Chieftainship Mair 1936

8/3/2019 Chieftainship Mair 1936

1/13

International African Institute

Chieftainship in Modern AfricaAuthor(s): L. P. MairReviewed work(s):Source: Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jul., 1936), pp.305-316Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International African Institute

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180622 .Accessed: 13/01/2012 10:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press andInternational African Institute are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAfrica: Journal of the International African Institute.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iaihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3180622?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3180622?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iaihttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/13

AFRCJOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTEOF AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND CULTURESVOLUME IX JULY 1936 NUMBER 3

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICAL. P. MAIR

T HE contemporary development of African chieftainshipis aquestionof considerablepracticalmportance.The attitudewhichit will adopt towards the native chief in his relationswith his ownpeople is one of the major questions of policy which every colonialgovernmenthas to decide. Somehold thata nativesocietycanonly besatisfactorilyruled by-or through (the words are not quite synony-mous)-its traditionalhead; others that the firstduty of the civilizingpower is to free its native subjects rom the oppressionandtyrannyoftheir own rulers;othersmakeit theiraim to steer a middlecourse,andpreservethe nativeauthority n his traditionalposition while adaptinghis functions to the requirementsof the presentday. All have in factconsiderablyalteredby their mere presenceboth the natureand thebasis of the chief'sauthority.Yet they haveso far beencontentwith a veryincompleteknowledgeof the politicalsystemswhich they upholdor condemn. To the advo-cates of IndirectRule, it is the sanctityof traditionthat createstheclaim to obedience,andfor thatreasonthe traditional hief is the idealinstrument for moulding native society in the form that civilizationdemands;to its opponents, authority n native societies restson one-sided privileges maintainedby the arbitraryuse of force. Neitherschool of thought recognizesthat suchan institution as the chieftain-'Africa' : theJournalof theInternationalnstituteof AfricanLanguagesndCulturesspublished ytheInstitute,butexceptwhere therwisetated hewritersof the articlesarealoneresponsibleor theopinionsxpressed.

x


3/13

306 CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICAship dependsfor its maintenanceon a complexseriesof relationshipswhichcannot be reduced o asingleattribute.Thus,thosewho arefordestroyingit ignore altogetherthe question of the considerationsoftheirown advantagewhichpromptthe subjects o accedeto the chief'sclaimsupon them; while those who wish to preserveit are often indangerof overlookingthe degreeto which moderncircumstances rechanging its nature.There are beforeus then two complementaryquestions-what werethe forcesin nativesocietywhich madethe chief'spowereffective,andin what spheredid he exercise hatpower? Thatit consisted,not onlyin exacting the performanceof duties from his subjects,but also inrenderingservices o them,is, I would suggest,the keyto a realunder-standingof this institution both in its normalworking andin the dis-tortion which it hasundergone n modern times. I proposeto developthis theory in connexion with the chieftainshipas it exists, and hasexisted,in Centraland SouthernAfrica.One might summarizehe sourcesof the chief'sauthorityby sayingthat it dependedin part only on the supernatural anctionsattachedto his heredityand in parton the due performanceof his functions.By thisI do not meanto suggestthatanyfailureor abusewas instantlymet by revolt and deposition, but rather that there was sufficientflexibilityin the relationsbetween governor and governed for dis-content to make itself felt in ways which it was against the ruler'sinterestto disregard,while there were in practiceoften considerablechecks on the abuseof an authoritywhich was in theoryabsolute.In the area with which I am concernedthe functions of the chiefmight be of three kinds, magical, political, and economic, and hisprivilegescan be closelycorrelatedwith the exerciseof thesefunctions.Everywherethe paramountchief or king is believed to stand in aspecialrelationship o the land, and in virtue of this relationshipheis frequentlyresponsible or the performanceof ritesupon which thefertilityof the landdependsandwhich only he can satisfactorily arryout. It is especially n connexion with these magicalduties that hishereditaryposition, linking him as it does with the spiritsof his pre-decessors, is of importancein validatinghis authority. Where thechief stands in this unique relationshipto the supernaturalpowerswhichcontrolthe fortunesof his people,he mightseemto hold all the


