MONARCHY AND DEMOCRACY: TOWARDS A CULTURAL RENAISSANCE

South Africa is now a few years into her new political dispensation, and she is grappling with the same issues that have plagued Africa since independence especially the challenge of organizing society on the basis of social justice. Painfully aware of the failures of those countries that attained political independence before her, South Africa is exploring all possible political models that might suit her situation. Diverse political theories have been tried in Africa’s political life, most of which were transplants from the West. In this connection, South Africa stands a unique chance to break new ground in the creation of a better system of democracy informed by her history, the present political conditions, and what has obtained, and still obtains in the name of democracy in post-independence, or post-colonial Africa. To this end, I will argue that the adoption of traditional institutions, which were neglected in favour of wholesale classical democracy and other alien ideologies, will go a long way in assisting us in fashioning a dispensation unique to our situation. My plea is for an Afrocentric cultural renaissance. South Africa is a young nation with an identity crisis, trying its best to find its feet. Thus critical inputs by citizens and a responsive government could only assist South Africa to grow a better understanding of itself as a nation state. South Africa is unique in that here the African and Western streams meet and can flow together harmoniously. Despite this harmony, the Afro-centric cultural dimension is calling for more respect and space to express itself positively. A contextual democracy responding to South African actuality ought to be developed.

II. Phases of Democracy

Defining concepts is often desirable in scientific discourses, yet in some instances, it can prove to be an arduous and futile exercise. One such concept that tends to defy any conclusive definition is democracy. It is easy to invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln and declare as he did that democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I concur with George Orwell when he says in the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. The defenders of any kind of regime claim that it is a democracy. Present and existing scholarship seems to be comfortable with Lincoln’s view often paraphrased differently. One should always remain mindful of the two pertinent levels of discourse in this connection: the level of conceptual analysis and the level of application or implementation. Thus the concept is applied differently by different states, at different periods of their historical development. I therefore align myself with J. Sindane when he avers that “the least we can expect from democracy is that it should be a process of decision making which involves the people, especially those people who will be affected by those decisions.” ¹ Thus, democracy is representative, controllable and participatory. Representative democracy is historically connected to the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whereas the notion of accountability derives from the work of Baron de Montesquieu. What we wish to underscore by this superficial look at democracy is the view that democracy just like culture is dynamic. ² As well, democracy is part of a culture. Similarly, rather than being construed just as an idea or set of ideas, democracy should be conceived and perceived as a process. In recognition of the diversities of the cultures of the world, “every society has to receive democracy in its own way.” ³ Grete Faremo captured the upshot of this sentiment:

Given its varied and numerous phases, democracy will differ from state to state in conception and application. While it is essential for meaningful and sustainable development to be achieved, it may not be sufficient to reverse Africa’s economic decline and a definite slide towards anarchy, given what is happening in central Africa, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan and Angola. In South Africa a nascent democracy serves as a morale booster, it raises high hopes and expectations. But which democracy is suitable for our country? Who should fashion it? Politicians? Remember “one of the commonest manifestations of underdevelopment is a tendency among the ruling elite to live in a world of make believe and unrealistic expectations.” ⁵ Perhaps the consultation forums created by the Constitutional Assembly succeeded in influencing the politicians when they settled down to writing the constitution. Alone politicians cannot be trusted.

In the heydays of the European scramble for Africa, the physical balkanization of the African continent took effect. European ’vultures’ descended upon Africa’s landscape and sliced her accordingly for the satisfaction of their colonial appetite. South Africa could not survive the onslaught, and it is one of the results of that balkanisation. It became the victim of colonial exploitation and European mass destruction of the African people’s way of life. Such institutions as slavery and apartheid destroyed human relations between blacks and whites. Political structures became more eurocentric, being based on Western concept of democracy as against the indigenous people’s concept of communocratic systems of government. Economic systems took to capitalist trends that flourished on the blood of the vanquished, and the exploitation of the oppressed people’s labor, where the rich became richer, while the poor became poorer. Africa was plunged into centuries of underdevelopment, while Europe developed on the use of Africa’s human and material resources. African cultures and moral codes became labelled as pagan, primitive and unacceptable to the civilized christian world. ⁶

