This column amongst many, that deals with the matter of bogosi in Botswana. In these columns I will attempt to contribute to the broader ongoing debate on the position of bogosi in the modern democratic dispensation. I would attempt to grapple with the question of whether the kgosi deserves greater powers than he already has. I would also deal with the differences and similarities between modern dikgosi and pre-independence dikgosi. In the process I will question whether the institution itself is fair and in line with modern democratic principles. The columns will shine a spotlight onto this traditional system of privilege and power and question whether it deserves to be promoted and empowered. Is the kgosi a custodian of people’s culture? or has heeled away from the culture and only returning to it when it accords him great privilege. Some parts of this discourse will cause great discomfort to some, but it is a discussion that we must have.
The term kgosi is contested. It is translates into either chief or king. The term is used in general to refer to the ruling kgosi together with his brothers with the ruling kgosi of a morafe usually referred to as kgosi-kgolo (paramount chief). A kgosi is a political leader of a Tswana morafe (tribe/ethnic group). Amongst the chieftaincy is hereditary in the male line. The position was traditionally reserved for the eldest son by the senior (usually first) wife. The kgosi “…governed the society through a hierarchy of headmen and with the support of personal advisors and officially recognised councilors. The supreme authority of the kgosi was vested in the royal office (bogosi)… The ruler is granted custodianship of the national material and symbolic wealth of bogosi. Although the kgosi’s decisions are acknowledged as final ÔÇô lentswe la kgosi ke molao (the kgosi’s word is law) ÔÇô it was imperative for a kgosi to consult with the people, because kgosi ke kgosi ka morafe (the king is king by the grace of the people). (Gulbrandsen, 1995:419). Samatar discusses the position occupied by the kgosi in the social structure of the Tswana society. He observes, “Pre-colonial Botswana society was divided into several administratively autonomous groups that shared similar cultural traditions. Each group was led by a king (Kgosi) who dominated its political affairs. He was also the wealthiest individual in Botswana society. The Kgosi was usually succeeded by the oldest son of his first wife. Although the traditional Botswana Kgosi commanded a lot of authority, he was not an absolute monarch. He was assisted by two types of chief: commoners and royal ones. The Kgosi chose the former, but not the latter. The commoner chiefs headed villages and often acted as the Kgosi’s allies if one of the royal chiefs decided to challenge his authority in any serious way. The villages that this commoner and royal lieutenant administered were further divided into wards that were led by headmen. The headmen were accountable to both the chiefs and the Kgosi. The Kgosi had full authority over where one resided in the village. The Kgosi’s political authority was cemented by his control over large herds of cattle. Cattle were the principal form of wealth and capital. (Samatar, 2010: 688).
Kgosi ga e tlhochwe, e a tsalwa, speaks the traditionalist. And I count myself amongst hardnosed traditionalists. I believe in the traditions of our people since I consider them important to who we are as a people. While I believe strongly in our traditions and the preservation of our people’s culture I understand that we live in a republic which is governed by the Executive (comprising the president and cabinet) through established laws. Part of what these laws do is define who a kgosi is. The Bogosi Act defines a kgosi as an individual who (a) possesses such minimum educational qualifications as may be prescribed from time to time; (b) has been designated as Kgosi under section 6; and (c) is recognised as a Kgosi by the Minister in accordance with the provisions of sections 6 and 21. According to the laws of Botswana, dikgosi, are not just those who are recognised by their merafe as dikgosi or those who claim such a position by birth; they are legally defined and such a definition includes the recognition by a minister. Whether such a definition is right or not, is a different matter.
Take for example the matter of Kgosikgolo Kgafela II who was derecognised from bogosi by Hon. Lebonaamang T. Mokalake, Minister of Local Government on 28th October 2011 as provided for in the Bogosi Act of 2008. Kgafela was derecognised for having (a) frustrated Government efforts to consult and communicate with Kgatleng community on developmental issues that affect the community; (b) abused his powers by ordering Dikgosana in Kgatleng to ignore and frustrate Ministers’ efforts in their bid to hold meetings in Kgatleng District; and (c) incited Dikgosana to be insubordinate and refuse to carry-out lawful orders from Ministers. Minister Mokalake therefore took a decision to invoke the provisions of Section 15 of the Bogosi Act, Chapter 41:01, in the public interest, to de-recognise Kgosi Kgafela II with immediate effect. This effectively meant that “Kgafela II shall henceforth neither exercise nor perform any powers or official duties relating to tribal administration structures in the Kgatleng District.” Dikgosana in the Kgatleng District were warned “to respect this decision as failure to do so will be a contravention of the law on their part, resulting in similar action being taken against them.” Section 15 of the Bogosi Act which Mokalake invoked states that: “The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, at any time, withdraw recognition from a Kgosi if (a) the Kgosi has been deposed and his or her appeal against the deposition has been dismissed or the period allowed for appealing has elapsed without an appeal having been brought; or (b) the Minister considers it to be in the public interest to withdraw recognition.” Mokalake had considered it “to be in the public interest to withdraw recognition”. Now if Kgafela had continued to discharge the functions of a kgosi as he had claimed in his letter, he would have faced possible arrest because he would have contravened the Bogosi Act of 2008. So, although at the time Kgafela II wrote to Mme Mma Samapipi, the District Commissioner and said: “I remain your KgosiKgolo and I will continue to discharge my functions”, on the basis of Bogosi Act he was not a Kgosi let alone kgolo. He may indeed be born a kgosi, but according to the laws of Botswana, dikgosi, are not just those who are recognised by their merafe as dikgosi or those who claim such a position by birth; they are legally defined and such a definition includes the recognition by a minister. Whether such a definition is right or not, is a different matter. Now dikgosi want these legal provisions changed. It is actually understandable why the dikgosi want these legal provisions to be changed. It is largely because of one thing above all: power. The dikgosi want more power and money. The question is whether they deserve it or entitled to it.