4/13

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA 307trumps.Yet, inatleasttwo tribeswherethisis thecase,anthropologicalinquiry has found that in the political field his actions are circum-scribedby the existenceof councilsof variouskindsin which he doesnot hold a preponderantposition, andwhose authority s equalto hisown.' Such factsemphasize he importanceof looking for the sourceof political power not in the personof some individualwho mayseemto possess certainattributesof supremacy,but in the whole systemwhich works to make authority effective in those spheres whereauthority s required.The king's hereditarystatus is certainlyan element in maintainingrespectfor his authorityeven where, as with the Baganda,he has nomagicalpowers. Here his connexionbydescentwith the mythologicalfounderof the kingdomat the same timejustifiedhis claimto absoluteownership of the country and everything in it and guaranteedhisadherenceto the traditionwhich was formallyreassertedat his ac-cession-a traditionwhich, it is worthmentioning,laiddown not onlythe supremacy f the king but his duty to respectcertainrightsof hissubjects.But traditionand mythology remainas ultimateratherthan im-mediatesanctionsfor obedienceto authority. It is not to them thatwe must look for the bases of the everydayacceptanceof the chief'sposition andperformanceof the subjects'duties. That is to be foundrather n the reciprocalnatureof theirrelationship-in the interpreta-tion of the subjects'duties as returns for benefitsreceived. I do notmean to suggestthatthis was a consciousattitude,still less thattributeor labourwere renderedout of spontaneousgratitude,but rather hatthe maintenance f politicalauthoritycarriedwith it advantages o thegoverned sufficientto make them acquiescein the burdenswhich itimposedupon them.

What were these advantages? They vary of course with the exactnatureof the political organization n question. I can only speakindetail of the tribewhich I know atfirsthand,the Baganda. Withthemthepoliticalfunctions of the chiefs,who formed a hierarchy ppointedby the king anddependent or theirpositionon his pleasure,consistedmainly n the administration f justiceandthe organizationof warfare.I refer to the Swazi and Bemba, who have been investigated by Dr. P. J.Schoemanand Dr. Audrey Richardsrespectively.


5/13

308 CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICAI have myselfheard an old peasantsaythat God showed the Bagandaespecialfavour in giving them chiefs to settle their quarrels. Warfarewith them went beyond the mere organization of defence, in itselfa service of some importance,to constitute,in the form of raids onneighbouringtribes,a speedierway of increasingtheir materialpos-sessionsthan any more conventionallyeconomic activity.In economic mattersauthority might seem at first sight to havecarriedwith it a position of pureprivilege. In the firstplace,the sub-ject'sright to occupy land, and hence his entirelivelihood, dependedtheoreticallyon the king andpracticallyon the chief to whose villagehe attachedhimself. For failure to renderthe customaryservices,asfor any other actiondispleasing o the chief, he was liable to eviction.Those who see in Africanchieftainshipnothing but arbitraryyrannymayseem to find here an argumentfor their point of view, but foran analysisof the working of the institutionwhat is relevant is thatthe servicesrenderedby the peasantare not given in a one-sided sub-mission to supernaturalpower or physical force, but in return forrights of fundamental mportance. To the Mugandathere was noinjusticein the fact that these rights were not unconditional. More-over, he hada readymeansof expressingdissatisfactionwith his chiefbymoving to anothervillage,and sincethe chief's economicprivilegesgave him a motive for desiringto attractandretaina largefollowing,this rightwas an effectivecheckon tyrannousbehaviour. At the sametime,thechief'srightsof evictionand of physicalpunishmentcertainlywere an elementin securingthe obedienceof his followers.The rightswhicha chiefcouldclaimfromhis subjectsconsistedof agourd of beerin everybrew,a considerableportionof the goods paidover in compensation or anyoffencetriedby him, and serviceswhenrequired n the buildingof his housesandthe fence which surroundedthem. He received also his shareof the taxes collected through hisagencyat the commandof the king, and on the returnfrom a raidingexpeditionit restedwith him to distributeamong his followers thatportion of the spoil capturedby them which was left when the kinghad selected his shareand, of course, to retainas much of it as hethought fit.But this systemdid not meana constantly ncreasingaccumulationof wealthin the handsof the privilegedfew, for the simplereasonthat


