Chiefs must be politically neutral

Mugabe further claimed that traditional chiefs should not be politically neutral, which essentially means that they should engage in partisan politics.

This is, obviously consistent with Zanu (PF)s normal practice of abusing traditional leaders to further that partys waning political support among the grassroots in rural Zimbabwe. In the past, we have witnessed how traditional leaders have been treated as Zanu (PF) functionaries, especially in relation to the distribution of drought relief food and agricultural inputs.

Traditional leaders that are known to support the MDC, for example, have many times been harassed and harangued by the states coercive apparatus such as the dreaded Central Intelligence Officers (CIO), the police and the army. Some traditional leaders have openly been threatened with dismissal from office because they were accused of supporting such progressive political parties as the MDC.

Mugabe obviously realizes that his rotting political party is consistently losing political support among the rural people of this country, and he is desperate to make better use of traditional leaders to salvage whatever such support he can for his reeling party. In light of the struggling constitution writing process currently underway in Zimbabwe, it is imperative that we quickly debate this issue of the role of traditional leaders in politics and governance.

My personal view is that traditional chiefs should be free to join any political party of their choice but they should not actively participate in partisan politics while they are in office. It is the chiefs democratic right to join and support the political party they want, but they must not be allowed to hold any position in the party while they are in their traditional office.

In other words chiefs should, indeed, be politically neutral, at least insofar as partisan politics is concerned. To this end, chiefs may belong to a political party, but they cannot make use of their traditional office to further the interests of their party. Neither should they be allowed to make use of their customary position as chiefs to vote in parliament in support of the position of their political party.

In fact, I hold the view that traditional chiefs should not be members of parliament at all. They should be confined to structures of customary law and excluded from the democratic structures of national governance. At the provincial level, chiefs should be members of Provincial Assemblies where they can discuss issues pertaining to customary law and the cultural practices of their people and advise the government accordingly.

At the national level, chiefs should operate through the Council of Chiefs to carry out the same functions. Traditional leaders are not elected but they are appointed by the President on the advice of the Minister of Local Government. This has tended to make chiefs unduly politically aligned to Zanu (PF).

This in turn has negated democratic development and governance in this country and has to be brought to an end. My view is that chiefs should be appointed by a standing committee of the Council of Chiefs on the advice of the relevant Provincial Assembly. This may reduce the chiefs current tendency to view themselves as beneficiaries of the Mugabe regime.

In relation to participation in the policy-making process, the role of traditional leaders should be that of advising the governance structures of the state from a customary law and cultural standpoint only. In doing so, the chiefs should ensure that their party political preferences and allegiances do not interfere. It is doubtful that Mugabe and Zanu (PF) will ever accept these views. The chiefs are also likely to be reluctant to get off the Zanu (PF) gravy train at this stage. But the will of the people must prevail.