A controversy is going on over the role of tribal chiefs and whether they should be elected. It all began with a recent experiment involving a small group of people who had met to resolve a leadership dispute involving two groups from the same tribe.
Based on that incident, some have called for expanding the experiment to cover the entire country. With all due respect to those who have raised the issue, I must say that they have missed the point and failed to read and evaluate the case accurately.
The position of tribal chief reflects a social status and thus should be viewed from this perspective away from administrative considerations. It is unfortunate that some still think that the tribal chief’s modern role is to collect petitions from members of the tribe and then go knocking on the doors of government officials seeking services and other facilities for their areas and regions.
Services should be provided through carefully studied development plans and not through petitions. The head of the tribe, as I have said, is a social rather than an administrative position. It would thus be absurd and foolish to tamper with deeply rooted traditions inherited over the years as this could lead to a conflict of a totally different nature.
In the end, the cultural background of the people of this country is firmly grounded in tribal traditions, where everyone is fully aware of family and social status. It is a situation that has never been the source of any significant problems.
It is true the extent and clarity of tribal composition differ from one region to another. It is also true that a new society has emerged as a result of transformations resulting from economic and demographic changes. This does not, however, merit writing off the role of the head of the tribe who, in my view, serves as a safety valve. His role should be further strengthened. The coming days will prove my point.
The inability of the administrative side to comprehend and appreciate fully the role of the head of the tribe has, on several occasions, led to the weakening of the role.
This has been evident in administrative interventions in the social setup of the tribe through attempts to reduce, consolidate or abolish the tribal chief’s social role. We would be contradicting ourselves if we sought to abolish such roles at certain times and then reinstate them at others.
One important thing everyone should be clear about is that tribal chiefs receive no material benefits for their work, which often includes resolving disputes and reconciling different opinions. Sometimes, in fact, the chiefs spend from their own pockets to end a problem that delegation after delegation of government employees has been unable to solve. By playing such a vital role, tribal chiefs are an asset relieving the state of a heavy administrative and bureaucratic burden that only those involved in the matters can appreciate.
