiding expedition it rested with him to distributeamong his followers that portion of the spoil capturedby them which was left when the king had selected his share and, of course, to retain as much of it as he thought fit. But this system did not mean a constantlyincreasingaccumulation of wealth in the handsof the privilegedfew, for the simplereasonthat

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

309

in the native economy satiationpoint was reachedearly, and when it was reachedthe rich man turned from the enjoyment of possession to the enjoymentof munificence. Generositywas expectedof a chief and was the best way to increase his following; and on the size of his following depended wealth, prestige, and promotion to the control over a wider area. Among other peoples the accumulationof wealth in the chief's hands has been found to serve even more obvious social needs in an even more directand obvious way, for examplein forming a reserveagainstfamineor providing for the maintenance a standing of army. This very summary account of the relations between chief and people in Baganda society indicates the mutual dependence which formed the basis of the native political organization. To the peasant the chief was the ultimate source of his livelihood and a more immediate source of materialbenefits; he also representedthe authority and leadershipnecessaryfor orderlyrelationsin peace and the successful organizationof war. To the chief his followers broughtwealthand prestige provided he dealt fairly with them-a proviso which shows how the institution contained within itself checks on the abuse of a privileged position. A furthercheck existed in the system of succession. The hereditary principledid not mean that certainindividualswere destined by birth alone to succeed to authority. There was always a certain range of choice, which madeit worth while for personswho lustedfor power to show themselves fit for it. Any son of the king might be selected to succeed him; while in the case of a chief the choice was even wider, extending to the sons of his brothers: moreover, under the Baganda system in which chiefs could be transferredby the king from one district to another, a chief's heir did not necessarilysucceed to the dead man's position. If this was important,a more experiencedman might be appointed to it while the young heir was given a smaller village until his merit was tried. A featureof the Bagandasystemwhich again limited the action both of the king and the chiefs was the existence, side by side with the theoretically supreme authority, of a counsellor whose influence carriedvery great weight. While the heir could disnmiss father's his he was not normally expected to do so; so that the new counsellor,

31o

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

holder of any political position, from the king downwards, usually enteredupon his office subjectto the advice of an older and more experiencedman. This counsellor'sadvice was asked before any drastic step was taken, such as the deposition of a chief by the king or the eviction of a peasantby the chief; and in the case of the chiefs he was the recognized channelthrough which peasantswho consideredthat they were unfairlytreatedcould express their grievances. In describingthis system I have not been guided by any sentimental desire to idealize a vanished past. I do not mean to present it as incapableof improvementor to suggest that the principlesof government which Europeanpowers have set themselves to introduce have no advantages. Clearlyit left room for manyacts of oppressionagainst individual subjects and gave to the rulers a wider scope for the indulgence of personal feelings and desires than Europeansin theory approve. I have been carefulto say, not that the system preventedthe abuseof power, but that it set limits to such abuse. Canwe saymore of the political institutions of the most advanced civilizations? They have their abuses, too, which seem less flagrantperhapsonly because they are more familiar. The main aim of my analysis,however, has been to try to give a more complete picture than that usually painted of a native system of government in operation, and by doing so to indicatethe kind of phenomenawhich ought to be taken into account if by those who set out to modify such systems, particularly their aim as part of an organizationon Europeanlines. Inis to utilize them direct Rule has been defined as the progressive adaptationof native institutions to modern conditions; but I have suggested alreadythat many administrationswhich purport to have adopted Indirect Rule have not looked beyondone single factorin the nativeinstitutionsconcerned, namelythe hereditaryprinciple. Some have supposed that by principlethey have fully respectedall merelypreservingthe hereditary native rights; others have believed that provided they employ for the purpose an hereditaryauthority they can induce natives to obey any orders, however burdensomeor unwelcome, that the European government may decide to issue. This rathersuperficial conception of the natureof chieftainshiphas resulted in a general failure to recognize that the entire basis of the chief's position has been altered by the very advent of European

