DR VUSI SHONGWE

I am sure I am beginning to sound like a broken record by my often repeated reference to my elephantine institutional memory regarding matters of Zulu royalty.

I am still sticking to my decision that I will not divulge to a soul some of the issues I would discuss with the departed His Majesty King Zwelithini KaBhekuzulu in our almost daily marathonic meetings that would commence at 14h00 and end at 3am.

However, it would be irresponsible of me not to share with the nation strategies that ingeniously came from thinking outside the box that I shared with the King, particularly the requisite institutionalization of the Zulu Monarchy and Indlunkulu.

In hindsight, the Department of the Royal Household was not supposed to have been disbanded purportedly because of the ever galloping Royal expenditure. Many government departments and entities are found wanting with regard to their failures to ensure financial prudence, but they are never disbanded.

Over the years, my take of the African National Congress and Inkatha Freedom Party regarding Ubukhosi has been the following: One fully understands the essence of what Ubukhosi is all about but “drop the ball” as it were; whereas the other party loves Ubukhosi immensely but does not understand what it entails.

I am afraid the situation appears to have gotten worse. Both parties appear to have become clueless about the nitty-gritties and dynamics of Zulu monarchy and Indlunkulu.

But, is it fair to blame political parties about matters of the Zulu Monarchy and Indlunkulu? What competencies, skills, or in-depth knowledge do politicians possess to qualify them to deal with matters Zulu Royalty?

This is where and how the late HRH Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi stood out from the political crowd owing to being a direct descendant from the Zulu Royal family through his mother, Princess Magogo ka Dinuzulu ka Cetshwayo ka Mpande. His knowledge of intricate Zulu protocols and genealogy was acquired over decades during his upbringing until his old age.

What is missing glaringly now is a legitimate knowledge pool on the basis of which governance procedures can be developed to enable the KwaZulu-Natal provincial government to engage and fraternise with the Zulu Royal family professionally as a mandate.

We need documents clarifying Zulu Royal family structures and systems as in the local government Municipal Structures Act and Municipal Systems Act. Such formal clarifying documents would help in eradicating existing confusions, conflicting understanding, and cultural ambiguities.

The entities of Zulu Monarchy and Indlunkulu are not products of government systems. They are the structural head of the Zulu nation and the custodians of culture and traditions.

The challenge we have in the . postcolonial era is that we don’t have formal documents that articulate clearly the entities, entity relations, and the processes of the Zulu monarchy and Indlunkulu in a manner that harmonises with corporate governance principles that the provincial government is obligated to abide with.

So much is based on hearsay and assumptions, thus creating regrettable circumstances wherein government officials are frequently found guilty of having transgressed undefined Zulu royalty protocols.

This becomes even more problematic when the performance of government officials has to be measured in terms of their performance management system. There are no formally defined performance indicators to adhere to.

Perhaps this is the reason it was found easy to dissolve the erstwhile department of Royal Household because there were no tangible systems in place that would have rung alarm bells about the governance implications of dissolving such a critical governance entity.

Now, we remain with a complex problem that continues to be more complicated as uncertainty prevails in regard to explaining the role, functions, and powers of the Zulu Monarchy in corporate governance terms.

What are Zulu Monarchy aims, objectives, and vision in regard to the aspirations of the Zulu nation?

How can the provincial government contemplate being a governance facilitator of such aspirations if they are not formally defined and documented?

These are pertinent issues we used to brainstorm with uMdlokombane, and, unfortunately, the unsurprising matters of poor financial accounting dominated all strategic thinking during that period. Is this predicament beyond redemption? We urgently need to arrest this runaway headless chicken situation!

CONSTANTLY CHANGING WORLD

We live in a constantly changing world in which His Majesty the King’s leadership must, while steeped in tradition, comfortably answer to the needs of modern democratic demands that are rooted in our constitution.

In so doing, the province would have succeeded in establishing a vibrant, initiative-taking, responsive, and self-sustainable Monarchy; a monarchy for a ‘value-added age’ where achievement and effort confer public legitimacy. It is time the role of His Majesty is stopped being viewed as just being a mere symbol.

It would be disingenuous of me not to credit the provincial government for the strides it has achieved to freeing the Monarchy from its antediluvian role and making it responsive to the needs of its people.

Two critical projects that come to mind are the “one million men circumcision” led by the late His Majesty King Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu in partnership with the indefatigably hands-on former MEC for Health, Dr Sbongiseni Dhlomo, and the King being the patron of education in KwaZulu-Natal who dedicated His time and resources towards the transformation of education in the province.

The questions that come to mind are: what has happened to these two critical projects? Why has the current king not continued with these life changing projects?

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MONARCHY

The significance of monarchy – and the way that significance has changed over time – is of course a topic that reaches well beyond Zulu studies, attracting cultural anthropologists and historians of ideas as well as political scientists.

One lesson regarding the institution is that a distinction needs to be made between royal power and monarchy’s socio-cultural role, and that it can be unwise to dismiss that role as something of merely antiquarian interest.

It is misleading to speak of monarchy today as “traditional institution.” This question touches on the issue of whether “colonial knowledge” is in fact the real “baseline knowledge” for the Zulu royalty, or do some concepts from the pre-colonial era remain potent?

To remain relevant, there is a need for the Zulu monarchy to become a ‘service monarchy’: a monarchy for a ‘value-added age’ where achievement and effort confer public legitimacy.