During the run up to the 1994 general elections in South Africa, very few politicians had any respect for chiefs. In fact chiefs were terrorised, coerced into joining political parties or get their powers stripped off. There was also the possible Mozambican option, which nullified the powers of the chiefs in Mozambique. Some “comrades” bluntly told chiefs that they would have to seek jobs though the issue of chiefs’ future had not been decided. The African National Congress’s legal leader then, Mathew Phosa, had this to say: “the Mozambican option was just one of the options we thought of, but we opted to keep the chiefs. We might find a way of making them ex officio members of local structures. But the chiefs must not call a bluff and claim to have a large following. There is no way they are going to be represented in the constituent assembly because their influence has always been limited to the tribal level. The chief has no option, he remains a chief if he runs for election. If he loses, he must accept the result that he lost to a commoner.” ⁷ Clearly, the climate of thought prior to the elections was not in favour of chieftaincy and kingship. What is even more disheartening is that it was the blacks themselves who tended to undermine their own traditional institutions on which African societies are anchored. Strangely enough, the same people found no contradiction in revering the British monarchy. We cannot sacrifice our shared destiny on the altar of simplistic ideologies and simple economic recipes that are incongruent with our existential experience.

III. Monarchy in South Africa

In South Africa today, concepts like ‘tribe’ and ‘ethnicity’ are emotionally loaded. Colonial history advances evidence that confirms that these concepts were used in a derogatory and denigrating sense. Such a view will not be considered in this essay. Whatever we call them, societies comprise numerous and varied ethnic groups, with their peculiar institutional structures. These institutions have a legal status, that is, they are invested with judicial powers and duties as contained in statutory and customary law. In the area of administration, the issue turns on the role of chiefs in processes of local, regional, and national policy-making, and the place that traditional leaders occupy within the social and the administrative hierarchy. Traditional leaders exercised administrative and political powers even before the advent of colonialism. These powers were, in the course of time, tampered with and ultimately curtailed and adulterated. Prior to the commencement of the transitional process that led to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (27 April 1994), traditional authorities possessed limited powers and functions as well as duties under statutory and customary law. Though the current constitution recognises the continued existence, powers, functions, authority and privileges of traditional leaders as well as the recognition of customary law, I contend that this recognition is nothing but a political ploy, a consequence of political expediency.

The advent of democracy in South Africa has whetted the appetite of many people for human dignity and human flourishing. Never before has the South African citizenry been so obsessed with democracy. It is in this context that we would appreciate a democracy that will evolve from the ground up, lest it becomes incongruent with the people’s existential experience. Given that a democratic system of government emerges under specific life circumstances, and that any such system is contingent on the relevant life experience, any such system is open to change. Continuous growth and strife for perfection remain ever so necessary since each historical epoch has its own milestones that fashion its identity and destiny. Clearly, therefore, the question of democracy in the South African context is answered in terms of the South African dynamics of change or activity. It is argued that this dynamics is set in motion by the socio-political conflict experience of South Africa. Rather than adopt one specific and alien ideology, the idea would be to let the ideology germinate from within the community. It is by this thinking, taking the point of departure in thinking and from contingent experience rather than one specific theory or ideology, that a contextual democracy answering to South African actuality ought to be developed. For in this way theory and practice would conform to South African actuality.

Anthropologists, when looking at the social structures of the African societies in historical perspective, were struck by the pivotal role the institution of monarchy played in social organization. Another observation was that monarchy strengthened social ties but undermined the authority of the state. The state was seen as a predator rather than a protector. The state in Africa belongs to rulers, whereas in the West it belongs both to civil society and governors. Civil society in the West influences and confronts the state, if need be, but in Africa always and everywhere else dictatorship leads to tension and realignment along ethnic and tribal lines. These alignments lead to the delegitimization of institutions of authority, such as monarchy and governments. Hence, they argue for the necessity of a constitution. Such constitution should be respected by government as they come and go, as well as the citizenry.