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

311

government. What was in manyareasone of the most importantfunctions of the supremeauthorityhas been completely removed. I mean the organizationof war, which in some African societies has justified a system of government much more autocraticthan that which I have describedamong the Baganda. Even where he has retainedhis judicial authoritythe modern chief has lost the right to inflict severe punishments for offencesagainst himself. Where new systems of land tenure have been introducedthe fundamentaleconomic relationshipbetween chief and people is broken. Christianityand the obsolescence of public ritual have affectedthis relationshipon the religious side. On the other side, authorityrests now, not on popularityor on the rendering of specific services to the governed, but on the power of the European government, which, though it may remove chiefs from office,seldomdoes so for the reasonswhich would causenativeopinion to desiresuch a step. It is for this reason-because it has put the chief out of reachof the sanctionswith which he had formerlyto reckonthat a governmentwhich maintainshis authority without understanding its realnaturemay well be condoning abusesof it which could not in the past have been committed with impunity. Moreover, modern economic conditions create the possibility of abuses which could not in the past have been committed at all. The possibilities of turning one's economic privileges to direct personal advantageare now unlimited; yet the most superficiallyliteral conception of Indirect Rule of involves the maintenance the chief's traditionalprivileges. Because they have dissociated these privileges from the corresponding responsibilities, those in authority have sometimes failed to see that under modern conditions tribute paid to chiefs is coming to be just that one-sided burden that it was sometimes thought to have been before. Yet these sameconditionsmakeany effectiveprotestout of the question. This is one way in which the nature of the chief's position as one part of a reciprocalrelationshiphas been misunderstood. The possibilitiesof the other party-his subjectsas a body, or any one of themretaliatingfor his failure to do his due part have been removed; for it is only those who reject government through the chief altogether and propose to replaceit by democracyon Europeanlines, who have concernedthemselves with the subjects'point of view, and they only

312

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

misinterpretit by forgetting again that the subject had rights as well as duties. By removing the checks on the chief's action at the same time that they converted his paymentin kind into a money payment, have shown that in the long run traditional Europeanadministrations sentimentsand ethical standardsdo not prevail where the ruler has a clearinterestin disregardingthem, and perhapsthat such standardsdo not even appearto be applicablein a situation so new as that created by the presence of the Europeantraderon the one hand, and on the other the accumulationin the chief's possession, not of cattle, maizecobs, beer, or garments, but of that currencywith which European goods can be obtained. At the same time that they have altered the basis of the chief's authorityin a way which tips the balanceof power in his favour, even though he mayno longer be able to asserthimself by the use of physical violence, European governments have assigned to him many duties which did not form part of his functions before.' Some of these, such as the collection of census figures, enforcementof regulationsfor the destruction of old cotton plants, encouragementof such activities as the killing of rats, might be describedas neutralin their effect on the relation between chief and subject. But others, those which involve the use of the chief's authorityin calling upon his subjects to enter upon distastefuland arduouspursuitswhich bring them no apparent advantage and throw out of gear the whole routine of their lives, inevitablyproduce a complete distortion of that relationship. I refer, of course, to the use of the chief in obtaining labour for European employers,or recruitsin those colonies where conscriptionis in force, in collecting taxes imposed by the government, and sometimes in enforcing the cultivation by natives of commercial crops. Where these are among the duties of the chief, he is simply an instrumentof the superior government and is plainly recognized by the natives as such. It may be true that his prestigeand generallydominantposition gains him an obedience which an agent sent from outside would not obtain without resort to actualforce, but it is quite mistakento interpret this as meaningthat the hereditarystatus of the chief justifieshis every action in his subjects' eyes, and to conclude that in order to
I

'Les Chefs indigenes au Mayombe', Africa, vol. viii, no. i, p. 70.

