The recent upsurge in popular protests against the institution of Bogosi has indeed sparked interesting debates. Listening to some debates and some scholars in their various articles on the subject, makes me scratch my head wondering, what model they are holding on for us to behold. Some are advocating the abolishment of the institution of Bogosi because, they say, it is potentially undemocratic, under our present democratic governance. The fundamental question to ask is whether the democratization discourse provides the most appropriate framework for investing in the future? That is, can good governance only be achieved through elective mechanism? Is Bogosi a relic of the past? Is it meritorious and democratic? Does the institution of Bogosi impede upon or enhance the struggle to lift the country to greater glory and development. Does party politics and democracy capture all the aspirations and needs as to cause the retirement of the institution of Bogosi?
The old institutional framework built on hereditary titles has been considered by some as not responding to the changing power differentials in society coming from the state and its bureaucratic elite. Thus Magosi have been turned into an auxiliary of the administration and are accountable to the public administration machinery in their respective areas of jurisdiction.
As a result of this, the statutory provision which enshrines the pre-eminence of the government bureaucracy over Magosi for instance has been strongly resisted.
In a very stimulating work on chieftaincy in independent Zambia, one Van Binsbergen (1987) concludes that chieftaincy is obsolete and should be allowed to die out, as it has in Europe, where its remnants (monarchies) can only be seen in the most backward of countries.
In another direction, several reasons have been adduced for the survival of Bogosi against all odds. 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 some have been forced together into a nation-state. Others have reasoned that in the light of the comparative failure of countries to bring about democracy and development because the state has been undermined by greedy and violent political elites, Bogosi has re-emerged as an important vehicle for more or less authentic indigenous political expression.
In the view of other scholars, however, the popularity of Magosi may be due to the administrative and political problems of many contemporary governments. They argue that as a result of these problems, the ‘traditional’ realm continues to expand or maintains its authority to the detriment of the ‘modern’ state apparatus.
It is therefore not surprising that the holders of pre-colonial forms of authority have or claim to have new political roles within the context of the modern state.
The expectations that Bogosi would wither away as elected officials assumed political power has not fully materialised. Despite such predictions Magosi are still creating new spaces on the political landscape.
The institution mediates between the past and the present by imaging itself as a symbol of tradition and the same time striving to serve as an agency for modern democratic project. The structures and institutional frameworks for interventions are not solely reserved for the post colonial state elite. Other institutions also vie for political space.
If an old adage that two cocks cannot crow in the same compound is true, then one should not be surprised to come across the confrontations that existed (or exists) between the modern state and Kgosi Kgolo Kgafela Kgafela II in the year 2010 and beyond. The pre-fectoral order, persecution and the incarceration of Kgosi Kgolo Kgafela Kgafela II as well as his subsequent fleeing from the country succinctly depicts the nature of the confrontation. The main concern was all about political power and space; that is who has the power over the village community and control over the Kgotla. From a position of strength, the state bulldozed itself to the extent of President Ian Khama holding a night vigil meeting at the Bakgatla ba Kgafela kgotla without the knowledge and consent of Kgosi Kgolo Kgafela Kgafela II who then had fled the country and was as he still is on self imposed exile in South Africa. His brothers Morena Bakgatla, Morena Mmusi as well as some royal uncles had to watch helplessly as President showed his political muscle by invading the Bakgatla ba Kgafela Kgotla to hold night vigil, distributing blankets, dishing out soup and Mapakiwa.
In another embarrassing set up, the state through its former Minister of Local Government(s) Lebonaamang Mokalake and Peter Siele issued the order derecognizing Kgosi Kgolo Kgafela Kgafela II as the paramount chief of the Bakgatla ba Kgafela tribe as well as refusing to renew employment contract of Kgafela’s deputy Bana Sekai. This order, shocking as it appeared did not even provoke Bakgatla ba Kgafela to rise spontaneously to the defence of their King and his deputy. Bakgatla ba Kgafela went on to petition the government actions and to this day they have not received any formal response from the Khama administration regarding their petition let alone from the Malope report. Such a move to protest was un- thinkable and could have sparked immense civil unrest or even rioting.
The Mid Week Sun 10th November 2011 quoted Mokgweetsi Masisi as having said, “It is within government to take any action it deems proper and in the public interest, including dethroning any Kgosi that does not toe the line”…… “In fact should such a Kgosi be seen to be frustrating government business, causing public chaos and rendering the country un-governable the state will not flinch the most punitive action – derecognize him”.
The irresponsible and barbaric remarks made by Masisi at a kgotla meeting in Gerald Estate, in Francistown could have sparked riots. The nation could have risen as one in support of Bakgatla ba Kgafela and their King. Masisi was not the only one who joined the hate crusade against Magosi notably Kgosi Kgolo Kgafela Kgafela II. Masisi reckless irresponsible comments clearly show demonstrate disrespect on Magosi that the state is whittling down the powers of Magosi.
There have been many attempts by the immediate post independence government of Sir Seretse Khama administration to subjugate Magosi through drastic legislative framework. The various legislations and decrees introduced in the late 1960 and early 1970s reveal the state’s hegemonic project to co-opt traditional rulers into an already bloated bureaucracy.