The notion of the supremacy of the constitution and respect for fundamental rights, read together with chapter 11 of the 1993 constitution dealing with traditional leaders/authorities, needs to be refined within the context of the African existential experience. To this end, African traditional leaders and experts should be engaged. The non-Western fabric of our society should continue to be fashioned by non-Westerners. What is European should not take precedence over what is inherently African. ⁸ Let Africa take her destiny into her own hands, and speak for herself. As Ngugi wa Thiongo writes, “the economic and political dependence of the African neo-colonial bourgeoisie is reflected in its culture of apemanship and parrotry enforced on a restive population through police boots, barbed wire, a gowned clergy and judiciary; their ideas are spread by a corpus of state intellectuals, the academic and journalistic laureates of the neo-colonial establishment.” ⁹

IV. Elections and Traditional Leadership

Indigenous African authorities, that is, the institution of kingship and chieftaincy or monarchy, have acquired a status in the constitution of the new South Africa. Some question their constitutional status while others appreciate it. There still are those who hold that the only way to appreciate the constitutional status of the traditional leaders is to threaten them with sanctions if they do not associate themselves with the will and wishes of their political leaders. It is as though the traditional leaders are not political leaders in their own right. It is as if they have acquired a constitutional status more as a favor than as a right.

The adherents to the view that the traditional leaders have been done a favour argue that the only way in which the kings and chiefs can attain political power legitimately is through being elected to political office. Short of election, kings and chiefs have no right to political power. Responding to this fallacious view, chief Mwelo Nonkonyana, deputy chairman of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa (CONTRALESA), said: “We have told the politicians that there is no political dispensation that could be concluded without us. We have been the leaders of the people long before the arrival of whites and we could not be sidelined now.” ¹⁰ Those who argue against traditional authorities forget that history teaches that ancient, and even contemporary, kings, queens and chiefs have not always and necessarily acquired their constitutional status through elections. It is just difficult to remember, for example, when in the long line of succession to the British throne the present queen of the United Kingdom was ever elected to her position of political power. Even the present heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, is hardly entertaining the idea of being elected to political power when the time comes. Moreover, the British electorate appears to be far from dreaming of themselves exercising their right to vote to elect Prince Charles into political power. So, even without election, it is possible in our times to attain political power. W. T. Jones in acknowledgment of the problems and dynamics of democracy in plural societies wrote: “if democracy has to wait upon the free consent of every one of its members, it is no democracy or indeed government at all: It simply lapses into anarchy. On the other hand, if democracy be the rule of the majority, many men no longer rule themselves, and this kind of government is quite compatible with the most brutal and cruel of tyrannies.” ¹¹

In South Africa, more than in other monarchies of the so called First World, the traditional leaders are crucial to any constitutional dispensation because they remain in touch with the majority of the people who reside in the rural areas. Monarchy controls social relationships among a people in a given society. It regulates and governs, inter alia, behaviour, customary rites, marital contracts, and mediates between the living and the dead, animate and inanimate. “Indeed, this sense of kinship binds together the entire life of the tribe, and is even extended to cover animals, plants and non-living objects through the totemic system. Almost all the concepts connected with human relationship can be understood and interpreted through the kingship system. This it is which largely governs the behaviour, thinking and whole life of the individual in the society of which he is a member.” ¹²

The genealogy of monarchy shows that it extends vertically to include the departed and those yet to be born. “Genealogical ties also serve social purposes, particularly in establishing relationships between individuals. By citing one’s genealogical line, it is possible to see how that person is linked to other individuals in a given group. It is also on genealogical basis that organizational divisions have evolved among different peoples, demarcating the larger society into clans, gates, families, households and finally individuals.” ¹³ The African social and cultural fabric has never been inert; it has constantly produced black societies and cultures, with internal dynamics as well as those resulting from their relations with the environment. Cultural diversity in South Africa, for instance, has been abused through the odious system of Apartheid. The polarization of races, particularly in South Africa, was strengthened with the introduction of the policy of Apartheid. Genocidal atrocities against the indigenous racial groups became a common feature in some cases, organized by, or with the approval of the security forces in the country. Africa bled in all sectors of human activities, from the socio-cultural wounds inflicted on her people by the protagonist of colonialism and Apartheid policies. My view is that South Africa’s strength, lies precisely in the diversity of its people and their cultures, and it is in recognizing and valuing that diversity that our future lies.