6/13

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA 309in the native economy satiationpoint was reachedearly,and when itwas reached he richman turnedfromthe enjoymentof possessiontothe enjoymentof munificence. Generositywas expectedof a chiefandwas the best way to increasehis following; and on the size of hisfollowing dependedwealth, prestige, and promotion to the controlover a wider area. Among other peoples the accumulationof wealthin the chief'shandshas beenfound to serve even moreobvious socialneeds in an even moredirectand obvious way, for example n forminga reserveagainst amine or providingfor the maintenance f a standingarmy.This very summaryaccount of the relations between chief andpeople in Baganda society indicates the mutual dependencewhichformedthe basis of the native politicalorganization. To the peasantthe chief was the ultimate source of his livelihood and a more im-mediate sourceof materialbenefits;he also represented he authorityandleadershipnecessary or orderlyrelations n peaceandthe success-ful organizationof war. To the chiefhis followers broughtwealthandprestigeprovided he dealt fairlywith them-a proviso which showshow the institution contained within itself checks on the abuse ofa privilegedposition.

A furthercheckexistedin the systemof succession. The hereditaryprincipledid not meanthat certainindividualswere destinedby birthalone to succeed to authority. There was always a certainrange ofchoice,whichmade t worth while for personswho lustedfor powertoshow themselvesfit for it. Any son of the king might be selectedtosucceedhim; while in the case of a chief the choice was even wider,extendingto the sons of his brothers:moreover, under the Bagandasystemin which chiefs could be transferredby the kingfrom one dis-trict to another,a chief's heir did not necessarilysucceed to the deadman'sposition. If this was important,a more experiencedmanmightbe appointedto it while the young heir was given a smallervillageuntil his meritwas tried.A featureof the Baganda ystemwhichagainlimitedtheactionbothof the king and the chiefs was the existence, side by side with thetheoretically supreme authority, of a counsellor whose influencecarriedvery great weight. While the heir could disnmiss is father'scounsellor,he was not normallyexpectedto do so; so that the new


7/13

31o CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICAholder of any political position, from the king downwards,usuallyenteredupon his officesubjectto the adviceof an older andmore ex-periencedman. This counsellor'sadvice was asked beforeanydrasticstep was taken, such as the deposition of a chief by the king or theeviction of a peasantby the chief; andin the caseof the chiefshe wasthe recognizedchannelthrough which peasantswho consideredthatthey were unfairlytreated could expresstheirgrievances.In describing his systemI havenot beenguided by anysentimentaldesireto idealizea vanishedpast. I do not mean to presentit as in-capableof improvementor to suggest that the principlesof govern-ment which Europeanpowers have set themselves to introduce haveno advantages. Clearlyt left roomformanyacts of oppressionagainstindividualsubjectsand gave to the rulersa wider scope for the in-dulgence of personalfeelings and desires than Europeansin theoryapprove. I havebeen careful o say,not that the system preventedtheabuseof power,but thatit set limitsto suchabuse. Canwe saymore ofthe political institutions of the most advanced civilizations? Theyhave theirabuses, too, which seem less flagrantperhapsonly becausethey are more familiar. The main aim of my analysis,however, hasbeen to try to give a more completepicturethanthatusuallypaintedof a native system of governmentin operation,and by doing so toindicatethe kindof phenomenawhich ought to be takeninto accountby those who set out to modifysuch systems, particularlyf theiraimis to utilize them as part of an organizationon Europeanlines. In-direct Rule has been definedas the progressiveadaptationof nativeinstitutionsto modernconditions; but I have suggestedalreadythatmany administrationswhich purportto have adopted Indirect Rulehavenot looked beyondone singlefactor n the nativeinstitutionscon-cerned,namelythe hereditaryprinciple. Somehave supposedthat bymerelypreserving he hereditaryprinciple heyhavefullyrespectedallnative rights; others have believed that provided they employ forthe purposean hereditaryauthoritythey can induce natives to obeyany orders,however burdensomeor unwelcome,that the Europeangovernmentmay decideto issue.This rathersuperficial onceptionof the natureof chieftainshiphasresultedin a generalfailureto recognize that the entire basis of thechief's position has been altered by the very advent of European