As regards the royal family, three roles come to mind. First, the promotion of national unity, pride, and cohesion by virtue of the institution’s ‘continuous history’ and ability to rise above the short-term fluctuations of party politics.

Secondly, the publicity which surrounds the monarchy allows it to highlight excellence in private and public sectors as well as to express condolence on behalf of the nation.

Finally, in a right- based, acquisitive age, the nature of the monarchy’s inherited privilege ironically allows it to emphasize the importance of public service and the voluntary.

King Misuzulu needs to configure a shift towards a so-called welfare/service monarchy – this aspect includes those functions where the Monarch, and members of the royal family, exercise forms of social patronage in relation to charities and other parts of civil society.

This aspect shows the need for the monarchy to free itself from heavily ceremonialized presence to a much more visible form, interacting with general population far beyond the confined royal palaces’ circles.

The welfare and service function are seen as a particularly important part of the modern Monarchy’s role.

King Misuzulu needs to show his seriousness towards monarchical duty by becoming one of the world’s great charitable entrepreneurs. What immediately comes to mind is our Golden Economy steeped in culture and heritage. In short, one is calling for a practical monarchy in action.

As the speed and reach of globalisation inevitably accelerates, the modernity of the Zulu monarchy will depend upon it embracing its internationalism.

The truth is that it is not His Majesty King Misuzulu kaZwelithini, but the top-class secretariat, which must do the following:

• Prepare top-class responses to be signed by the King regarding correspondences from national and provincial government departments.

• It is the Office of the King, and not the King, that should meticulously plan the daily engagements of the King. This includes proper diary management.

• Well wishing messages for Christmas and New Year must have been prepared by the Office of the King, and not the King.

• Being the patron of Education, the office of His Majesty King Misuzulu kaZwelithini must have prepared a congratulatory statement for the matric students, including words of encouragement to the students who would not do well.

• Take through His Majesty King Misuzulu KaZwelithini to comprehensively understand and continue with previous critical areas of focus to ensure that past work is not lost and that current and future Kingship programmes are within the strategic vision of his predecessor.

For example, both the Office of the King and COGTA should compile a Handover Report for the King.

Among the issues to be covered by the report are the following:

A) Legal/administrative processes which His Majesty King Zwelithini KaBhekuzulu was seized with at the time of the demise.

B) Understanding of the current and future realities with regards to iNgonyama Trust.

C) Critical traditional land governance policy developments.

D) Outcomes of Traditional Leadership disputes and claims.

E) List of traditional and heritage programmes in which the Office His Majesty the King and iNdlunkulu are directly involved.

F) Development projects which involve the public and private sectors planned and or in progress.

G) Formal undertakings to communities or any other party that may have been made.

H) Current Kingship and government: relational context with the Office of the Premier.

I) Status of Royal Infrastructure (including all Palaces).

J) The Kingship funding and maintenance model.

• It must be the officials in the office of the King, and not the King, who must plan the “Taking the Monarchy to the people campaign” by way of the King’s visits to various districts to meet Amakhosi. The days of the King being confined to the palace are fast ending. The King must be seen to be people orientated in his approach.

• Lastly, it is the office of the King, and not the King, that should be promoting the commemoration of the Battle of Isandlwana.

His Majesty King Misuzulu kaZwelithini needs to appoint a Privy Council or King council of powerful and experienced advisors with their own ability to influence the government and society. The role of the Council should be strictly advisory, and its members are expected to give their opinions even if the opinions conflict with the views of the Monarch.

Ideally, the privy council’s advice is a fair sampling of public opinion, which indicates that the council is intended not just to give advice, but to represent the views of the people to the Monarch.

The privy council can also represent the views of the monarch and the monarchy to society. Most importantly King Misuzulu must also be surrounded and guided by more experienced members of the royal family.

The ideas one has sketched above are the fundamental essence of what the King’s must be all about. There is therefore a need for the King to have a deep awareness of his own role as the Monarch, a deep understanding of the people, and willingness to nurture within himself the awareness of being with the people.

Years ago, the King of Buganda visited the late His Majesty King Zwelithini kaBhezukulu. I had recently joined the Department of the Royal as head of department. What impressed me most about King of Buganda was his delegation which was chosen from the intelligentsia of the Kingdom of Buganda.

The delegation was comprised of officials who were educated in Britain and America’s ivy league universities. Most significantly, the officials who accompanied the King of Buganda were volunteers from the Kingdom of Buganda.

I am mentioning this visit because I would like to appeal to appeal to communications experts, speech writers, governance experts, medical practitioners, economists, finance gurus, agriculturalists, image makers, events coordinators, cultural experts, to kindly volunteer their expertise to help turn around the office of His Majesty King Misuzulu Ka Zwelithini.

It would be disingenuous to compare King Misuzulu to his father.

If truth be told, comparisons of Monarchs are anachronistic and meaningless; they miss what is important – that most monarchs contribute to a single development and build on each other’s achievements. This is precisely why the King’s name is Misuzulu – how so? By sustaining the abiding legacy of his father, His Majesty King Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu.

The nation expects conscientiousness and devotion from King Misuzulu. It expects their King to carry himself with grace and humility. As one writer said, “the Monarchy must shine, not the Monarch.”

*Dr Vusi Shongwe is the former head of the Department of the Royal Household. The contribution is written in his personal capacity.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

Source link