Thus, I submit that kingship and chieftaincy are, not to the exclusion of elections, traditional bases for political legitimacy. They confer legitimate political power. It is absurd that in South Africa the constitution is purporting to do the same. We dare not underestimate the importance of rural people and rural political culture for stability and the healthy development of our society. To this end, Vilakazi often contends that the crisis of the state in the rest of Africa has been due to the failure to bring about the synthesis of Western and African norms and institutions of democracy. Traditional societies and their institutions should not be held hostages of unknown frameworks, models and ideologies. African democracies should seek for the best answer which sometimes lies outside conventional ideas.

What we must also note in South African culture is that our culture is a triple heritage. As Ali Mazrui often contends, Africa is a convergence of three civilizations—Indigenous, Islamic and Western. ¹⁴ There is a strong eurocentric cultural dimension and Afro-Asian cultural heritage going back for four centuries in time which needs to be acknowledged and celebrated. In order for us to attain a strong and inspiring African cultural identity, we need to celebrate our cultural diversity. The major problem is that our afrocentric cultural dimension is not being given respect and space to manifest itself positively. Our development efforts and strategies need to be inspired and informed by our collective cultural heritage. We have to know who we are, before we know what we can become. ¹⁵ If we want to change the world, we must start with ourselves. By so doing we shall be leading the way for an afrocentric cultural renaissance. There is no way that people who are alienated from themselves, lack self-confidence, or a vision of where they want to go, can ever rise above the level of eking out a mere subsistence. It is in knowing one’s past, one’s history, that one can appreciate where he stands, and transcend his given situation in order to become what he can become. The basis of leadership and change is to have a very high sense of personal history and personal heritage. We need to own our personal destiny. A fortiori, what we can become is contingent on a clear knowledge of who we are.

The process of reconstruction and development will be frustrated by the absence of proper local government structures, especially in the rural areas. The greatest threat to a transitional society is the inability to create high performance which is essential to service delivery and economic development. Democracy is a complex matrix of a high sense of individual rights on one hand, and the courage to make authorities accountable on the other hand, as well as a high sense of personal obligation and responsibility on the other hand. The practice of collective stewardship in African traditional societies should be a basis for creating a sense of social citizenship. Similarly, all institutions charged with governance and administration of societal affairs should liaise in a cordial manner. They need each other to be able to acquit themselves well. A balance will therefore have to be found between the need for democratically elected rural local authorities and the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the existence of the institution of traditional authorities. The tension that existed between the Congress of Traditional Leaders (CONTRALESA) and the Government of National Unity (GNU), while the transition process lasted, stemmed from the fact that there was a condescending and arrogant attitude towards traditional leaders. This pathetic attitude has to change. Under the terms of Constitutional Principle XIII contained in the 1993 Interim Constitution the institution, status and role of traditional leadership, according to indigenous law, shall be recognized and protected in the constitution.

V. Taking Democracy to and from the People

Modern elections are an effort to ensure decency, humaneness, representativeness, legitimacy, and democracy in the treatment of citizens on the part of the modern state. There is nothing inherently wrong with this system save to say it is too foreign and incongruent with the African political landscape. This view is informed by the observation that after the much talked about “wind of change” of the 1960’s in Africa, the wind has changed practically nothing. In many countries the old sit-tight Presidents and military rulers are still sitting tight after manipulating, and sometimes rigging election results. During the bantustan era, South Africa tasted no less than three coups d’etat. In its purity and classical sense, democracy, oblivious of the existential milieu in which it operates often tends to breed tension and conflict. However modernised Africans may be, Africans tend to cling tenaciously to certain traditional norms and values, and practices and institutions like kingship and chieftaincy. By merging those cherished positive elements from African political culture, which over time have conferred dignity on our people and afforded them security regardless of their station in life, with classical democracy, we may realize a much more stable and prosperous society. ¹⁶ We should break new ground in prescribing and fashioning an amicable and respectable working relationship between political parties and traditional leaders. This working relationship should allow itself to be informed by the urban and rural political cultures. However, “South Africa’s basic problem is that it is a plural society with extremely deep cleavages, dividing segments of its population.” ¹⁷ A. Lijphart paints a gloomy picture in respect of the prospects of democracy in plural societies. He concludes that in the extreme cases of plural societies, such as South Africa “the outlook for democracy of any kind is poor”. ¹⁸

