“The back biting, finger pointing and foul mouthing, that goes on in this country today is an indication of a society that is coming apart. We live in a time when jealousy of one another is going to self destruct our nation” General Ian Khama (Midweek Sun 5th July 1995:1). The back biting, finger pointing and foul mouthing that Khama talked about 20 years ago, comes against the back drop in which many Magosi are now showing interest to stand for political office now and possibly in future.
The public debate discourse as well as intellectual debates on the institution of Bogosi in Botswana has indeed sparked interesting debates. The debate has three critical strands: the ‘republicans’ who take the position that the continued existence of Bogosi in the age of modern liberal democracy is archaic and therefore must be abolished; then there are the ‘anti-republicans’ who see the continued existence of Bogosi as a mode of expropriating the modern into the traditional realm; finally, there are the students of society who are purely interested in the contribution of the institution of Bogosi towards the maintenance of the social structure of traditional societies in the face of rapid social changes. Indeed, the coalition of all these works or views makes interesting contribution to a deeper understanding of Bogosi.
Various scholars have argued that post-colonial lived experience has elicited a groundswell of studies on nationalism, state formation and on the extent of social change in the social structures of various traditional societies. The impact of the transformations that have taken place in state formation and in the historical consciousness of traditional peoples and in their social institutions is so extensive that the transformation continues to engender discourses in anthropology, sociology, history, political science and related fields such as linguistics and religion.
In many of these discourses, scholars have been at pains to show for instance, how ethnicity and traditional modes of governance have influenced ÔÇô positively and negatively – the growth of democratic institutions in many states. In Botswana, the institution of Bogosi has facilitated governance through mass mobilization of people for the national cause through the use of the Kgotla.
In Botswana, the roles Dikgosi / chiefs have played in the colonial and the postcolonial eras have placed them in positions where they mediate between the traditional and the modern. Their current status is that in the postcolonial period, Bogosi has been lifted to the level of an authentic cultural heritage which defines the identities of communities and the nation. Thus, in Botswana, the state bureaucracies do not exist in opposition to traditional authority, but they are spaces for the assimilation, mediation and collaboration of elites. In the process, those whose social positions are legitimized by tradition try to establish or widen their access to the state while the ‘modern’ power holders attempt to utilize what is perceived as traditional legitimacy for their own ends. Consequently, the traditional represents not only an important political arena within state politics, but also one which is characterized by local interests, historical reinterpretations and cultural creativity.
History books tell us about how the Siamese twin brothers, Sir Seretse Khama and Sir Marquette Joni K Masire had the foresight, in putting national interest above narrow personal concerns. I have argued elsewhere, that this is devoid of truth.
A proper appreciation of the role and resilience of Bogosi in contemporary Botswana requires some historization of how the institution fared before, during and after colonial rule. That understanding has been covered extensively by historians and has in the process facilitated an appreciation of the reasons why Bogosi strongly poses as an acceptable parallel government operating at local government. In Botswana, Bogosi remains a very critical institution in governance, Magosi serve as spokespersons for their people, and they are quick in calling attention to any issues that are perceived to have negative effects on them and their people.
Given the high profile of the institution of Bogosi and the huge demands local communities make on them in Botswana today, a discussion on the institution will not be complete without a brief statement on the role of the political elites and elite chiefs. While in the early period, Magosi were usually illiterate, today most of them are not, communities are also looking for Dikgosi who can lobby politicians, governments and non-governmental organizations as well as many various stakeholders for development projects. These demands have literally placed Magosi on the laps of the educated elite in society. It may be argued that in Botswana modern elite educated chiefs present the new agenda for change that calls for transformation of the institution of Bogosi. These magosi can be very instrumental in creating the fluidity between the traditional and the modern sectors and in the process reified the existence of the two publics, one traditional and the other modern.
Although in the postcolonial period, some scholars have predicted the natural death of the institution, it nonetheless has its appeal: for the country. it is a way to define our identity as a nation; for the people it is the only institution left to look up to when the national bureaucratic as well as the political structures have failed them; and for the elite, Bogosi, legitimizes their social positions by establishing or widening their access to the state while the ‘modern’ power holders attempt to utilize what is perceived as traditional legitimacy for their own ends. Given this complex transactions, Bogosi will remain a very important part of Botswana’s governance for a long time. It is thus far from being obsolete.
This primarily because, Bogosi derives it resilience from two important sources: (a) its claim to authenticity, a claim which appeals to the cultural conscience of a large constituency of people; and (b) the failure of the state to develop strong national consciousness and forge effective and functional institutions that can address the basic needs of the people.
It is within this context that I see Bogosi as an institution that will, for the foreseeable future, make it relevant as it continues to create and recreate its place in the social, cultural and political life of Botswana. These include the continuing allegiance of large sections of the population including the educated elite, to their traditional leadership; the inability of the state to create a national identity out of the numerous ethnic groups who have been forced together into a nation-state. In a similar vein largely due to the failure of the state to bring about democracy and development because the state has been undermined by greedy and egocentric political elites as well as some sycophants, in such a process Bogosi will re-emerge as an important vehicle for more or less authentic indigenous political expression.
The popularity of Magosi therefore, may be due to the administrative and political problems in a given political system. As a result of these problems, the ‘traditional’ realm will continue to expand and maintain its authority to the detriment of the ‘modern’ state apparatus. If Bogosi / chieftaincy remains relevant in countries that have made considerable advances in modernization and liberal democracy such as in Botswana for example, then the assumption that the institution is incompatible with modernity and democracy has no empirical foundation.
