Research proposal
|
|
Research proposal |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||||
The dynamics of state recognition of traditional leadership in post-Apartheid South Africa
Aim:
South Africa, in its first post-Apartheid constitution, recognises the ‘institution, status and role of traditional leadership, according to customary law’. This research, in the first place, hopes to contribute to an understanding of the reasons why South Africa’s first democratic government chose to recognise traditional leadership in spite of the role of that the institution played under Apartheid and in what way this continued legal and administrative recognition took shape. Secondly, the research is concerned with understanding the implications of this state recognition of traditional leadership at the local level. How has the position of traditional leadership at the local level changed under the new dispensation? A focus on the position, functions and functioning of traditional leadership and of possibly competing institutions in specific fields as dispute resolution, local government and land allocation should provide insight in the way in which the state takes shape at the local level. This allows for an analysis of the relation between law and reality, between policy objectives (i.p. democratisation and development) and actual local practice.
Main research questions:
What is traditional leadership? What are its distinguising features?
What is the relation between traditional leadership and customary law?
What was the position of traditional leadership before 1994?
Why did the post-Apartheid government recognise the institution of traditional leadership?
How is the recognition of traditional leaders legitimised in national discourse? What perceptions of traditional leadership exist?
What is the relation between the state at the national, provincial and local level when it comes to the recognition of traditional leadership?
What functions in the field of as dispute resolution, local government and land allocation do traditional leaders have according to national and provincial legislation and how do these formally relate to functions of other institutions at the local level?
What are the main state institutions and NGO’s at the local level and how has this changed in the period 1994-1999?
To which resources (financial, functions according to the law, symbolic) do these institutions have access?
Which functions in the field of dispute resolution, local government and land allocation are carried out by traditional leaders and which by other institutions (elected local government, other state institutions, ngo’s, business) Why? How?
To what extent does the functioning of traditional leadership comply with the representation of the institution in national discourse? Why?
How does the position of traditional leadership after 1994 compare to its position under Apartheid?
How does the post-1994 institutional framework in so-called traditional areas contribute to policy aims as democratisation and development?
|
Barbara Oomen, Van Vollenhoven Institute; Tel. In South Africa: 082-6943653; E-mail Last update April 1999 |