The fact that most of the people in the rural areas are illiterate means that parliamentary democracy imposed by the colonial conqueror from Europe is conceptually and materially remote from the majority of the people. This is so because there is no reason to suppose that the relatively few literate indigenous African people necessarily command a thorough understanding of European style parliamentary democracy despite their recent participation in it. Evidence of this nature abounds in Nigeria. Nigeria has been ruled by the military for most of the time since her independence from Britain. General Sani Abacha, speaking in a characteristically sternly manner in an address broadcast on Nigeria’s thirty-fifth anniversary of independence on Sunday, 01 October 1995, declared himself a democrat who was laying the foundation for a stronger and popular democracy. On pardoning M. K. O. Abiola, the man generally regarded as having won the previous (1993) election, which Abacha’s predecessor, General Ibrahim Babangida nullified, the military despot said “it would be wrong and a poor precedent for the democratic system for which we are laying a foundation.” In the name of democracy he usurped the presidency, and further in the name of democracy, he held on as the head of the military regime, and he would only hand over power in three years thence to a democratically elected president. Needless to say, Abacha schemed to succeed himself as a civilian president before the fate decreed his sudden death in office. One recalls here the words of the celebrated Nigerian singer and political critic, Fela Anikulapo Kuti who, in one of his songs denouncing the perpetual interference by the military in civil affairs, said that in Nigeria a soldier goes and a soldier comes. What a sad reality. For Achebe, “there is much the same cynicism about the ability of the military to wipe out corruption and reverse the spiral of political decay.” ¹⁹

VI. Towards an Indigenous Democracy

The European-style parliamentary democracy still needs the traditional African leaders to make it accessible and comprehensible to the indigenous African majority, not so much because the traditional leaders necessarily understand this foreign model of democracy, but more because they can engage it in dialogue with traditional African conceptions of democracy. It is the problems that have emerged from the inadequacy of the Westminster-style system of government in the face of the socio-political conflict arising from the cultural and economic differences obtaining among South Africa’s various population groups, which have caused the growth of a political spectrum that reaches from the extreme left to the extreme right. It is difficult to dismiss the suggestion that in the present circumstances, traditional African leaders in South Africa remain the true custodians of African culture and tradition. They are therefore best placed to engage, even in negative dialogue, by resisting what they perceive to be the destruction of valuable and working indigenous African conceptions of democracy. This kind of dialogue is essential to challenge the idea that there is only one correct understanding of democracy. It is also important because it forms the battleground for the construction of a home-grown and genuinely representative theory and practice of a democracy which can be called a South African democracy. So it is not only futile but also naive to suppose that traditional African leaders are no more than irritant appendages to a largely misunderstood and misapplied European-style parliamentary democracy.

In our endeavor to decolonize our cultural heritage, and authentically live side by side with the cultural imperialists, several strategies are desirable, and some are already in place. The most urgent and popular strategy is that of local appropriation, having to do with the restoration of local knowledge, languages and culture, the strategy of diversification including South-South co-operation. The strategy of counter-penetration, on the other hand, has to do with the influence of the South on the North, the restoration of cultural trade, the saving of the world from excessive Eurocentrism and Americanism. This influence has gotten to the marrow of South Africa, and to eradicate will certainly pose a mammoth task, given the history of colonialism, and the extent of self-alienation blacks are suffering from. Africans need to come back to themselves as a people. It is only they themselves who know how best to describe, negotiate, and manipulate their circumstances and environment. If they want to change the world, Africans must start with themselves. Anyway, charity begins at home. The words of Marcus Garvey are a challenge to Africans: We must strike out for ourselves in the course of material achievement and by our own effort and energy present to the world those forces by which the progress of man is judged.

