By Princess Eugene Majuru, Princess of Harare
The debate sparked by Mangaliso Ndlovu, Member of Parliament for Zvimba South, over the alleged promotion of moral decay by public figures such as Maloti and Hulengende, opens a far deeper and more complex national question—one that goes beyond individual conduct and into the structural exclusion of traditional authority from Zimbabwe’s moral and cultural governance.
At face value, Mangaliso’s remarks in Parliament reflect a familiar concern: the perceived erosion of societal values, particularly where public personalities are seen to normalize illicit behavior, even in the presence of children. This is not a trivial concern. Across many societies, public figures wield influence that can shape norms, especially among youth. However, what is striking is not merely the issue raised, but the framework within which it is being addressed—and more importantly, what is being omitted.
Zimbabwe is not a cultural vacuum. It is a nation deeply rooted in traditional systems of governance, where Chiefs—recognized not only as community leaders but as custodians of heritage, morality, and social order—have historically played a central role in regulating conduct and preserving values. Yet, in contemporary discourse, particularly within parliamentary spaces, these traditional authorities are conspicuously absent.
This absence is not incidental; it is structural.
The marginalization of Chiefs from national conversations on morality reveals a disconnect between constitutional governance and cultural governance. Parliamentarians debate moral decay in urban centers, draft policies, and issue public condemnations, but often do so without consulting the very institutions historically entrusted with maintaining moral order. This creates a paradox: modern political actors attempt to resolve cultural crises while sidelining the cultural custodians themselves.
The situation is even more pronounced in urban contexts, particularly in Harare. As the capital city, Harare represents both the epicenter of cultural transformation and, as some argue, the most visible site of moral decline. Yet, unlike rural areas where traditional leadership structures remain intact, Harare operates without a recognized chieftainship. This absence is not organic—it is a legacy of colonial disruption.
During the colonial era, traditional governance systems in urban areas were systematically dismantled. The chieftainship of Harare, historically linked to indigenous rulers such as King Mbari, was effectively erased as British colonial administration imposed new governance models that excluded African traditional authority from urban political life. This restructuring was later entrenched in legal frameworks that continue to shape Zimbabwe’s constitutional order.
Today, the Constitution maintains provisions that effectively prevent the establishment of chiefs in major cities such as Harare and Bulawayo. While often justified on administrative or modern governance grounds, these provisions reflect colonial-era assumptions that urban spaces should be divorced from traditional authority. The result is a governance vacuum in which cultural and moral oversight—once embedded in traditional systems—is largely absent.
This raises a critical question: can Parliament, on its own, effectively regulate moral values in a society where those values are historically anchored in traditional authority?
The analogy often invoked—that of consulting a mechanic for a medical problem—captures the essence of the critique. Parliamentarians are equipped to legislate, to debate, and to enforce statutory frameworks. However, moral and cultural issues often require legitimacy that extends beyond legal authority into the realm of tradition, identity, and communal consensus. Chiefs, by virtue of their roles, embody this legitimacy.
The continued exclusion of Chiefs from discussions on moral decay not only undermines their authority but also weakens the effectiveness of any proposed solutions. Without their involvement, policies risk being perceived as detached, imposed, or lacking cultural resonance.
Equally significant is the ongoing call for the resuscitation of the Harare chieftainship. For descendants of historical rulers, including the lineage of King Mbari, this is not merely a symbolic demand—it is a call for the restoration of a governance system that once integrated cultural, moral, and political leadership. The argument is that reinstating such structures would provide a localized, culturally grounded mechanism for addressing issues like moral decay, particularly in urban settings where traditional oversight has been absent.
Critics, however, may view this push with skepticism, questioning whether reintroducing chieftainship in modern urban environments is practical or compatible with contemporary governance systems. There are concerns about jurisdictional overlap, administrative complexity, and the potential politicization of traditional roles. Yet, these concerns do not negate the underlying issue: the current system has not fully succeeded in addressing the moral and cultural challenges it seeks to regulate.
What emerges from this debate is not a simple opposition between Parliament and traditional authority, but rather a need for integration. Zimbabwe’s governance framework may need to evolve toward a hybrid model—one that acknowledges the legitimacy of both constitutional institutions and traditional leadership.
Such integration would require more than rhetorical recognition. It would involve formal mechanisms for consultation, policy collaboration, and possibly constitutional reform. Amending provisions that exclude chiefs from urban areas could be a starting point, but broader institutional alignment would be necessary to ensure that traditional leaders are not merely symbolic participants but active contributors to national discourse.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Mangaliso’s remarks serves as a catalyst for a larger conversation—one about identity, governance, and the ownership of moral authority in Zimbabwe. If moral decay is indeed a growing concern, then addressing it will require more than parliamentary debate. It will require engaging those who have long been entrusted with safeguarding the very values now perceived to be under threat.
Until then, the tension between modern political structures and traditional authority will persist, and the question will remain: who truly holds the mandate to define and defend Zimbabwe’s moral and cultural fabric?
The continued exclusion of traditional leadership from Zimbabwe’s major urban centres is rooted in constitutional law, specifically the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013. Section 283 of this Constitution provides for the institution of traditional leaders, yet in practice it confines their jurisdiction largely to communal and rural areas, thereby excluding cities such as Harare and Bulawayo from having recognised chiefs. This legal position, itself a continuation of colonial administrative frameworks, effectively prevents the restoration of urban chieftainships like that of Harare. What is even more concerning is that many parliamentarians debating issues of morality and culture appear disconnected from the very history they seek to regulate.
There is a clear gap in historical consciousness—many do not know what the name “Harare” means, its origins, or who historically ruled and served as its cultural custodians. This is not theoretical criticism but grounded in lived experience; for example, an interaction with Temba Mliswa during his tenure as Member of Parliament revealed an inability to explain the meaning or history of Harare. Such real-time evidence underscores a broader pattern: those entrusted with shaping national discourse on culture often lack foundational knowledge of it. This reality strengthens the argument that without involving traditional custodians—those rooted in the history, identity, and moral frameworks of the land—these conversations will remain incomplete. It is a position that must continue to be raised consistently until meaningful recognition and corrective action are taken.
#highlight #Zimbabwe #moraldecay #culturalcustodiansofzimbabwe #MbariClan #Hararechieftainship
Comments
About Author