8/13

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA 311government. Whatwas in manyareasone of the most important unc-tions of the supremeauthorityhas been completelyremoved. I meanthe organizationof war, which in some African societies hasjustifieda systemof governmentmuch more autocratic han that which I havedescribedamongthe Baganda. Even where he has retainedhis judicialauthoritythe modern chief has lost the right to inflict severepunish-mentsfor offencesagainsthimself. Where new systemsof landtenurehave been introduced he fundamental conomicrelationshipbetweenchief and people is broken. Christianityand the obsolescence ofpublic ritualhave affected his relationshipon the religiousside. Onthe otherside,authorityrestsnow, not on popularityor on the render-ing of specific services to the governed, but on the power of theEuropean government, which, though it may remove chiefs fromoffice,seldom does so for thereasonswhich would causenativeopinionto desiresucha step. It is for this reason-because it hasput the chiefout of reachof the sanctions with which he hadformerlyto reckon-thatagovernmentwhich maintainshis authoritywithoutunderstand-ing its realnaturemaywell be condoningabusesof it whichcould notin the past have been committedwith impunity. Moreover,moderneconomic conditionscreate the possibilityof abuseswhich could notin the past have been committed at all. The possibilitiesof turningone's economic privileges to direct personaladvantageare now un-limited; yet the most superficiallyiteralconception of IndirectRuleinvolves the maintenance f the chief's traditionalprivileges. Becausethey have dissociated these privileges from the corresponding re-sponsibilities,those in authorityhave sometimes failed to see thatunder modernconditions tributepaid to chiefs is coming to be justthat one-sided burden that it was sometimes thought to have beenbefore. Yet these sameconditions makeanyeffectiveprotestout of thequestion.This is one way in which the natureof the chief's position as onepartof a reciprocalrelationshiphas been misunderstood. The possi-bilitiesof the otherparty-his subjectsasa body,or anyone of them-retaliating or his failureto do his due parthave been removed; forit is only those who rejectgovernmentthrough the chief altogetherandproposeto replace t by democracyon European ines, who haveconcernedthemselves with the subjects'point of view, and they only


9/13

312 CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICAmisinterpret t by forgetting againthat the subjecthad rights as wellas duties. By removingthe checks on the chief's action at the sametime that they convertedhis payment n kind into a money payment,Europeanadministrations ave shown that in the long runtraditionalsentimentsand ethicalstandardsdo not prevailwhere the ruler has aclear nterest n disregarding hem,andperhaps hatsuchstandardsdonot even appearto be applicable n a situationso new as that createdby the presenceof the Europeantraderon the one hand, and on theother the accumulation n the chief'spossession, not of cattle,maize-cobs, beer, or garments,but of that currencywith which Europeangoods can be obtained.

At the same time that they have alteredthe basis of the chief'sauthority n a way which tips the balanceof powerin his favour,eventhoughhe mayno longerbe ableto asserthimselfbythe use of physicalviolence, Europeangovernmentshave assigned to him many dutieswhich did not formpartof his functionsbefore.' Someof these, suchas the collectionof censusfigures,enforcementof regulationsfor thedestructionof old cotton plants, encouragementof such activities asthe killing of rats,might be describedas neutral n their effecton therelationbetween chief and subject. But others, those which involvethe use of the chief's authorityin calling upon his subjectsto enterupon distastefuland arduouspursuitswhich bring them no apparentadvantageand throw out of gear the whole routine of their lives,inevitably producea completedistortionof thatrelationship. I refer,of course, to the use of the chief in obtaining labourfor Europeanemployers,or recruits n those colonieswhereconscription s in force,in collecting taxes imposed by the government, and sometimes inenforcing the cultivation by natives of commercialcrops. Wherethese areamong the dutiesof the chief, he is simplyan instrumentofthe superiorgovernmentand is plainlyrecognizedby the natives assuch. It maybe truethathis prestigeandgenerallydominantpositiongains him an obediencewhich an agent sent from outside would notobtainwithout resortto actualforce, but it is quitemistakento inter-pret this as meaningthat the hereditary tatusof the chief justifieshisevery action in his subjects'eyes, and to conclude that in order to

I This situation is admirablydescribedby ProfessorN. De Cleenein his article'Les Chefs indigenes au Mayombe', Africa, vol. viii, no. i, p. 70.


