Countries of the World/COUNTRYS.BIN/dp/0416/04168.txt

Text File | 1991-06-25 | 35KB | 554 lines

$Unique_ID{COW04168}
$Pretitle{267}
$Title{Zaire
Chapter 3D.   Local Social Systems}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Irving Kaplan}
$Affiliation{HQ, Department of the Army}
$Subject{lineage
groups
slave
chiefs
status
descent
group
members
slaves
lineages}
$Date{1978}
$Log{}
Country:     Zaire
Book:        Zaire, A Country Study
Author:      Irving Kaplan
Affiliation: HQ, Department of the Army
Date:        1978

Chapter 3D.   Local Social Systems

     Of the varied sociopolitical patterns characteristic of indigenous
Zairian communities, only some elements, altered and adapted during the
colonial era and since independence, remain significant in the lives of
Zairians generally and those in rural areas particularly. Broadly the
persisting units are the local communities, often changed by the aggregation
of smaller units into larger ones, the descent groups (clans and lineages)
that bear a variable relationship to local communities, and the networks of
kin connections in which each individual is involved. There is also a residue
of the varying patterns of slavery that characterized most communities.

     Other institutions and groupings-chieftainship in its varied guises and
politicoreligious associations-either no longer exist or have changed in form
and function. Some institutions that were introduced by the Belgians and, with
modifications, have been retained by governments after independence-e.g.,
sector chieftainship-have acquired a patina of tradition, as different as they
are from the institutions of the precolonial period. Thus in many areas the
people are used to collectivity chiefs (formerly sector chiefs) and resisted
the Mobutu government's efforts to extend to them the principle of service
outside the areas to which they were native (see Administration and Public
Servants, ch. 2).

     With very few exceptions indigenous Zairian communities distinguished
their members on some scale of worthiness in addition to those based on age
and sex. In general, other things being equal, age required respect, although
seniority did not necessarily confer access to the office of highest status in
the descent group or local community. Again in general, males (and male
activities, e.g., hunting) had higher status than females, the presence in
many communities of matrilineal descent groups and matrilineally based
succession and inheritance notwithstanding. There were exceptions:
occasionally a woman succeeded to chieftainship and in some systems there were
special roles in the political hierarchy, for a ritually chosen sister of
chief or king. Further, older women past childbearing age sometimes
participated in the kind of decisionmaking usually reserved to men of the
lineage or local community.

     Even when there were no significant distinctions among free persons
(other than those based on age and sex and those requiring deference to
incumbents of political or religious office), there was almost always the
difference in status between "free" persons and "slaves." The status of
individuals that Westerners would call slaves, their treatment, and the degree
and nature of their integration into the community and its constituent groups
varied considerably from one ethnic group to another and often within such
entities, but at any given time there were, in almost all indigenous
communities, individuals whose status differed in some respects from persons
whom Westerners would tend to call free (see Slavery and its Residue, this
ch.). It has been reported that in some communities a substantial minority and
even a majority were slaves or of slave origin.

Of Kings and Chiefs

     With very few exceptions indigenous Zairian communities had chiefs of
some kind. There was, however, a good deal of variation in the scale of the
entity under a single head and therefore in the extent to which any chiefdom
was marked by a hierarchy of chiefs, the lower ones presiding over subsidiary
units. There were also considerable differences in the secular authority of
chiefs at any level, that is, in the extent to which chiefs alone or with
advice and counsel made significant decisions affecting the lives of those
under them.

     Very often a chief's most important task was to perform the religious
ritual necessary to maintain and enhance the welfare of his people. The
processes by which he came into office (whether he inherited it or was
elected-usually a combination of the two), the rites of installation, the
paraphernalia he was given, and the meaning attached to kingship or
chieftainship expressed in myth and ritual all reflected this responsibility.

     Even when a chief had much to say about the functioning of a polity on a
day-to-day basis, in making decisions on important matters (such as war or
peace), or in settling legal disputes, he rarely did it alone or in disregard
of those who were entitled to (or at least usually did) advise him. In a
number of cases, particularly in the more hierarchically organized chiefdoms
or kingdoms, a paramount chief or king (or even chiefs directly representing
him) received considerable formal deference from his subjects, and there were
times when he acted in arbitrary ways (such arbitrariness may even have been
expected) but, in the long run and over the full range of his behavior, a
chief was rarely free of constraints. In most cases even those chiefs or kings
with the greatest apparent secular authority did not legitimate it simply by
referring to their capacity to coerce their subjects but justified it on the
grounds that they represented the ancestors or the gods, a claim buttressed by
much myth and ritual. Perhaps the most important exception to this pattern
were the Zande chiefs.

     In the many autonomous political units that were limited to a village or
a cluster of villages based either on a single descent group and the
individuals attached to it or on several such groups, some related, some not,
the head of the community was the head of the sole descent group or of the
senior or dominant group. If he had significant secular authority, it was
usually limited by his need to consult the elders of the community (see
Descent Groups and Kinship, this ch.). When, as was sometimes the case, a
descent group of greater scope included those localized in autonomous
communities and extended beyond them, its chief (often the head of the senior
localized segment) was owed considerable deference; but just as the more
inclusive dispersed descent group had limited political and economic
functions, or none, so its head had few or no secular powers. More often than
not the primary responsibilities of the heads of local descent groups or
communities had to do with the performance of ritual, although they and their
elders might also be concerned with economic matters and dispute settlement.
In a few cases, e.g., among some of the Bantu-speaking groups in Equateur,
there were in addition specialized judicial officers and war chiefs.

     Among those groups in which more complex systems had emerged in the
precolonial era there was a good deal of variation in the nature of the
hierarchy and in the powers of the king or supreme chief and his subordinates,
whether they were functionally differentiated officials living in the capital
or subordinate chiefs governing the units into which the larger entity was
divided. In general the larger the kingdom the greater was the autonomy of the
chiefs who ruled those parts of it remote from the capital, but even some of
the smaller polities ruled by a king or supreme chief were marked by the
limited territorial scope of his de facto powers. In almost all cases,
however, there was an insistence on the transmission of tribute from all of a
king's domains to the capital, in return for which the king was, in principle,
their protector and court of appeal.

     In many instances, e.g., among the Zande, the supreme chief's powers and
perquisites were delegated to his subordinates except for the region
immediately surrounding his capital, which he ruled directly. In