South African Bill Evokes Apartheid Era

The Traditional Courts measure, which gives power to local chiefs, threatens to undermine democracy.

Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images

(The Root) -- Imagine being subject to a separate law because of your ethnic group. Imagine having no choice over who your leaders are. Imagine not being allowed to have a lawyer at a legal hearing. Imagine being told that your case can't be heard because you're a woman and your victory would "make women disrespectful" to their husbands. Imagine being sentenced to forced labor. And imagine that you can't opt out of this system.

Apartheid tumbled in South Africa in 1994. But if the proposed Traditional Courts Bill (pdf) makes its way into South African law, the above may become a reality for an estimated 17 million South Africans -- all of them black, most of them poor and living in rural areas formerly defined as "homelands" for black South Africans under apartheid.

The bill has been bouncing around since 2008 and is now wrapping up hearings at the provincial level, where chiefs who stand to gain status and power have been enthusiastic supporters. It is expected to gain approval from the council of provinces; from there it will go to the National Assembly for a vote.

The bill is a reprise of the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927 (pdf), which put black South Africans under the rule of traditional leaders established by proclamation, not parliament. That law was part of a parcel of hateful apartheid-era legislation that made blacks second-class citizens in their own country.

The proposal says the new bill is intended to prevent conflict and maintain harmony in communities through traditional courts that can hear civil and criminal cases. There is some merit there: South African courts are overburdened and this bill would allow the government to unload some of its caseload. The traditional courts should provide quicker resolutions and should respect local customs. And from a policing standpoint, community disapproval can be a strong deterrent to crime -- except when it strays into vigilantism, as it has all too often in South Africa's slums. In fact, the disturbing trend of vigilantism has been blamed by at least one think tank on the homeland system.

Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

Critics including the Democratic Alliance Party claim the bill will also trample the constitutional rights many South Africans fought so hard to gain. "It's essentially authoritarian rule by traditional leaders," Sindiso Mnisi Weeks, a senior researcher at the Law, Race and Gender Research Unit of the University of Cape Town, told The Root. The LRG has produced an informative video detailing the issues of the bill. "You talk to older people as well and they say, 'This is not our culture, this is apartheid.' People say, 'How can our government do this to us?' "

Furthermore, Mnisi Weeks says, the bill gives the chief sole discretion to decide what is customary. "In this case you're talking about an individual who's given the power; the law is not written down anywhere and no one can contradict him," she said. "There's no accountability." The bill also allows traditional leaders to sentence people to a range of punishments including forced labor and confiscation of land.

And although the text provides for women and men to participate equally, critics ssay that is not the reality. That became clear to Mpumalanga resident Paulinah Sithole when she sought a court hearing over a dispute with her longtime partner. "They said I would make women disrespectful if they allowed me to win my case," she told Johannesburg's City Press newspaper. "They said I would make women stand up for their rights and then they will be disrespectful to their husbands." She concluded: "This is what happens to women who are under the chiefs. We stay under. Forever."

Who, then, supports this bill?