By Nco Dube | 03 June 2025

The question of hereditary leadership’s relevance in a modern, constitutional democracy is not just theoretical in South Africa, it is a lived and daily reality. The ongoing succession disputes over the Zulu, Venda, AmaMpondo and Balobedu thrones have exposed deep tensions between tradition and modernity, between hereditary right and merit, and between custom and constitutionalism.

These disputes are further complicated by the shortcomings of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act (TKLA), as well as the real or perceived interference of politicians seeking to position traditional leaders aligned with their own political interests. This opinion piece explores these intertwined dynamics, asking whether hereditary leadership can survive, and if so, under what conditions.

The TKLA and the Problem of Accountability

The Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act (TKLA), signed into law in 2019, was meant to modernise and harmonise the recognition and regulation of traditional leadership including Khoi and San communities, for the first time in South Africa’s history. The Act sought to define the roles and powers of traditional leaders, promote accountability, and ensure that traditional governance aligns with constitutional values such as democracy and human rights.

However, the TKLA has been widely criticised by rural communities, land rights activists, and legal scholars. In May 2023, the Constitutional Court declared the Act unconstitutional, finding that Parliament had failed to ensure meaningful public participation in its drafting and passage. The Court suspended the invalidity for 24 months to allow Parliament to correct these defects, but the criticisms run deeper than process.

The Act has been accused of entrenching the power of traditional authorities at the expense of ordinary rural people, especially women. It allows traditional councils to enter into partnership agreements with investors and government without the consent of affected communities, undermining the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA) and the constitutional right to property. Critics argue that the TKLA does not provide adequate mechanisms for communities to hold traditional leaders accountable, perpetuating abuses of power, exclusion, and even the loss of communal land.

The Act’s shortcomings are not just legal or technical, they are fundamentally about power. By vesting land and decision-making authority in traditional councils, the TKLA risks reinforcing a system where hereditary leaders act as gatekeepers, often in partnership with political elites, rather than as true custodians of their people’s interests.

Political Interference: The Shadow over Succession

The fraught relationship between traditional leadership and the state is not new. Under colonialism and apartheid, chiefs and kings were often co-opted as agents of the regime, used to control rural populations and maintain the status quo. In the democratic era, the ANC government has continued to rely on traditional leaders to deliver votes and maintain order in rural areas. This has created a powerful incentive for politicians to interfere, directly or indirectly, in succession battles, seeking to install leaders who will be loyal to the party or government of the day.

Academic research shows that traditional leaders can significantly boost the electoral fortunes of aligned political parties. In the former Bantustans, for example, chiefs’ support has been shown to increase the ANC’s vote share by as much as 8.2 percentage points, with a measurable effect on national election outcomes. This clientelistic relationship distorts democracy, as traditional leaders become brokers of patronage rather than independent custodians of their communities.

In practice, this political interference often manifests as pressure on royal families to favour certain political parties, manipulation of recognition processes, and selective allocation of resources and development projects. The result is that succession disputes are rarely just about custom or family, they are about who controls land, resources, and political influence.

Succession Disputes: The Zulu, Venda, AmaMpondo, and Balobedu Thrones

These dynamics are vividly illustrated in the current succession disputes.

Zulu Throne:

The battle between King Misuzulu and Prince Simakade is not just a family matter. It is a high-stakes contest for control over the largest traditional kingdom in South Africa, with significant political implications. The state’s official recognition of King Misuzulu, and the subsequent court challenges, have exposed both the ambiguity of customary succession rules and the influence of political actors seeking to shape the outcome.

Venda Throne:

The protracted legal fight between Princess Masindi Mphephu-Ramabulana and her uncle, former King Toni Mphephu-Ramabulana, has foregrounded the intersection of gender, merit, and custom. The Constitutional Court’s ruling in favour of Princess Masindi was a victory for constitutional rights, but it also revealed the extent to which political interests can shape the recognition and support of traditional leaders.

AmaMpondo:

The parallel claims to the AmaMpondo throne, with rival royal houses and government recognition of one candidate over another, show how succession disputes can fracture communities and undermine legitimacy. Political actors often intervene, sometimes overtly, sometimes behind the scenes, to support leaders who will facilitate government projects or deliver votes.

