| Summary/Abstract |
Are South African chiefs rural and peri-urban despots or have they transformed to legitimate representatives of local interests in the post-apartheid era? This article argues that the legitimacy of chieftaincy in KwaZulu-Natal is not only based on constitutional and legal recognition, but that chieftaincy may rely on different forms of ‘basic legitimacy’. Chieftaincy is neither despotic nor civil but occupies an intermediary position between local citizens and the state. This junction position provides chiefs with specific opportunities to gain power but also requires a navigation between cooperation and conflict in the relationship with the ANC and the state.
|