In the somehow complex fabric of governance in Zimbabwe, the institution of traditional leadership stands as a bridge between a pre-colonial past of spiritual authority and a modern constitutional democracy.
While the constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) and the Traditional Leaders Act accord Chiefs the esteemed role of custodians of culture, land, and heritage, a cold legal reality persists: the chief is not a sovereign.
In the hierarchy of power, the traditional leader remains an administrative subordinate to an elected president, the ultimate sovereign, at whose mercy their official tenure resides.
The recent frictions involving Chief Murinye and a private entity in Masvingo are not merely isolated disputes over land boundaries; they are symptomatic of a deep-seated structural crisis that pits the socialist, communal foundations of Hunhu/Ubuntu against a relentless capitalist disposition, where the rights of the indigenous poor are increasingly squeezed by the interests of private capital.
To understand the current volatility, one must look at the legal architecture that defines the boundaries of power and the historical patterns of land ownership in Zimbabwe.
Under the Communal Land Act, all communal land is vested in the president, establishing a delegated authority model rather than a sovereign one.
While a chief may hold spiritual dominion over their ancestors’ soil, their legal right to govern that soil is effectively a lease from the ctate, making them subject to the executive's discretion for appointment, suspension, or removal.
This hierarchy ensures that when a chief challenges the status quo, they are quickly reminded of their station, as seen in the administrative calls for order by government officials who emphasise that a chief must operate within the strictures of the bureaucracy. This dynamic creates a paradox where the spiritual guardian of the land lacks the legal autonomy to protect that very land from State-sanctioned commercial interests.
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
Keep Reading
Beyond the statutes lies a profound moral and spiritual conflict that defines the Zimbabwean identity. In the philosophy of hunhu/ubuntu, land is not a commodity but a collective heritage, a sacred trust held for the living, the dead, and the unborn.
Traditional leaders are the spiritual mediums of this philosophy, yet Zimbabwe’s contemporary governance has seemingly adopted a colonial and capitalist disposition that treats land as an asset for extraction and investment.
The conflict arises when the state grants concessions to private investors, be they in mining, large-scale agriculture, or private education, on land where the community expects collective benefit.
The Chief Murinye case serves as a perfect microcosm of this tension; the public narrative often paints such disputes as a rebellious leader defying development, yet a deeper analysis reveals a community aggrieved by the commodification of their survival.
The reality of the order is such that when a private businessman operates a school on communal resources, charging fees that only the wealthy from outside the community can afford, the right to education becomes a hollow victory for the local peasant.
In this scenario, the land is being commercialised and value is being extracted by a private player, while the indigenous dwellers, the rightful heirs to the resource, become mere spectators to their own dispossession.
This highlights a critical point of concern as Zimbabwe was built on socialist foundations and the ideology of collective ownership, yet current practices often favor a capitalist disposition that undermines the very people it was meant to liberate.
The Murinye incident is, thus, the tip of an iceberg, an indicator of the deep-seated grievances regarding communal land and the aggressive encroachment of private capital that ignores the "bottom-up" benefit.
The clashes between investors and communal dwellers are becoming a national trend, reflecting a pattern where private players seek profit maximization while communities seek social equity and resource sovereignty.
Although international law, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, emphasises free, prior, and informed consent, local implementation often lags behind these global standards.
Consequently, chiefs find themselves caught in an impossible position, squeezed between representing their people's legitimate grievances and obeying the sovereign state.
Masvingo Provincial Affairs minister Ezra Chadzamira’s call for Chief Murinye to report irregularities rather than taking matters into his own hands is, from a purely administrative lens, meritable because the state has developed mechanisms for redress.
However, the tragedy is that the procedures are often too opaque or inaccessible for the communal dweller to realise their rights.
Ultimately, the relationship between the custodian and the sovereign remains fraught because the legal framework treats the chief as a civil servant while the people treat them as a king.
The grievances of the people have immense merit, but the methods used to voice them often fall outside the rigid procedural requirements of the state, leading to a clash of authorities.
The current order remains unsustainable if the sovereign continues to prioritise private capital over the communal hunhu/ubuntu of the nation.
Until the procedures of the state begin to serve the morality of the village, and until investors are held to the standard of collective benefit, the bridge between the traditional and the modern will continue to fracture under the weight of an unyielding capitalist machinery.
