Tribal Authorities were set up in Xhalanga at a time when, as already stated, there was growing militant response to the conservation measures. Dropping the stock control measure in the stabilisation policy did not dampen the anger of the landholders. Various meetings were held at the local government level in Xhalanga in preparation for establishing Tribal Authorities in the area. For reasons that are not immediately evident, the Magistrate of Xhalanga, F.G. Evans, set the process rolling even before the publication of Proclamation 180 in 1956. He called and chaired a special meeting involving headmen and councillors on 10 January 1956, at the Cala Magistrate’s Office. The main issue on the agenda was “the formation and constitution of Tribal Authorities in this District”. The Magistrate introduced the topic by asking his audience to “imagine that the Europeans were all of a sudden to be taken away”. He then asked: “What would the Bantu do to administer their affairs?”26 The Magistrate
was clearly attempting to sell the ideology of the apartheid regime. Part of this ideology sought to stem the tide of African Nationalism that was sweeping across the continent and to break the numerical strength of Africans by recon- structing ‘tribes’ in South Africa, and presenting them as separate ‘nations’ that would each strive for ‘self-determination’.
The immediate issue that the Magistrate wanted to raise was how the district would be divided. One suggestion was that the district be divided along “tribal” or “ethnic” lines.27 Councillor Elijah Qamata objected to this division on the
grounds that “the Bantu no longer wants to be so divided”. His suggestion was that the district should be divided into four wards, as with the District Council. When this proposal was accepted, the Magistrate asked the headmen and councillors to call meetings in their areas so as to explain the divisions. At the same time, the Magistrate instructed that heads of the four Tribal Authorities be elected at these meetings. Another issue that came up at the meeting, although not on the agenda, was the relationship between Tribal Authorities and the Betterment Scheme. One of the participants, Skosana, brought up this issue by expressing concern that “Bantu Authorities were indirectly introducing Rehabilitation”.28 However, Magistrate Evans avoided a discussion of the issue
by ruling that Skosana was out of order.
26
Umtata Archives, file 16/1/2. Bantu/Tribal Authorities. Note that with the introduc- tion of apartheid, the terminology changed from “Native” to “Bantu”.
27
It is not clear from the records whose suggestion this was, but this would have been in keeping with the apartheid thinking.
28
According to reports back, headmen and councillors encountered problems in marketing Tribal Authorities to rural residents. Three areas of concern were raised. Firstly, people wanted to know “what are we to elect if we are to govern ourselves”. Although in some areas people elected their heads, they were not clear about the precise purpose of the exercise and its implications. As one resident claimed, “the people were not clear on the point of the election”. According to another resident: “We are also in the same difficulty in Cala Reserve, but we decided to elect Gecelo. This Gecelo we have elected does not belong to our location. I want to know if we are right to elect him”.29 The latter
remarks introduce the issue of the representative nature of heads of the Tribal Authorities. Hitherto, a headman represented each location and was the link between rural people and the government, as represented by the Magistrate. Tribal Authorities, which grouped a number of locations, were an additional layer in the link with the government. This must have raised concerns in the minds of rural residents as to how a person residing in one of the locations would properly represent them in another location. In the particular case of Cala Reserve and Mbenge (Gecelo’s location and farm), the distance from one location to the other is about 10 kilometers.
The second concern revolved around fears that Tribal Authorities were a vehicle for the implementation of the Rehabilitation Scheme.30 In response, the
Magistrate informed the participants that Bantu Authorities were “not connected in any way with the Trust or stabilization”.31 According to the Magistrate, the
government was “very anxious to establish Bantu Authorities with a view to the people governing their own affairs”. In an apparent endeavour to ensure that the Magistrate would not in the future renege from his statement, Councillor Gush Peter thanked the Magistrate for assuring them that Tribal Authorities had nothing to do with rehabilitation and stabilisation.32
Lodge (1983: 263) has argued that “local government was reshaped in an authoritarian fashion under the (1951) Bantu Authorities Act”, in order to “enforce and supervise ‘rehabilitation’ in the face of continued resistance to it”.33 According to him, where the Betterment Scheme was, at its inception in
1939, meant to be a voluntary exercise, the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 was
29
Umtata Archives, file 66/27. Bantu Authorities. Letter dated 19 March 1957.
30
It is precisely this fear that Skosana raised in the January meeting and was ruled out of order by the Magistrate.
31 “Trust” referred the 1936Natives Trust Land Act. In this particular sense it appears
to be referring specifically to the Rehabilitation Scheme’s notion of resettlement or relocation.
32
Umtata archives, file 66/27/1D. Bantu/Tribal Authorities. Minutes of meeting held on 8 February 1956.
33
imposed from above and no longer depended on popular sanction (ibid.: 264). Lodge is correct in the sense that stabilisation did not require the precedent of previous proclamations. All the government needed to show was that the provi- sions of theProclamationwere explained to rural people. This made imposition from above much easier, as consultation was not required to implement the legislation. Rural residents had used the lack of consultation to prevent Rehabilitation from being implemented. This set the scene for the use of Tribal Authorities for control and policing purposes (Hendricks 1990; 1989).
