The article historically analyses the changing relations between chiefs, ‘subjects’ and the state in Zimbabwe and Botswana. Entirely qualitative, it reviews published and unpublished sources. The article utilises three interrelated theories: bureaucracy, legal pluralism, and political clientelism. African chieftainship predates the colonial period, although this era has fundamentally altered it. The article argues that in colonial Zimbabwe and Botswana, chiefs were bureaucratised and became state functionaries. This weakened them and compromised the age-old relations with their ‘subjects’. To navigate this intricate situation, chiefs thrived on their clientelistic relations with the colonial state and their ‘subjects’. The colonial state created a legal dual system. The chiefs played a critical role as the intermediaries between their ‘subjects’ and the state in a legal dual system. For instance, they collected taxes and maintained law and order. In postcolonial Zimbabwe and Botswana, chiefs have also become more accountable to the state and ruling parties than their ‘subjects’. In both countries, the state appoints, recognises, de-recognises and can depose a chief. Chiefs often complain of state’s subjugation, but this is understandable given the protection and benefits they receive from the state.

Projects

Currently no objects available

Currently no objects available