3.4 Analysis
157
Respondent 3 perceives the Amakhosi as being a hindrance to the implementation of
green or ecological infrastructures, despite the fact that research suggests that implementing such infrastructures can improve people’s lives. In other words, research
produces knowledge about ecological infrastructures, and it is constructive in that it
brings about positive change, whereas discord produces the exact opposite.
Moreover, we see several organs of state operating within the green and ecological infrastructures issue area. The one that stands central is, of course, the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality. However, an organ of state, which is not easily
categorised as such, includes the Amakhosi. Nevertheless, the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act (No. 41 of 2003) (RSA 2003) stipulates the
role and functions of traditional leadership and individual leaders, and therefore
the role of the Amakhosi, in the political processes. The Act defines a traditional
leader as ‘…any person who, in terms of customary law of the traditional community concerned, holds a traditional leadership position, and is recognised in terms of
this Act’ (RSA 2003: 8). The Act also defines a ‘senior traditional leader’ as ‘…a
traditional leader of a specific traditional community who exercises authority over a
number of headmen and headwomen in accordance with customary law, or within
whose area of jurisdiction a number of headmen or headwomen exercise authority’
(RSA 2003: 8).
If we follow Easton’s definition of politics (1965 and 1985, cited in Meissner and
Ramasar 2015) as the authoritative allocation of resources in society, we see that
the Amakhosi have such an authoritative role, especially with regard to the allotment
and distribution of land in buffer zones. However, as mentioned above, because
the participation of the Amakhosi is linked to provincial government structures, we
recognise that the relationship between the organs of state, particularly between
the local government and traditional leaders, is not always harmonious. This is an
intrinsic characteristic of the practice of governance in society, which is not always,
and under all circumstances, in agreement. This trait not only reveals the quality of
the governance practices concerning an ecological infrastructure, but it also shows
that governance hierarchies have no clear boundaries and that one government actor
is not always at the top (Knill and Lehmkuhl 2002; Rosenau 2006, 2008; Meissner
and Ramasar 2015).
What is more, collaboration and contestation entail the involvement of dissimilar actors, resulting in the multi-varied nature of governance systems (Funke and
Meissner 2011) and their enmeshed hierarchical nature (Meissner and Ramasar
2015). The fact that various governance authorities are involved in the implementation of green and ecological infrastructures shows that the issue is not always a clearcut local government function, which is something that decision-makers should take
into consideration in their planning. A further feature that characterises the contested
nature of ecological infrastructures is the notion of autonomous preferences that give
rise to the Amakhosi’s choices in allocating land in the buffer zones.
Where liberal institutionalism focuses on collaborative, or non-harmonious, structures and actors (e.g. in allocating land), social constructivism highlights the normative aspects that are operational in the structures constructed by various role players.
I will turn to this social theory in the next few pages (Fig. 3.25).
157
Respondent 3 perceives the Amakhosi as being a hindrance to the implementation of
green or ecological infrastructures, despite the fact that research suggests that implementing such infrastructures can improve people’s lives. In other words, research
produces knowledge about ecological infrastructures, and it is constructive in that it
brings about positive change, whereas discord produces the exact opposite.
Moreover, we see several organs of state operating within the green and ecological infrastructures issue area. The one that stands central is, of course, the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality. However, an organ of state, which is not easily
categorised as such, includes the Amakhosi. Nevertheless, the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act (No. 41 of 2003) (RSA 2003) stipulates the
role and functions of traditional leadership and individual leaders, and therefore
the role of the Amakhosi, in the political processes. The Act defines a traditional
leader as ‘…any person who, in terms of customary law of the traditional community concerned, holds a traditional leadership position, and is recognised in terms of
this Act’ (RSA 2003: 8). The Act also defines a ‘senior traditional leader’ as ‘…a
traditional leader of a specific traditional community who exercises authority over a
number of headmen and headwomen in accordance with customary law, or within
whose area of jurisdiction a number of headmen or headwomen exercise authority’
(RSA 2003: 8).
If we follow Easton’s definition of politics (1965 and 1985, cited in Meissner and
Ramasar 2015) as the authoritative allocation of resources in society, we see that
the Amakhosi have such an authoritative role, especially with regard to the allotment
and distribution of land in buffer zones. However, as mentioned above, because
the participation of the Amakhosi is linked to provincial government structures, we
recognise that the relationship between the organs of state, particularly between
the local government and traditional leaders, is not always harmonious. This is an
intrinsic characteristic of the practice of governance in society, which is not always,
and under all circumstances, in agreement. This trait not only reveals the quality of
the governance practices concerning an ecological infrastructure, but it also shows
that governance hierarchies have no clear boundaries and that one government actor
is not always at the top (Knill and Lehmkuhl 2002; Rosenau 2006, 2008; Meissner
and Ramasar 2015).
What is more, collaboration and contestation entail the involvement of dissimilar actors, resulting in the multi-varied nature of governance systems (Funke and
Meissner 2011) and their enmeshed hierarchical nature (Meissner and Ramasar
2015). The fact that various governance authorities are involved in the implementation of green and ecological infrastructures shows that the issue is not always a clearcut local government function, which is something that decision-makers should take
into consideration in their planning. A further feature that characterises the contested
nature of ecological infrastructures is the notion of autonomous preferences that give
rise to the Amakhosi’s choices in allocating land in the buffer zones.
Where liberal institutionalism focuses on collaborative, or non-harmonious, structures and actors (e.g. in allocating land), social constructivism highlights the normative aspects that are operational in the structures constructed by various role players.
I will turn to this social theory in the next few pages (Fig. 3.25).