This situation is admirablydescribedby ProfessorN. De Cleene in his article

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

3 3

satisfy European interests without disintegratingnative society, it is sufficientto make the chief their mouthpiece. The natives may continue to obey, but the chieftainshipceases to be a native institution, and they are as well aware of that fact as any anthropologist. This last interpretationof Indirect Rule is one which would never be acceptedby the original exponent of a theory whose basicprinciple is that the developmentof native society must not be subservientto the demands of the European market. But it contains elements that are also present in the popular attitude towards Indirect Rule sincerely conceived as the best vehicle for such a development. Here again it is argued that civilization can be made acceptableif it is introduced through the chief, and again the argument is only a half-truth. It is true that the prestige of the chief often leads his subjects to imitate him in following European ways. Christianityitself has sometimes been adopted in this manner, not always without sudden mass conversion from one sect to another. But for the chief's example to be effective,the innovation must be in something which is eithera matter of indifference the people or else appearsto offerthem some positive to And further, the apparentadvantagesmay not always be advantage. consistent with the effectiveworking of the complex of native institutions taken as a whole. It is just as easy for progress to become synonymous with disruptionif an hereditarychief is made its apostle as it is where the native who claims to have become civilized is encouraged to reject the chief's authority-though the process of disruption may be less obvious. I am not meaning to suggest that IndirectRule is a chimera,that in modern conditions the chieftainshiphas gone through such changes that it is no longer recognizable as an African institution at all and might as well give place to something more efficient and more consonant with modern theories of government. On the contrary,I hold that the futureof Africansociety dependsupon the successwith which continuity and its attendantstabilitycan be maintainedin the process of transitionwhich it is now passingthrough. My argumentis that the link which unites the chief with his ancestors is not by itself strong enough to bind the present to the past: that what is needed is a full in understanding every case of what chieftainshiphas meant and what it can mean in terms of authority and leadership. Certainlyit has to

314

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

is acquirea new meaning,for the spheresin which leadership demanded are no longer the same; the emphasis has shifted from the waging of war to the construction of public works, and the redistribution of revenuesreceived is now a matternot of personalgenerosity but of budgetaryexpenditure. The fundamental necessity for the constructive development of native administrationis, as I have suggested, an understanding,not only of the nature of the claim to authority,but of the reasonswhy authoritywas in fact obeyed and above all the duties which authority involved. Such an understandingwould give a sounder basis than convenience for the modificationsin the the chance of administrative rendernecessary. It would chief's statuswhich moderncircumstances make it possible to meet the criticism that Indirect Rule means the of maintenance obsolete tyranniesby the power of alien arms,by curtailing those privileges which, divorced from the responsibilitywhich formerlyaccompaniedthem, have in fact become tyrannous. It would dispel the illusion that chiefs can be made the instrumentsof interests inimicalto those of their own people and native political organization remain intact; and the more insidious illusion that in regions where reducedto dependenceon wagenative society has been systematically labour for Europeanemployersit can be recreatedby allotting minor administrative functions to hereditarychiefs. there must go a recognitionthat the chiefWith this understanding not in any society an isolated phenomenon but one of a tainship is group of interdependentinstitutions which combine to determineits sphere of influence. The commandsof a native chief are as constitutional as those of a modernparliament-in the sense that he takes for grantedthe whole social organizationof which he is a part. Arbitrary as his power may be in personal matters, it is exercised within the limits of a traditionalsystem of law which it is his duty to uphold and not to modify. Thus when he is invited by the Europeangovernmentto throw his weight on the side of an innovation desired by them, it is not as an autocratwhose word is law that he makes his influenceeffective, but either as their recognized instrument or as a person whose general prestige entitles his counsels to respect. Indeed, the belief that fundamental alterationsin the structureof any society could be made by a

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA

315

mereword of commandrests on a quite unrealconceptionof the nature of authorityand of society itself. The next step that needs to be taken, in the constructiveinterpretation of IndirectRule, is an appreciationof the chieftainshipas part of this complex whole which will enable those responsibleto judge the value to the society concernedof the modificationswhich they propose to make through the agency of the native authority.I Given such an understandingthis system could make possible a more satisfactory developmentof Africansociety than it has sometimesachievedhitherto, and could refute some of the criticismsbrought againstit by those most interestedin native welfare.
L. P. MAIR.
An admirablestudy of native political institutions from this point of view has been made by Messrs. Gordon Brown and Bruce Hutt in their volume, Anthroin in pology Action:An Experiment theIringaDistrict of theIringaProvince, Tanganyika
Territory, Oxford University Press, for the International Institute of African Languages and Cultures, London, 1935.

