Gender equality and cultural rights – both protected by the South African constitution – are once again in a head-to-head battle following Princess NomaXhosa Sigcawu’s challenge for the leadership of the amaXhosa.
Gender equality and cultural rights – both protected by the South African constitution – are once again in a head-to-head battle following Princess NomaXhosa Sigcawu’s challenge for the leadership of the amaXhosa.
President Jacob Zuma confirmed Zwelonke Mpendulo Sigcawu as King of the amaXhosa last year, after the finding by the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims that his father had been the rightful king.
However, as the eldest child, Princess NomaXhosa now claims to be the rightful heir, saying she was denied the throne because she is a woman.
Last month, the Commission for Gender Equality stated that it “strongly denounces the recently publicised inauguration ceremony of Zwelonke Mpendulo Sigcawu as King of the amaXhosa nation”.
The commission fully supports Princess NomaXhosa Sigcawu’s challenge for the throne and said in a statement that it was taking legal action to tackle the “inequality and unfair discrimination faced by Princess NomaXhosa Sigcawu within the traditional leadership structure”.
This is not the first instance of a woman who is also an eldest child using the legal system to claim the right to the throne.
In 2008, the Constitutional Court of South Africa upheld the appeal of a Limpopo woman, Tinyiko Shilubana, to succeed as Hosi (Chief) of the Valoyi traditional community. The court’s reasoning was that communities had the ability to change their cultures over time.
Nkosi Phathekile Holomisa, president of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa (Contralesa), believes the court ruling was incorrect. Holomisa says that Xhosa custom does not allow women access to the throne and that culture does not change.
“The holders of positions of traditional leadership derive their legitimacy in the fact that their assumption of the position is in accordance with the dictates of the customs, traditions and culture of the relevant royal family,” Holomisa said in an emailed reply to questions from Grocott’s Mail.
“A departure from such dictates, due to considerations of new and foreign norms such as equality instead of equity, renders any holder of such a position illegitimate.”
Holomisa also explained that conversely, in other cultures where the successor to the throne must be a woman, the appointment of a man was illegitimate.
However, Professor Russell Kaschula, head of the School of Languages at Rhodes University, believes that custom forms part of culture, and culture itself is never static. Societies have moved from being patriarchal to matriarchal and vice versa, he says.
Kaschula believes the court decision regarding the role of women as traditional leaders — if they are supported by the community — backs up the notion of culture as dynamic. He notes that many women have already ruled effectively and there is no reason why they should not make good chiefs. Courts have also ruled that women can now inherit and be recognised as the heads of households in traditional society.
“Culture and custom are intertwined, fluid, forever changing and adapting. Royalty forms part of that changing cultural dynamic and it is now also intertwined with a modern political dispensation which requires fluidity in the South African context,” Kaschula said.
Professor Monty Roodt, of Rhodes’ Department of Sociology agrees with Kaschula.
“Clearly customs are part of culture, so if culture can change then surely the customs that are part of that culture must be able to change as well,” Roodt said. He said that while many treated culture as a "thing" that should be protected from outside influences and change, the reality was that those people were usually the ones who felt they had something to lose if change came about.
Like Kaschula, he believes that culture is a process – and there is no such thing as a pure culture. Cultures, customs, norms and values evolve according to local environments and outside influences, he says. Today’s global world means these processes are sped up by mass media and increased travel.
“While people have a right to defend their culture and customs, other members, such as women, have as much right to challenge aspects of it, and if their challenge has constitutional backing – which it clearly has in this [Shilubana’s] case – their right has so much more legitimacy – something the courts have clearly recognised,” Roodt said.
In 1968, Shilubana’s father, Hosi Fofoza Nwamitwa, died without a male heir. Customary law at the time did not permit a woman to become Hosi. Hosi Fofoza was succeeded by his brother, Richard Nwamitwa.
During 1996 and 1997 the Valoyi authorities passed resolutions that Shilubana would succeed Hosi Richard, since the new constitution meant women were equal to men.
However following Hosi Richard’s death in 2001, his eldest son challenged Shilubana’s succession. The Constitutional Court decided in 2008 that although only males had been allowed to lead the community in the past, the Valoyi authorities had the right to develop their customs and traditions, and they did so in accordance with the constitutional right to equality.
Shilubana’s appeal was upheld and she succeeded Hosi Richard.
If Princess NomaXhosa is going to rely on the Shilubana case and the findings of the Constitutional Court to become Queen of the amaXhosa, it will have to be shown that the royal family wants her as queen, and that its culture has changed to allow this.
