On Nostalgia for Tribalism
Throughout campus, it’s generally accepted that colonialism was a net negative, especially throughout the African continent. And for the most part, that’s the right viewpoint—you can’t possibly defend King Leopold the Second’s ravaging of the Congo or the oppressive regimes of the Rhodesian and South African governments. But wishing for Africa to return to a largely romanticized tribal period isn’t just unrealistic—it hurts marginalized individuals and helps to protect an oftentimes corrupt ruling class.
Some history: under South Africa’s Apartheid rule, the government worked to oppress Black natives in order to counter threats to the white regime. One of the more creative ways this was done was by designating certain agriculturally poor areas of South Africa as “Bantustans,” which were basically semi-autonomous lands for Africa’s various Black ethnic groups. The plan had two objectives: appropriate tribal history in order to legitimize segregation and rob Black South Africans of their citizenship by declaring them nationals of their respective “homeland.” And, unfortunately, the plan worked. By empowering compliant and politically well-endowed Black South Africans as leaders of the various “Bantustans,” the Apartheid government managed to silence the vast majority of Black South Africans by exploiting trust in tribal systems and people’s natural tendency to corruption when the other option is poverty. Of course, this system was eliminated after the end of Apartheid. Right?
Tribal leaders used their clout to assume positions of political power while their subjects saw their standard of living improve little, if at all.
Well, not entirely. Yes, Black South Africans regained the rigt to full citizenship, but systems of oppression aren’t quite so easy to dismantle. Tribal leaders used their clout to assume positions of political power while their subjects saw their standard of living improve little, if at all. And people have started to notice. In the 2016 municipal elections, support for the ANC—South Africa’s long standing ruling party—fell to its lowest level since 1994. And predictably, President Jacob Zuma has set forth plans to exploit South Africa’s tribal tradition for political gain.
In the third iteration of a bill originally introduced in 2008, Zuma intends to legitimize traditional judiciaries as an alternative to government-run courts. The government justifies such action by stating that it “aims to enhance customary law and the customs of communities observing a system of customary law and to provide for matters connected therewith.” In reality, Jacob Zuma intends to empower traditional leaders in order to ensure the support of South Africa’s impoverished Black-rural class.
There are several serious issues with the bill. Firstly, a shortage of local-language translators has prevented rural voters from learning much of anything about a bill whose cost they will grow to bear. Secondly, tribal courts have a history of misogyny, to such an extent that many traditional courts prohibit women from even taking part in their proceedings. And lastly, formal recognition and support of tribal courts threatens to create further divisions in a country where one is far too often defined by their color, language, class and creed.
Instead of taking a step back into a tribal past, South Africa ought to strive for a unified judicial system that works to treat individuals equally regardless of difference.