Balobedu Rain Queen:

The dispute between Prince Lekukela and Princess Masalanabo (now Queen Modjadji VII) over the Balobedu throne is a striking example of how gender, tradition, and political interests intersect. The royal council’s initial nomination of Lekukela, despite the matrilineal tradition of the Rain Queens, was widely seen as influenced by political and patriarchal interests. The eventual installation of Masalanabo as Queen Modjadji VII, after legal and public pressure, was a victory for tradition and gender equality but the scars of the dispute remain.

Why Are Succession Battles So Persistent?

Succession disputes are not unique to South Africa, but their frequency and intensity here are notable. Several factors contribute:

Ambiguity and Flexibility of Custom: Customary rules of succession are often unwritten, open to interpretation, and shaped by historical precedent, which can be selectively invoked to justify different outcomes.

Lack of Accountability: The TKLA and previous legislation have failed to provide clear, democratic mechanisms for communities to hold traditional leaders to account, making it difficult to resolve disputes internally.

Political and Economic Stakes: Traditional leaders control access to land, resources, and government patronage. The rewards of office are considerable, incentivising factionalism and litigation.

Political Interference: Politicians have a vested interest in the outcome of succession battles, often seeking to install leaders who will support their own agendas.

Legal Uncertainty: The increasing involvement of courts in what were once purely customary matters has created a hybrid system where neither custom nor law is supreme, leading to confusion and contestation.

The Effects of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act

The TKLA’s shortcomings have exacerbated these problems. By centralising power in traditional councils and failing to require community consent for key decisions, the Act has alienated many rural people, especially women and youth. It has been criticised for entrenching autocratic leadership, enabling secretive deals with investors, and undermining the land and resource rights of ordinary community members.

The Act’s failure to ensure meaningful public participation in its drafting and implementation has further eroded trust. Communities have repeatedly raised concerns about corruption, exclusion, and the abuse of power by traditional leaders, often to no avail. The Constitutional Court’s declaration of invalidity is a damning indictment of both the process and the substance of the Act.

While the TKLA does provide statutory recognition to Khoi and San leaders for the first time, this has not been enough to offset its broader flaws. Many activists and scholars argue that the Act represents a return to the “Bantustan” mentality of the apartheid era, where chiefs were used to control rural populations and suppress dissent.

The Dangers of Political Interference

The close relationship between traditional leaders and the state creates fertile ground for political interference. When politicians see traditional leaders as tools for delivering votes or controlling rural populations, the result is a distortion of both traditional governance and democratic accountability. Chiefs and Kings who are seen as too independent or critical of government policy may find themselves sidelined, while those who are compliant are rewarded with recognition, resources, and influence.

This dynamic undermines the legitimacy of traditional leadership, fuels succession disputes, and alienates ordinary community members. It also perpetuates a system where hereditary leaders act as brokers of patronage, rather than as true custodians of their people’s interests.

Reform, Accountability, and the Role of Merit

If hereditary leadership is to remain relevant in modern South Africa, several reforms are urgently needed:

Clarify Succession Rules: Customary succession rules must be codified, made transparent, and harmonised with constitutional values, including gender equality and non-discrimination.

Strengthen Accountability: Mechanisms must be established to allow communities to hold traditional leaders to account, including the right to recall or remove leaders who abuse their power.

Limit Political Interference: The recognition and support of traditional leaders should be insulated from partisan political interests, with clear, impartial processes for resolving disputes.

Promote Merit and Inclusion: While hereditary succession may provide continuity, it should not be the sole criterion. Leadership qualities, wisdom, and the consent of the governed must play a greater role.

Respect for Community Rights: Any legislation affecting traditional leadership must be developed with meaningful public participation, respecting the rights and wishes of rural people, especially women and youth.

Tradition at a Crossroads

The succession battles for the Zulu, Venda, AmaMpondo, and Balobedu thrones, and the controversy over the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, are not just about who wears the crown. They are about the future of traditional authority in a democratic South Africa. They force us to confront fundamental questions about power, legitimacy, and accountability.

Hereditary leadership can still have a place in modern society but only if it is willing to evolve, embracing both the wisdom of the past and the demands of the present. The legitimacy of any leader, hereditary or otherwise, rests not on bloodlines alone but on the ability to serve, unite, and inspire their people. The challenge is to build a system that honours tradition, protects rights, and serves the needs of all South Africans.

(Dube is a Political Economist, Businessman, and Social Commentator on UkhoziFM and various newspapers. Read more of his articles here: www. ncodube.blog)