Contemporary political philosophy adjudges non-elected political leaders such as indigenous traditional leaders as not legitimate in comparison with elected ones. We concede the significance of electing political leaders into office, yet at the same time acknowledge the necessity for the continuation of having non-elected leaders such as chiefs and kings. To a certain extent, the argument that they are not elected, hence not legitimate, is untenable. The existing oral and written literature attests to the fact that people were in the past not ruled against their will, and for that matter, they were ruled on occasion by foreigners. Elders in the community, experts in traditional judicial systems such as primogeniture, heredity, succession, and other customary practices that typified any society, would meet and elect a leader. This council of elders had the competence to elect and even to remove from office any leader whose conduct was offensive to the interest of the community. Julius Nyerere alluded to this when he said that the political authority in the traditional set-up was based on democracy and free discussion among the elders. They talked till consensus was reached. It could therefore be inferred that their government was by consent and consensus. ²⁰ To this end therefore, the call is for the indigenization of democracy.

Further evidence of democratic practices in Africa still obtaining in some African communities is evident usually in the tribal court/kgoro deliberations. A suspect appearing before a kgoro does not require legal representation since everybody present has an equal say in the deliberations, and no adversarial feeling is displayed towards the suspect. Any person could speak in favour of or against the suspect. There is no need for legal representation with attendant legal costs, and everybody is equal before the law. Justice was therefore accessible to all. The chief or the king does not decide the case; he merely pronounces the judgement. The practice is more like the jury system. Women and children regrettably were not allowed to participate in such proceedings. Though this is a fly in the ointment the system could be improved. After all in our era such is history. Women are co-leaders in Africa today.

The upshot of this contention is that in traditional societies there are norms and values, practices and institutions that must be adopted and adapted to new conditions in our search for a peculiar South African democracy. Evidently traditional systems did involve people in the decision-making processes, especially in those decisions that affected their lives, and opinions were freely aired by equals among equals without any fear of prejudice or retribution. They did not necessarily have to refer to such virtue as freedom of speech. The unelected councils of the elders served as representatives of the larger society. That they were not elected is consonant with kingship and chieftaincy all over the world. In Botswana, for example, multiparty politics, which is the hallmark of democracy, flourished since before independence. The basic traditional underpinnings have undoubtedly played a role. “There is the very important traditional system which encourages the free and open interaction so important to a truly democratic system.” ²¹ To date Botswana is regarded as the most stable and democratic state in Africa. Surely, South Africa could fashion a democracy peculiar to herself, informed by her history, racial or tribal composition, and strongly prevalent views towards federalism. ²²

VII. Conclusion

Mutual acceptance of cultural differences means recognition of the basic human right of cultural self-determination and self-realization. This, too, is the basis of democratic right. Persons are really human only if they embrace their own humanistic concept, which is contextual in the sense that it has grown under their specific historical conditions. Therefore South Africans should engage in a mental reconstruction and development. South Africans should enter into an open-minded and open-ended dialogue concerning the vital questions of freedom, justice, and the role of traditional institutions.

G. A. Rauche has been grappling with the idea of democracy that is home-grown. Recognizing that democracy is pluralistic by definition and includes the idea of unity in diversity, he sought to chart a path that would lead to innovative and creative thinking in the search for the most appropriate political dispensation in South Africa. The upshot of Rauche’s contention is captured in the following:

Thinking in terms of categories for the establishment of a contextual democracy means taking one’s departure from South African actuality rather than from established theories and ideologies. For it is not these theories and ideologies that establish actuality. But it is actuality, the contextual historical conditions of a specific epoch from which theories and ideologies issue and which, therefore, remain problematic and controversial. The hope is expressed that, in the light of intertextual relations between South Africa’s population groups all South Africans will perceive and accept as their own the historical situation in which they find themselves together. It is then that a South Africa free from the fear of the domination of one social group by another will become possible. ²³