10/13

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA 3 3satisfy Europeaninterestswithout disintegratingnative society, it issufficientto make the chief their mouthpiece. The natives may con-tinue to obey, but the chieftainshipceases to be a native institution,andthey areas well awareof that fact as any anthropologist.This last interpretationof IndirectRule is one which would neverbe acceptedby the original exponentof a theorywhose basicprincipleis thatthe developmentof nativesocietymustnot be subservient o thedemandsof the Europeanmarket. But it contains elementsthat arealso present in the popular attitudetowards Indirect Rule sincerelyconceived as the best vehicle for such a development. Here again itis argued that civilization can be madeacceptable f it is introducedthrough the chief, and againthe argumentis only a half-truth. It istrue that the prestige of the chief often leads his subjectsto imitatehim in following European ways. Christianity tself has sometimesbeen adopted in this manner,not alwayswithout sudden mass con-version from one sect to another. But for the chief's exampleto beeffective, he innovationmust be in somethingwhichis either a matterof indifferenceo thepeopleor elseappears o offerthemsomepositiveadvantage. And further,the apparentadvantagesmaynot alwaysbeconsistent with the effectiveworking of the complexof nativeinstitu-tions taken as a whole. It is just as easy for progress to becomesynonymouswith disruption f an hereditarychief is madeits apostleas it is where the native who claimsto have become civilized is en-couragedto reject the chief's authority-though the process of dis-ruption may be less obvious.I amnot meaningto suggest thatIndirectRule is a chimera, hat inmodernconditions the chieftainshiphas gone through such changesthat it is no longer recognizableas an African institutionat all andmight as well give place to somethingmore efficientand more con-sonantwith moderntheoriesof government. On the contrary,I holdthat the futureof Africansocietydependsupon the successwith whichcontinuityandits attendantstabilitycan be maintained n the processof transitionwhichit is now passingthrough. My arguments that thelink which unites the chief with his ancestorsis not by itself strongenough to bind the presentto the past: that what is needed is a fullunderstandingn everycase of whatchieftainshiphasmeantandwhatit can mean in terms of authorityand leadership. Certainly t has to


11/13

314 CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICAacquirea new meaning, or thespheres nwhichleaderships demandedare no longer the same; the emphasishas shifted from the wagingof war to the construction of public works, and the redistributionof revenuesreceived is now a matternot of personalgenerositybutofbudgetaryexpenditure.The fundamentalnecessity for the constructive development ofnative administration s, as I have suggested, an understanding,notonly of the nature of the claim to authority,but of the reasonswhyauthoritywas in fact obeyed and above all the dutieswhich authorityinvolved. Such an understandingwould give a sounder basis thanthe chanceof administrative onveniencefor the modifications n thechief's statuswhich modern circumstances endernecessary.It wouldmake it possible to meet the criticismthat IndirectRule means themaintenance f obsolete tyranniesby the power of alienarms,by cur-tailingthose privilegeswhich, divorcedfromthe responsibilitywhichformerlyaccompaniedhem,havein factbecometyrannous. It woulddispelthe illusion thatchiefscan be made the instrumentsof interestsinimicalto those of theirown peopleandnativepoliticalorganizationremainintact; and the more insidious illusion that in regions wherenativesocietyhasbeensystematicallyeduced o dependenceon wage-labourfor Europeanemployers t can be recreatedby allottingminoradministrative unctionsto hereditary hiefs.With this understandingheremustgo a recognitionthatthe chief-tainshipis not in any society an isolated phenomenonbut one of agroup of interdependentnstitutionswhich combineto determine tssphereof influence. The commandsof a nativechief are as constitu-tional as those of a modernparliament-in the sensethathe takesforgrantedthe whole socialorganizationof whichhe is a part. Arbitraryas his power may be in personalmatters,it is exercisedwithin thelimitsof a traditional ystemof law which it is his duty to upholdandnot to modify.Thus when he is invited by the Europeangovernmentto throwhisweight on the side of an innovation desiredby them, it is not as anautocratwhose word is law that he makeshis influenceeffective,buteither as their recognizedinstrumentor as a person whose generalprestigeentitleshis counselsto respect. Indeed,the belief thatfunda-mental alterations n the structureof any society could be madeby a


12/13

CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICA 315merewordof commandrestson a quiteunrealconceptionof thenatureof authorityandof societyitself.The next stepthat needs to be taken,in the constructive nterpreta-tion of IndirectRule, is an appreciationof the chieftainshipas partofthis complexwhole which will enablethose responsibleto judge thevalueto the societyconcernedof the modificationswhichtheyproposeto makethrough the agencyof the native authority.I Given such anunderstanding his system could make possible a more satisfactorydevelopmentof Africansocietythanit hassometimesachievedhither-to, andcould refutesome of the criticismsbroughtagainst t by thosemost interested n native welfare.