Resume
LE CHEF DANS L'AFRIQUE MODERNE
LA situation qu'il faut accorder aux chefs africains dans l'administration coloniale moderne est un probleme capital de politique indigene pratique. II souleve de nombreuses controverses entre les partisans de l'administration indirecte et ceux qui soutiennent que la chefferie est une simple forme de tyrannie. Des deux c6tes on considere la chefferie comme essentiellement fondee sur un caracttre sacre hereditaire. L'analyse de cette institution est rarement poussee plus loin. Les questions cruciales reclamant une reponse sont: quelles ont etC les forces qui ont soutenu l'autorite du chef et dans quel domaine a-t-il exerce cette derniere ? Un point frequemment omis dans la discussion c'est que le chef usait de sa puissance non seulement pour obliger ses sujets a accomplir certains devoirs, mais aussi pour leur rendre des services. L'accomplissement de la fonction etait une source d'autorite aussi bien que les sanctions surnaturelles correspondant a la position hereditaire du souverain. Les fonctions envisagees peuvent se classer dans trois categories: magiques, politiques, economiques. Les magiques comportent d'ordinaire l'accomplissement de rites essentiels pour le bien-etre du peuple et la fertilite du sol. Dans l'ordre politique, si nous prenons un example dans la civilisation des Baganda, le roi et les chefs hierarchises nommes par lui etaient responsables de l'administration de la justice et de l'organisation militaire; celle-ci etait pour ce peuple le moyen le plus efficace d'accroitre leurs biens materiels. En matiere economique la balance semble pencher en fa'veur des dirigeants. Les paysans dependaient de leurs chefs pour leurs droits fonciers et pouvaient etre

316 CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA chasses lorsqu'ils ne remplissaientpas les obligations coutumieres et meme pour toute autre action ayant deplu a leur chef. Mais par contre un paysan pouvait quitter en toute occasion le chef dont il n'etait pas satisfait, et comme celui-ci tirait des avantages d'une large clientele, le droit du paysan mettait effectivement en echec les actes de tyrannie. Les chefs recevaient des cultivateurs une part chaque fois qu'il etait brasse de la biere; on leur payait des biens en quantite considerablepour tous les proces juges par eux, on leur devait des services pour les constructions chaque fois qu'il en etait besoin; mais les paysans recevaient une part des taxes percuespar eux pour le compte du roi et une part aussi du butin pris a la guerre, dans l'ensembleil n'y avait pas accumulationde richessesdans les mains d'une hierarchieprivilegiee parceque la generositd etait une caracteristique obligee chez le chef, c'etait aussi le meilleurmoyen d'accroitresa clientele. Aussi beaucoup de biens retournaient-ilsaux paysans sous forme de dons. Le systeme de successions mettait par ailleurs un frein a la tyrannie. Le choix pour remplacerun chef pouvait se porter sur un certain nombre de personnes; d'autrepartle souverainavait a cote de lui un conseiller, son subordonneen theorie, mais qui avait le droit de faire entendre ses avis dans les questions decisives. Dans la periode actuellele chef a perdu non seulementbeaucoup de ses fonctions traditionnelles,mais les circonstancesont fait disparaitreaussi beaucoup des freins traditionnels qui moderaient son autorite. L'administrationactuelle en outre lui demanded'accomplirpour elle certainsactes qui ne correspondentpas a sa puissance traditionnelle,considerant que son autorite hereditaireest telle que tout ordre de sa part doit etre obei. L'administrationindirecte pour etre un instrument effectif doit se baser sur l'analyse des institutions de la chefferie. Ce travail montrera comment et dans quels cas les nouvelles activites reclameesau chef peuvent se fonder surdes sanctions traditionnelles,dans quels cas ces activites ne peuvent etre demandeessans detruire les institutions indigenes.