Questioning the Selfishness of a City That Has Forgotten Its Ancestral Roots
By HRH Princess Eugene Majuru, Princess of Harare | Sovereign Custodian of the Mbari Clan, Royal Family of Harare
There is a question that Zimbabwe must eventually confront honestly:
Why are some people so uncomfortable with the idea of Harare reconnecting with its traditional leadership and ancestral heritage?
Why should the restoration or recognition of a historical chieftainship automatically be treated as a threat to modern urban government?
And perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all is this:
Why should the people of the Mbari clan be expected to accept the loss of their traditional institution when other Zimbabwean communities continue to enjoy theirs?
These are not questions about replacing City of Harare with traditional leadership.
They are questions about identity, history, belonging, cultural rights and fairness.
HARARE DID NOT BEGIN WITH CITY HALL
Before there was a municipal council, before there were councillors, mayors, town clerks, planning departments, municipal by-laws and modern administrative boundaries, there were communities, families, clans, spiritual institutions and traditional authorities.
The Mbari clan’s historical account places Harare, together with areas including Mazoe and Mount Hampden, within the ancestral territory associated with the Shumba Gurundoro — the Great Lion — and the Mbari royal lineage.
The clan’s position is that colonial occupation disrupted this traditional order and that the consequences of that disruption have never been properly addressed.
The year 1897 is therefore remembered within this historical narrative as part of a much longer story of dispossession and disruption following British colonial occupation.
Whatever one’s position on the historical claims, Zimbabwe cannot build a confident future by pretending that these questions do not exist.
A nation that celebrates traditional leadership in some parts of the country must also be prepared to examine historical claims concerning traditional institutions that were disrupted by colonialism.
WHY IS IT ACCEPTABLE ELSEWHERE BUT CONTROVERSIAL IN HARARE?
This is where the question of fairness becomes unavoidable.
Across Zimbabwe, traditional leaders continue to preside over communities, protect cultural practices, preserve histories, facilitate development and participate in matters affecting their communities.
Indeed, Zimbabwe’s Constitution expressly recognises the institution, status and role of traditional leaders. Section 282 gives traditional leaders functions including preserving the culture, traditions, history and heritage of their communities and facilitating development.
So why should the historical traditional institution associated with Harare be treated as though it is inherently incompatible with modernity?
Why should a Harare family that identifies itself with an ancestral traditional institution be told, in effect, that traditional leadership is appropriate for rural Zimbabwe but somehow unacceptable in the capital?
That deserves an answer.
It is not an argument against modern government.
It is an argument against cultural exclusion.
WHERE WILL THE MBARI PEOPLE HOLD THEIR CEREMONIES?
This is one of the questions that cannot simply be dismissed.
If a clan has been historically dispersed, where does that clan gather?
Where does it hold its traditional ceremonies?
Where are its sacred places?
Where do descendants return when they want to reconnect with their ancestors?
Where does the next generation learn its history?
And how does a scattered clan maintain unity when the ancestral centre of its identity is no longer recognised?
These are not merely political questions.
They are questions of cultural continuity.
A community cannot be expected to preserve its heritage indefinitely while being denied a meaningful relationship with the geographical heart of that heritage.
If Zimbabwe genuinely believes in preserving culture, then the preservation of the Mbari heritage cannot be treated as an inconvenience.
IS THE PROBLEM REALLY TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP — OR THE FEAR OF SHARING SPACE?
Perhaps the deeper issue is not whether Harare can accommodate traditional heritage.
Perhaps the question is whether some people are comfortable with a system in which modern institutions and traditional institutions work alongside each other.
There appears to be an assumption in some quarters that recognising a historical chieftainship would somehow mean handing municipal government to a chief.
That is not necessarily the proposition.
A modern city can have an elected council.
It can have central-government oversight.
It can have metropolitan institutions.
And it can also have recognised traditional custodians involved in matters of culture, heritage, sacred places, community identity, historical preservation and development partnerships.
The Constitution itself recognises cultural and heritage responsibilities for traditional leaders.
The question therefore should not be:
“How do we keep traditional authority away from Harare?”
It should be:
“How can Harare’s modern government and its historical custodians work together within the law?”
That is a very different question.
A CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN MODERNITY AND HERITAGE
Harare can have roads, hospitals, universities, businesses, shopping centres, skyscrapers, transport systems and municipal government.