L. P. MAIR.An admirablestudy of native politicalinstitutionsfrom this point of view hasbeen made by Messrs. Gordon Brown and Bruce Hutt in their volume, Anthro-pologynAction:An Experimentn theIringaDistrictoftheIringaProvince, anganyikaTerritory, Oxford University Press, for the International Institute of AfricanLanguages and Cultures, London, 1935.Resume

LE CHEF DANS L'AFRIQUE MODERNELA situation qu'il faut accorder aux chefs africains dans l'administration colonialemoderne est un probleme capital de politique indigene pratique. II souleve denombreuses controverses entre les partisans de l'administration indirecte et ceuxqui soutiennent que la chefferie est une simple forme de tyrannie. Des deux c6teson considere la chefferie comme essentiellement fondee sur un caracttre sacrehereditaire. L'analyse de cette institution est rarement poussee plus loin.Les questions cruciales reclamant une reponse sont: quelles ont etC les forcesqui ont soutenu l'autorite du chef et dans quel domaine a-t-il exerce cette derniere ?Un point frequemment omis dans la discussion c'est que le chef usait de sa puissancenon seulement pour obliger ses sujets a accomplir certains devoirs, mais aussi pourleur rendre des services. L'accomplissement de la fonction etait une source d'auto-rite aussi bien que les sanctions surnaturelles correspondant a la position hereditairedu souverain.Les fonctions envisagees peuvent se classer dans trois categories: magiques,politiques, economiques. Les magiques comportent d'ordinaire l'accomplissementde rites essentiels pour le bien-etre du peuple et la fertilite du sol. Dans l'ordrepolitique, si nous prenons un example dans la civilisation des Baganda, le roi etles chefs hierarchises nommes par lui etaient responsables de l'administration dela justice et de l'organisation militaire; celle-ci etait pour ce peuple le moyen le plusefficace d'accroitre leurs biens materiels.En matiere economique la balance semble pencher en fa'veur des dirigeants.Les paysans dependaient de leurs chefs pour leurs droits fonciers et pouvaient etre


13/13

316 CHIEFTAINSHIP IN MODERN AFRICAchasses lorsqu'ils ne remplissaientpas les obligations coutumieres et meme pourtoute autre action ayant deplu a leur chef. Mais par contre un paysan pouvaitquitter en toute occasion le chef dont il n'etait pas satisfait, et comme celui-citirait des avantagesd'une large clientele, le droit du paysanmettait effectivementen echec les actes de tyrannie. Les chefs recevaient des cultivateurs une partchaquefois qu'il etait brassede la biere; on leur payaitdes biens en quantitecon-siderablepour tous les proces juges par eux, on leur devait des services pour lesconstructions chaque fois qu'il en etait besoin; mais les paysans recevaient unepartdes taxespercuespareux pour le compte du roi et une partaussi du butinprisa la guerre,dans l'ensemble l n'y avaitpasaccumulationde richessesdansles mainsd'une hierarchieprivilegiee parce que la generositdetait une caracteristique bligeechez le chef, c'etait aussile meilleurmoyen d'accroitresa clientele. Aussi beaucoupde biens retournaient-ilsaux paysanssous forme de dons.Le systeme de successions mettaitpar ailleursun frein a la tyrannie. Le choixpour remplacerun chef pouvait se porter sur un certain nombre de personnes;d'autrepart e souverainavaita cote de lui un conseiller,son subordonneen theorie,mais qui avait le droit de faire entendreses avis dans les questions decisives.Dans la periodeactuelle e chef a perdunon seulementbeaucoupde ses fonctionstraditionnelles,mais les circonstancesont fait disparaitreaussi beaucoupdes freinstraditionnelsqui moderaientson autorite. L'administrationactuelle en outre luidemanded'accomplirpourelle certainsactesqui ne correspondentpasasapuissancetraditionnelle,considerantque son autoritehereditaireest telle que tout ordre desa part doit etre obei.L'administration ndirecte pour etre un instrument effectif doit se baser surl'analyse des institutions de la chefferie. Ce travail montrera comment et dansquelscas les nouvelles activitesreclameesau chefpeuventse fondersur dessanctionstraditionnelles,dansquels cas ces activitesne peuvent etre demandeessansdetruireles institutions indigenes.

Chieftainship Mair 1936

Documents

Transcript of Chieftainship Mair 1936