318 GOVERNING ESSENTIAL RESOURCES IN ACTION
Kyed and Buur (2006, ii) argue that “traditional leaders now officially
form part ofestablishing some kind of bottom-up benign governance
based on a variety of different local, national and transnational modalities
of power.” The postcolonial African state has, however, remained largely
centralized, with minimal devolution of power to institutions at the bot-
tom, yet such institutions remained central to the everyday experiences
of rural people. The knowledge of communities and resources built up
over centuries is instilled within these structures, yet their involvement
remains peripheral and token.
Mamdani (1996) theorizes that indirect rule under colonization cre-
ated traditional leaders in Africa as decentralized despots. Keulder notes
that traditional leaders were given extensive coercive powers and subse-
quently became local-level lawmakers, tax collectors, police commission-
ers, and judges.2 Colonial authorities thus found a way to ensure order
by using customary law and appointing the chiefs they wanted. The post-
colonial state in Africa inherited this system and has continued to use
chiefs to ensure political survival. In Zimbabwe, Mandondo (2000) high-
lights that the Traditional Leaders Act (1998) replicated the colonial roles
played by chiefs and allied traditional leaders. Chiefs are appointed by the
president with roles that include the supervision of headmen, promotion
of cultural values, and oversight of the tax and levy collection for rural
district councils. Moreover, chiefs were meant to ensure that land and
natural resources were used in accordance with national legislation—espe-
cially legislation prohibiting overcultivation, overgrazing, and deforesta-
tion (Mandondo 2000). Without proper authority this institution has
lost the ability to enforce environmental regulation and equal access to
the commons for local communities.
When defining traditional leadership in Africa, it is important to
contextualize local definitions and societal constructions. Traditional
leaders and institutions are varied in their appearance and importance.
They also differ in how they relate to natural resource governance and in
their efficacy in resource mobilization. Traditional leadership is defined as
an authentic authority that encourages decentralization with clear lines
of communication and values (Wunsch and Olowu 1990). Its authentic-
ity is derived from the fact that traditional leaders know they cannot
operate in a vacuum—nyika vanhu or ilizwe ngabantu (the people make
the nation)—so people are empowered and given a voice. In practice,
however, traditional leadership tends to be a complex interplay of negotia-
tion, compromise, and dictation between past customs and the modern