Africanization is a process of injecting African value systems, concepts and ethics into all our human activities. This can only be possible where people are acting freely to create their own future and thereby are liberated from mental passivity in which they have been imprisoned by colonialism. To this end we invite universities, and indeed all tertiary institutions to stand up and be counted as intellectual clinics for the decolonization of the mind, the transmission of African culture and values, to effect the African cultural renaissance and revolution. We look up to these institutions to reconcile innovation with African tradition. They have a key role to play in generating ideas needed to take our transitional society to a new level of development awareness. They have to repair or form the political and educational institutions, economic systems, social, moral and spiritual values to suit South Africans—as free people. The true search for an African identity, the recognition of the environment in which that identity is sought, becomes a concept that enables us, Blacks and Whites alike, to conceptualize and articulate Africa as one motherland. This ought to be done in our endeavor to affirm our being, personhood and nationhood.

Finally, there will never be an economic or political development in South Africa without a cultural revolution, or cultural renaissance. Any quantum change requires new ideas to generate new perceptions of reality. Any transformation needs a new awareness and a new consciousness.

References

Banana, C. Towards a Socialist Ethos (Harare: The College Press, 1981), p. 12.

Diescho, J. The Limits of Foreign Policy in South Africa (Pretoria: Unisa Press, 1996), p. 21

Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought (London: Hasrays, 1962), p. 172. One wonders

Lijphart, A. ‘Options for Plural Societies,’ R. I. Rotberg and J. Barrat, eds., Conflict and Compromise in South Africa (Cape Town: David Phillip, 1980), p. 51.

--------. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), p. 236.

Mbiti, J. S. African Religions and Philosophy (London: Heinemann, 1969), p. 104.

Potholm, C. P. The Theory and Practice of African Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1979), p. 154.

Rauche, G. A. ‘Contextual Democracy in South Africa’s Pluralistic Society in Theory and Practice,’ Unpublished Manuscript, 1996, p. 10.

Simunyu, V. G. ‘The Democratic Myth in African Societies,’ W. O. Ogugi and A Gitonga, eds., Democratic Theory and Practice in Africa (Nairobi: Heinemann, 1987), p. 49.

Sindane, J. Democracy and Political Tolerance (Pretoria: HSRC, 1994). Sunday Times: 31.10. 1993: p. 4

Teffo, Joe. ‘The Hounded Black Intellectual,’ CSD Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 4 (1995), p. 9.

The Norwegian Minister for Development Cooperation in a speech to the Advisory Committee of the Global Coalition for Africa quoted in Human Rights Handbook 1992, part II, p. XIII.

wa Thiongo, Ngugi. Decolonizing the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature (London: James Currey, 1986), p. 2


	The Norwegian Minister for Development Cooperation in a speech to the Advisory Committee of the Global Coalition for Africa quoted in <i>Human Rights Handbook</i> 1992, part II, p. XIII.


	Ngugi wa Thiongo, <i>Decolonizing the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature</i> (London: James Currey, 1986), p. 2


	W. T. Jones, <i>Masters of Political Thought</i> (London: Hasrays, 1962), p. 172. One wonders whether the traditional leaders in South Africa or Africa in general should either be British or white before their status as political leaders without election can be recognised. In an endeavour to display our respect and reverence for the British Monarch, the South African government in 1994, deemed it fit to spend approximately two million rands on Queen Elizabeth II’s visit. Would they do the same to our kings and chiefs? Do we really respect our traditional leaders? That visit offered black South Africans a mirror to look at themselves and recognise the extent of their self-denial, inferiority complex, and reverence for alien institutions. The respect we give the British monarch does it not tell the extent of our self-alienation?


	A. Lijphart, ‘Options for Plural Societies,’ R. I. Rotberg and J. Barrat, eds., <i>Conflict and Compromise in South Africa</i> (Cape Town: David Phillip, 1980), p. 51.


	V. G. Simunyu, ‘The Democratic Myth in African Societies,’ W. O. Ogugi and A Gitonga, eds., <i>Democratic Theory and Practice in Africa</i> (Nairobi: Heinemann, 1987), p. 49.


	G. A. Rauche, ‘Contextual Democracy in South Africa’s Pluralistic Society in Theory and Practice,’ Unpublished Manuscript, 1996, p. 10.

Journal on African Philosophy (2002)

ISSN: 1533-1067