Emile A.B.

van Rouveroy van Nieuwaal 1987

With independence, the authority and jurisdiction formerly exercised by the colonial officials
passed into the hands of the new national authorities. These governments, like their colonial
predecessors, have, in different countries and at different times, pursued various policies with
regard to local political authorities. In the transition period, roughly speaking the decade of the
1960s, a tension developed between the 'modern' state administration and 'traditional'
authorities which led in many cases to open conflict. The power, but above all also the prestige
of the chief (in French: Ie chef coutumier, or le chef traditionnel), came under pressure. Here
and there chieftaincy even lost the struggle for political existence

Later, through the intensification of contact with the Africans, the exploitation of land and
crops, the introduction of Christianity, and with it the law and order based on a European
model, the European felt the need to set up a hierarchical local administration with village
headmen, district heads, and sometimes a ruler, all subject to a resident European district
commissioner. Acephalous local groups must have experienced as a shock being subjected,
overnight, to the authority of village heads and institutions which were not part of their own
constitutional conceptual framework

Chieftaincy as an institution still widely present in Africa can only be understood by reference
to the recent colonial past

The colonial power had introduced new administrative institutions, it had taken care of diverse
aspects of social welfare, and it looked increasingly for well-trained personnel for the
functioning of these institutions. This led to the formation of a class of people who, from their
appointed positions, attacked the core of traditional political structure, directing their criticism
mainly towards the basis of chiefly power. As a side effect, the attack also had the
consequence that old ties of solidarity were endangered and often fell apart.

When we speak of the chiefs in Africa in the present context, we are not speaking about an
extinct or even a dying species. Weare speaking at most about a threatened one, threatened
by the intervention of the legislator and the administration, who are all too often of the
opinion that through legal reforms, institutions such as that of chieftaincy, still firmly
entrenched in African society, can be blotted out or robbed of their legitimacy. M

Many an African government closes its eyes to the fact that chiefs oiz-ti-oiz their people are
not only still able to legitimate their authority but are also able to meet a number of social
needs. This fact, combined with ignorance of local law, has cost many an innovation and
development programme dear