One of the methodological challenges I experienced when I was in the field was that I lacked access to a central informant. When I was still in Norway preparing my fieldwork and interview guides, there was one informant I really hoped I would get the chance to interview, namely Chief Ngcobo. Chief Ngcobo is, as mentioned in the background chapter, the head of Qadi Traditional Authority, which is the Traditional Authority that Mzinyathi falls under. As the main traditional leader in my case study area, he would be an obvious informant given my research question. Moreover, since I asked residents in Mzinyathi specific questions about Chief Ngcobo, it would have been logical to also interview Ngcobo himself, to hear his side of the story. Unfortunately, I learned that securing an interview with the chief was surprisingly difficult. During one of my first visits to Mzinyathi, I visited his office, but the purpose of this meeting was for me to seek permission from him to do research in his area, not to have an actual interview with him. He never made himself available for an interview during the time I was in the field. As a substitute for this, I tried to ask other traditional leaders the questions I wanted to ask Chief Ngcobo. Some of these questions were answered, and some were not.
Other methodological challenges I experienced were difficulties related to interviewing the Izinduna. These traditional leaders are all senior men in the Mzinyathi community, whom everyone recognizes and has great respect for. Some of the questions I intended to ask these traditional leaders were about their own legitimation of, and justification for, their power.
However, the South Africans I collaborated with (both my interpreters and the academics at UKZN) were hesitant towards me asking them such questions, as this would be, according to them, a sign of disrespect. Because of this, questions about legitimation strategies were kept to a minimum. In addition, I experienced several times, during interviews with the Izinduna, that
44
the Induna started talking about topics that were not related to my questions. I hinted to my interpreters that we should try to steer the conversation back to the actual questions. But in the Zulu culture, to interrupt an Induna in this way is considered rude, especially considering the Induna’s seniority and status. What this meant for my interviews was that parts of the data I gathered from these interviews were not valid, since the interviewees were discussing things that were not related to the questions I had asked. Due to these mentioned obstacles, I had to make a few changes to the focus of my study. Instead of exploring the chiefs’ own legitimation strategies, I decided to devote more space in the thesis to exploring ordinary people’s own perspectives of the chieftaincy’s legitimacy, since data on this topic was more accessible.
4.9 Conclusion
In this chapter, I have argued that there were significant methodological benefits associated with conducting a two-month fieldwork in South Africa. Moreover, I have argued that using interpreters in a context such as the one in Mzinyathi can help build access, trust and yield rich data. In order to make this study as valid and reliable as possible, I have tried to be open and honest about the way my data was produced and analyzed. I have also addressed the study’s limitations, like its external validity and known threats to its reliability. I may not have been able to overcome these limitations completely, but I have at least been attentive to them (Millstein, 2007, p. 118). Hopefully, I can still present a critical analysis of the chieftaincy in Mzinyathi.
45
5 “The power of the land” – The Mzinyathi chieftaincy’s control over land resources
Control over land is vitally linked to authority, and the institution governing land allocation also controls people, boundaries and meaning.
(Oomen, 2005, p. 157).
The purpose of this chapter, the first of three analysis chapters, is to discuss the connection between the chieftaincy’s role in land governance and the institution’s legitimacy in the present-day era. In recent decades, there has been increased attention to the topic of the chieftaincy’s role as a land allocator, and what this role means for the authority of the institution (Alcock &
Hornby, 2004; Ntsebeza, 2005; Oomen, 2005; Cousins, 2007; Beall & Ngonyama, 2009;
Hlabisa, 2013). As accounted for in the theory chapter, Ntsebeza and Ribot argue that the main reason for why the chieftaincy maintains its legitimacy is because the institution controls land allocation. They argue that as long as the chiefs control this resource, rural people will continue to turn to them, and this legitimizes the chieftaincy (Ribot, 2001; Ntsebeza, 2005). Both Ntsebeza and Ribot contend that rural people do not actually like or respect the chieftaincy, but that they have no choice but to nurture a relationship to the chiefs if they want to access land.
It is this dynamic which reinforces the institution’s position as a powerful local actor (Ntsebeza, 2005; Ribot, 2001).
This chapter is split into two parts. In the first part of the chapter, the Zulu system of communal tenure (ukukhonza) is described. Ribot and Peluso’s theory of access will be utilized as a heuristic device, in order to increase our understanding of the power relationships that the ukukhonza system (re-)produces. In the second part of the chapter, I will put Ribot’s and
46
Ntsebeza’s theoretical explanation under scrutiny. Are Ribot and Ntsebeza right in claiming that the chieftaincy’s control over land is the main reason for why this institution maintains its legitimacy? And are they right in claiming that the chieftaincy is actually not popular, but instead a feared institution? In the latter part of this chapter, these theoretical arguments will be investigated with regards to the Mzinyathi case.