The recent socio-political development surrounding our institution of bogosi is a double-edged sword, and it is bound to bring about a radical overhaul to the structure of the chieftainship system as we know it, in terms of custom.
The formation of the Bogosi Association Of Botswana should, however, not be viewed as a surprise present or gift for our paramount chiefs. It is a baby that some elements within the contemporary generation of the paramount chiefs have carried in the womb of their fertile imaginations.
As one may observe, the core members amongst the pioneers of the so-called “bogosi association” consist mainly of the cronies, who are the prot├®g├®s of some paramount chiefs, and are not necessarily drawn from their respective royal kraals. Each paramount chief used their arbitrary right and picked particular individuals on the basis of criteria best coined to safeguard their personal situations. These individual chiefs were, of course, guided by some other members of their communities, who so advised without revealing their ultimate hidden agenda, which is the wrecking of the bogosi institution from its well perceived customary position to become a tool in the hand of some unscrupulous individuals, who view bogosi as primitive and destined to be phased out.
Such people’s approach was, firstly, to advise some paramount chiefs against certain individuals with royal connections so that the chiefs would nominate some dogmatic men from the general community. Then these nominees were advised to form an association whose objective would be to entrench themselves, by grabbing positions of influence in the various tribal administrations.
This they would achieve by collective resolutions that they will take and adopt from time to time at their general meetings. They would manoeuvre and penetrate the system by way of audience with relevant government authourities, even through the courts. As we all know, our national constitution is not explicit on issues of culture, though some reference therein is made to the bogosi institution; that it is a democratic and unifying pillar. But this is only as far as our conformity with the overall political manipulations is concerned.
What I am simply trying to draw the attention and conscience of all of us to is that the association formed is quite favoured by the governance system in place, but is very much to the detriment of the storehouse of our culture (bogosi). Unfortunately, they are a group of individuals without any inherent cultural mandate. It is the duty of the paramount chiefs to guard over the norms and values of our culture from contaminations.
It is, therefore, obvious that the group’s reason to form an association has mainly been influenced by economic interests, job security and ultimately panel beat bogosi into a new face. If overhauling of bogosi institution is not their objective, one may advise that they should have instead simply joined existing structures, such as ‘bala’ (Botswana Association of Local Authorities), because they too, as paramount chiefs’ nominees, fall under the Ministry of Local Government.
I wish all concerned people or parties understood my viewpoint and line of argument as being a wake-up call on Batswana who attach some value to culture. The formation of structures of the nature associated with the bogosi institution is uncalled for as it never existed anywhere in the world.
My observation here is purely meant to put our socio-cultural landscape in the right perspective so that paramount chiefs could be sensitised to play their role, as they are the depository of culture, and also to marshal their nominees to rightful positions. It is actually their responsibility to advise their nominees that they are not necessarily ‘chiefs’ in customary sense but administrative only. Then these nominees will clearly come into solidarity with their fellowÔÇôworkers at bala.
This kind of clearance and demarcation of area of responsibility will enable our lords (paramount chiefs) to correctly focus on their role, such as consistent perusal of all pieces of legislations handed down by parliament. They will cross check these laws, to see if they do not have negative or hostile connotations towards our cultural norms and values.
Their other very critical area of responsibility is with respect of the judicial decisions. Over the years, we have experienced situations where some of the said decisions tended to impact negatively on our “uncodified” customary laws. The one judgment, still quite fresh in everybody’s memory, is a dispute over the inheritance of a “traditional homestead” between male and female siblings of same late parents. This decision dealt a brutal blow to the core of tswana culture. All Batswana are aware that the arrangement to entrust such a home to the last born male was for some very good customary reason. Unfortunately our “bogosi institution”, through the House of Chiefs, failed to defend this position at the court when this matter was brought before it. I need not over-emphasise that this was a matter with direct challenge to them.
These are things that dikgosi must address and guide their subjects on the way forward. They do not need an association on matters of custom. Their “mouth piece” is their subjects (merafe) themselves.
However, it should be appreciated that the courts are there to apply the law, as it is, not to create laws. They do all this within the confines of the national constitution, where they find any matter presented before them not being compatible with the constitution, they simply dismiss it. Our chiefs must, all the time, be vigilant as to the implication of the decisions of the judges, because such decisions have the potential to modify the principles of the law, let alone our uncodified customary law.
Despite their very important traditional responsibilities, some of our lords have allowed themselves to be derailed and overwhelmed by hysteria, and the fear of the unknown.
Traditionally, our chiefs do not have to have such fears as they have the protection from their uncles and merafe in general. Unfortunately, some of them have become so much uncertain that, as an example, I would state a case in point that some years back, I attended a kgotla meeting somewhere in this country where the incumbent chief addressed his subjects and he shocked me when he emphatically denounced his paternal uncles and, in their stead, declared morafe as his uncles. This was a very serious mistake committed by the chief concerned. He actually weakened his very position, as well as the very foundation upon which bogosi is super structured.
He also negatively influenced the mind set of Batswana towards bogosi, as they began to question themselves what relevance bogosi has in this era; if the root from which it came was so dismissed as a non-entity.
This is not what our paramount chiefs should do to their paternal uncles. They should not publicly humiliate them. They should strive to tap on the latter’s wealth of knowledge in matters of custom. Their uncles are the ones they should engage as some kind of customary cabinet.
Through the input of their uncles, they should persuade the government to confer on them, as the House of Chiefs, some legislative powers, just like it is the case with the local authourities in this country.
These are the sort of powers they should democratically seek. It would be democratic because they will solicit the support of their subjects at formal kgotla meetings. Our chiefs must desist from minimising their encroachment into areas bordered closer to political spheres. For instance, they should not engage ministers on questions related to, for example, “agricultural produce pricing structure” or roads interlinking their villages”, but should do it through political representatives. Kana tota, we need to appreciate the primary objective for the House of Chiefs.