The third concern of some people, presumably supporters of Paramount Chief Sabata, was why the Paramount Chief was not given the task of “handling the affairs to the chiefs”. This comment should be understood against the back- ground of a simmering dispute between Paramount Chief Sabata Dalindyebo and Chief K.D. Matanzima over the Paramount Chieftainship of abaThembu. Supporters of Sabata argued that there was only one Paramount Chief of all abaThembu, including those in Emigrant Thembuland, to wit, Sabata Dalindyebo. Matanzima and his supporters, on the other hand, contended that Emigrant Thembuland was independent of Thembuland “proper” (Tsotsi 1989: 88). On this basis, they argued that Matanzima was the Paramount Chief of Emigrant Thembuland.
Ostensibly yielding to the call for Sabata’s involvement, the Magistrate arranged and chaired a meeting of Xhalanga headmen and councillors in Cala on 7 March 1956 to resolve the above deadlock. Paramount Chief Sabata Dalindyebo was invited. In reality, it appears, the Magistrate wanted to use Sabata in persuading the rural residents of Xhalanga to accept Tribal Authori- ties. Sabata came out in support of the establishment of Tribal Authorities in Xhalanga. This was not surprising given that, by this time, he had already pledged his support for them. On the question of who should head Tribal Authorities, Sabata ruled that it should be the “senior headmen” in Xhalanga. This ruling not only defied the fundamental democratic principle of elected leadership, but also disregarded an earlier position that was taken at the January 1956 meeting. When the issue of whether chiefs and headmen were eligible as heads of Tribal Authorities was raised at this meeting, Elijah Qamata had explained that they at the “Bhunga” (General Council) opposed the government suggestion that chiefs and headmen should control Tribal Authorities. Qamata accused the government of introducing “the Jungle Law” in insisting on dividing “the Bantu according to their tribes, and class respectively”. In his words: “With the Europeans such a thing does not exist. We do not know the difference between different European tribes as they are all one white race.” 34 34
Umtata Archives, file 66/27. Bantu Authorities. Letter dated 19 March 1957 from Chief Magistrate to Secretary for Native Affairs.
Qamata’s statements show that despite segregation and apartheid, the people of Xhalanga were still longing for an integrated society.
When Sabata insisted on his position, participants insisted on the democratic right to elect their leaders, to which they were, by now, accustomed. Headman Manzana of Emnxe, for example, replied that those “elected were all liked by the people, why are they all being taken away?” One Ntamo expressed fears that given that the people of Manzimahle did not elect, they “will blame us” for allowing the headman in their area, Paul Tofile, to be made the head. His suggestion was that “the Chief (Sabata) should go out and preach to the people personally”. Despite these objections, Sabata declared:
Chairman, and the headmen, I understand that there is no harmony in this district. I do not want to say that we must not deplore (sic) our interests. There are people who are against I know, but for the time being I am directing you people as headmen to represent me in preaching the matter to your respective locations.35
The above clearly shows how wedded Sabata was to making the system of Tribal Authorities work. Not only that, Sabata also supported re-tribalisation in Xhalanga. He informed participants in the meeting that he would “come and nominate a chief for you people in this district”. It was not clear who this chief was. At the meeting, Sabata confirmed the division of Xhalanga into four
Community/Tribal Authorities.36 This was the position regarding Tribal
Authorities in Xhalanga until the publication of Proclamation 180.
The involvement of traditional authorities in Tribal Authorities thoroughly discredited even those who may have enjoyed some degree of legitimacy by virtue of their marginalisation. According to Hammond-Tooke (1975), these traditional authorities gained legitimacy among their people for the simple reason that they were not identified with government policies.37 Traditional
authorities that are often cited as having retained their legitimacy include the
35
Umtata Archives, file 66/27. Bantu Authorities. Letter dated 19 March 1957 from Chief Magistrate to Secretary for Native Affairs.
36 Umtata archives, file 66/27/1D. At the suggestion of the Magistrate, Cala Reserve
was added to kwaGcina “because most of the people in that location seem to be amaGcina”.The farmers of Xhalanga had argued that they wanted Authorities of their own. The Magistrate, who initially suggested one Authority, “OonoFama”, later recommended to the Chief Magistrate that farmers should be left out of the Tribal Authority system, a recommendation that was turned down.
37
It is important to bear in mind, though, that theNative Administration Act of 1927 had already undermined the independence of chiefs. For example, theAct provided that the chief or headman carry out orders given through the Bantu Affairs Commis- sioner or any other officer of the Government, on pain of summary dismissal.
Paramount Chiefs Sabata Dalindyebo and Morwamoche Sekhukhune in the Northern Transvaal (Delius 1996; Lodge 1983). Van Kessel and Oomen (1997: 563) have even made an unsubstantiated claim that Sabata “headed the revolt in Tembuland”. However, the case study of Xhalanga shows how the Bantu Authorities Act made it difficult for traditional authorities, including Sabata, to avoid being associated with the system.