Publications
Partners
The discussion of monarchies and their ‘value’ is a highly controversial topic. Attempts to open debate regarding this matter are often met with resistance and anger as it is not ‘Politically Correct’ to question these structures. It is therefore important to start this piece by emphatically stating that monarchies are an important part of South African heritage, its culture and its people, and should never be done away with.
However, this piece will take the concept of monarchies out of its ‘glass box’ to debate the merits and value they add to society and, more importantly, ask the question: “Why aren’t the followers of monarchies paying for their own leaders?”
The South African government will be forking out R650mil in 2015 to pay for royal families and traditional leaders, making ‘Nkaaaandlahhh’ seem like a once-off bargain. The largest chunk of this money will go to the controversial Zulu King, Goodwill Zwelithini, and his family – an estimated R54.2mil. Being the largest and most outspoken monarch, and including the fact that he is able to spend the money faster than the Republic is able to replenish it, we will focus our attention here.
Let’s start by asking how we got to this point and why the government is flogging this money to pay for these ‘leaders’. Once upon a time, a long, long, time ago, South Africa was leading up to the 1994 elections. This was a time when Zwelithini’s province (KZN) was racked by violence and unrest. Most of the aggression occurring between supporters of the Zulu Nationalist, Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), and Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC).
Steven Friedman, the director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at both Rhodes University and the University of Johannesburg commented: “This made the new government particularly concerned not to antagonise the king and his supporters for fear of triggering more violence.”
He went on to say that, “The perks which he (Zwelithini) receives could therefore be viewed as an attempt to prevent that violence. If keeping the King in relative luxury is the price which must be paid for saving lives, it is worth paying.”
So in essence, it was a peace offering to stem the tides of cross-cultural violence and encourage peaceful integration into a democratic rainbow nation. Prior to this ‘peace’ offering it was up to the Zulu people to support their own king, and the same went for all other traditional Leaders in SA.
So where does that leave us now, 21 years later?
It’s the ONLY apartheid legacy that seems to be favoured or, as we mentioned before, skilfully protected by ‘Political Correctness’. The problem with this ‘Peace Offering’ can be explained as such: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” and the ANC couldn’t be seen showing nepotism by paying only one ‘leader’.
The ANC, therefore, had to introduce a system where it paid ALL traditional leaders. These payments continued during Mandela’s reign and became ‘Expected’ remuneration. For lack of a better metaphor – these ‘Peace’ payments are similar to paying maintenance or ‘spousal support’ when couples get divorced. When a couple gets divorced the bread-winner will pay a calculated amount of ‘spousal support’ so that the aggrieved partner can maintain a certain level of creature comforts they had become accustomed too. In a similar manner - the state and traditional leaders are ‘separate’ entities. The ‘leaders’ became used to these payment and the rewards associated with such a position, and as a result, accustomed to living a certain way of life. Therefore government had to continue paying maintenance to prevent the separated couple from further disputes.
Unfortunately, this maintenance payment was also a fantastic way of maintaining the ‘status quo’ and ensuring the support of the majority – by paying these leaders to make sure their followers ‘ticked the right box’.
The traditional leaders knew this and so their demands for money and other luxuries steadily increased over the years to where it is today, while at the same time adding zero additional value to either their own people’s lives or the collective country as a whole.
The biggest argument can be found in the question: “What value do other monarchies add?” or, worded differently, “Why can’t we waste money on this – other countries are doing it?”
While the reasoning behind this mentality should be questioned, it is a totally different conversation altogether. Instead, we will use numbers and examples to illustrate the point, and what better example to use than the one which is brought up every time a monarchy is mentioned – The British Royal Family (BRF).
Did you know that the BRF is the highest paid family monarchy in Europe? They earn 35.7mil Pounds per year, or roughly R675mil.
“What? Are you kidding me? And you want to complain about the Zulu King earning R54mil?”
Let us not forget that the UK GDP is $2.678tril (2013) compared to South Africa’s $350bil, so as a country they also have a lot more money than South Africa – a LOT more! You can’t expect a secretary to buy a Lamborghini, but a CEO might be able to afford it.
But there’s more. According to the Republicans in Britain, they estimate the total cost of the BRF to be closer to 300mil Pounds – wow. Now those are ridiculous figures. But before you sit back, light your cigar and assume victory over the monarchy debate, consider that tourism statistics for Britain estimate that the total annual revenue generated by the royal family alone is 500mil Pounds. This means that they not only pay for themselves, but actually contribute positively to the British economy too.
While the same cannot be said for ALL monarchies, most are, in some way or another, either able to subsidize their cost through tourism or are likely to add to the country’s GDP. After scouring tourism websites and good old-faithful Google, not one article identified the direct value added by the Zulu monarchy, either in the form of tourism or any other income generation.
In a country clearly spiralling out of control in regard to its debts, the rising costs of every tariff and levy imaginable, Etolls and, most recently, a review of increasing VAT from 14% to 15%, it is clear that South Africa needs every cent possible to either pay off debts or stimulate the economy by upgrading infrastructure and boosting job creation.
Which brings us back to our main point. The British public all fall under the BRF and therefore the cost to each individual to maintain the BRF is roughly £0.56 (about R10) per year. As mentioned before, prior to 1994 the respective traditional leaders and their lifestyles were maintained by their followers – their ‘loyal subjects’. The only reason for government paying them was to ensure a peaceful democratic election and transition into a new rainbow nation.
The question is now, 21 years later: Should we still be paying these people for peace?
As a Zulu person, you should never have to pay for someone else’s King i.e. Xhosa King and vice versa. There are 10mil Zulus, according to the latest census, so why not charge each ‘loyal subject’ R5.40 per year to pay for their traditional leader? However not all Zulu people fall within the taxable bracket. So assuming that the number of taxpayers in South Africa has risen since 2013 from 3.3mil to 4mil, let’s say that 1mil taxpayers are Zulu (Rough estimates). Zwelithini’s R54mil (and growing) account should be divided amongst those tax payers’ SARS accounts i.e. all Zulu tax payers get charged R54 per year. This information is already on the SARS database.
The same goes for whichever culture or king anyone else follows. This will reduce the burden of government to foot the bill, return accountability of leadership to its people and free the country from our current ‘pay for votes’ situation.
At the very least, government should review these payments annually and reward or penalise these ‘leaders’ based on their performance within the region. What is the point of paying Zwelithini a ‘peace offering’ if he’s going around spewing xenophobic hatred, resulting in the deaths of countless foreigners whose only crime was to be less lazy and more proactive than the locals they supported?
However, these changes are unlikely - at least until the ‘changing of the guards’ takes place.
