The relevance of a house of chiefs in a democratic society: A case study of Zambia
Date
2013-11-11
Authors
Chibomba, Susan
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Before Zambia was colonised, seventy-three tribes inhibited it and these lived in communities. A chief headed each tribe. The chiefs were the ones responsible for governing of the chiefdoms. Each tribe had its own way of administering its affairs.When Zambia was colonised, there were no attempts by the colonial masters to bring the chiefs closer to colonial administration so as to include them in national development. The chiefs were merely turned into tools of suppression. The chiefs' roles were merely to collect taxes and apprehension of criminals. This had no bearing on the development of the country for the colonised. Even though the native courts still existed, the judicial powers of the chiefs were not recognised and the courts operated with limited authority and highly depended on the British administration terms.The institution of chieftaincy has been in question for the past decade since Zambia became independent. This is an institution that has been given a pride of place under the Republican Constitution. It was realised that despite recognising the institution of chieftaincy under the Constitution, there was urgent need to integrate the chiefs in national development. Therefore, the One Party State established the House of Chiefs in 1965. This institution was also provided for under the Constitution. This institution was to be an advisory body to the government on matters that touched on tradition and customs. This was in also in relation to bills that would be sent to the House for consideration before parliament passed them into laws.During the One Party Rule, the chiefs had greatly contributed to national development by passing resolutions on certain matters that had to be taken on board for the development programmes that the government implemented. The chiefs were further empowered with the enactment of the Villages Registration and Development Act in 1971. This Act basically encouraged the chiefs to supervise village registration.When the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD), came into power, there was another dimension in traditional governance. The establishment of the House of Chiefs was completely ignored. This was not consistent with the spirit of the Constitution. The New Deal government that extended the MMD rule later re-introduced the House of Chiefs due to pressure from various stakeholders to have the House re-introduced.The functions of the House of Chiefs are clearly outlined in Article 131 of the Constitution. The functions merely have to do with discussing bills sent to it for consideration and any other matters that the president refers to the House. These functions are not enough to enable the chiefs actively participate in national development.At the moment, the House of Chiefs is merely an advisory body to the government on matters of tradition and custom. There is need to redefine the role that the House of Chiefs must play in a democratic state. It must be integrated in national development.The functions must be extended beyond discussing bills and any other matters sent to it for consideration by the president. Moreover, the decisions of the House of Chiefs are not even binding on the government. This makes it difficult for the House to assert itself in national development. The Constitution must be amended so as to allow for a more meaningful role of the House in national development.There is need to have a vibrant and proactive House of Chiefs. The members of the House of Chiefs can be able to voice out on certain issues that the members of parliament cannot. The chiefs must be involved at grassroots level so as to take development to the rural areas where it is lacking. The relevance of the House of Chiefs will not be seen if its roles are only restricted to discussing bills and matters referred to it for consideration. The chiefs must be involved in national development.Therefore, the aim of this essay is to establish whether the House of Chiefs is relevant in a democratic state in enhancing national development. The essay is divided into five parts. The first chapter will basically discuss the institution of chieftaincy and the House of Chiefs. The second chapter will look at the evolution and establishment of the House of Chiefs in Zambia and the reason behind the establishment will also be given. Functions of the House of Chiefs will also be looked at in the third chapter.The fourth chapter will outline the relationship that is supposed to exist between the House o Chiefs and parliament. The relevance of the institution will thus be analysed in the same chapter and this is in relation to national development. The final chapter will merely discuss the conclusions and the recommendations on how to ensure that the House of Chiefs is made effective and better equipped to contribute to national development.
VII
Description
Keywords
House of Chiefs --Rules and practice--Zambia