It can also have traditional ceremonies.
It can have heritage sites.
It can have cultural institutions.
It can recognise historical communities.
It can establish museums and cultural centres.
It can preserve sacred places.
It can teach the history of the people who lived here before colonial rule.
There is no contradiction.
In fact, many modern cities around the world understand that their historical identity is part of what makes them valuable.
Why should Harare be different?
THE GREATER DANGER IS CULTURAL AMNESIA
A city that forgets where it came from eventually struggles to understand where it is going.
Harare is currently facing serious questions about governance, infrastructure, water, roads, traffic, sanitation, business confidence, public spaces and accountability.
The answer cannot simply be to remove people from streets and declare that the problem has been solved.
Nor can the answer be to continue operating institutions in isolation from one another.
And neither can the answer be to exclude the historical communities whose relationship with the land predates the modern administrative structures.
The Constitution establishes urban local authorities as institutions responsible for managing local affairs.
That constitutional reality should be respected.
But constitutional local government does not require cultural amnesia.
City government and traditional heritage can coexist.
WE MUST QUESTION THE SELFISHNESS
At what point does institutional self-interest become selfishness?
If people are comfortable with traditional chiefs in their own rural communities, why should they object to the possibility of a properly recognised historical traditional institution associated with Harare?
If people can return to their rural homes for traditional ceremonies, why should descendants of Harare’s historical communities have no equivalent relationship with their ancestral centre?
If communities across Zimbabwe can preserve their traditions, why should one community be expected to remain permanently disconnected from its own historical institution?
These questions deserve serious consideration rather than ridicule, dismissal or political hostility.
Nobody should be asked to surrender their culture simply because their ancestral territory eventually became a major city.
THE MBARI CLAN SHOULD NOT SEEK TO REPLACE CITY GOVERNMENT
There must also be honesty from those advocating for the restoration or recognition of Mbari traditional leadership.
The objective should not be to create confusion about who has statutory responsibility for municipal services.
The City of Harare has constitutional responsibilities.
Government has its own constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
Traditional leadership has constitutionally recognised cultural and customary functions.
The answer is therefore not one institution swallowing another.
The answer is defined partnership.
The Mbari clan could potentially have a recognised role in cultural heritage, traditional ceremonies, historical preservation, sacred places, community mobilisation, heritage tourism and development initiatives, subject to the Constitution and legislation.
Traditional leaders are also constitutionally assigned a function of facilitating development.
That creates an opportunity for dialogue rather than confrontation.
HARARE NEEDS A NEW CONVERSATION
Imagine a Harare where the City Council, central government, traditional custodians, residents, businesses, universities, historians, architects and development partners sit around the same table.
Imagine a properly documented Harare Heritage and Traditional Leadership Framework.
Imagine a cultural centre where the history of Harare’s indigenous communities is preserved.
Imagine designated spaces for traditional ceremonies where appropriate.
Imagine heritage trails connecting historical sites.
Imagine young people learning about the history of the Mbari clan alongside the history of colonialism, independence and modern Zimbabwe.
Imagine traditional custodians participating in long-term discussions about heritage, environmental protection, community development and cultural tourism.
That would not destroy modern Harare.
It could give Harare something it desperately needs:
a stronger sense of identity.
THE 46-YEAR QUESTION
For decades, questions concerning the recognition or resuscitation of traditional institutions have remained unresolved in different parts of Zimbabwe.
A recent Auditor-General report specifically identified concerns around the alignment of the Traditional Leaders Act with the constitutional provisions concerning the creation and resuscitation of chieftainships, noting that this has affected the resuscitation and approval of some chieftainships.
That means the question cannot simply be dismissed as somebody’s imagination.
There is a legal and administrative framework that needs examination.
If there is historical evidence supporting a claim, let the evidence be examined.
If there are legal obstacles, let them be identified.
If legislation needs reform, let Parliament debate it.
If boundaries need clarification, let historians, traditional leaders, communities, government and legal experts examine them.
But do not bury the question.
THE MBARI PEOPLE DESERVE AN ANSWER
The people of the Mbari clan should not have to spend generation after generation asking:
Where is our traditional institution?
Where are our ceremonies?
Where is our recognised cultural home?
Where do our descendants gather?
Why was our history disrupted?
Why are other communities allowed to enjoy traditional institutions while ours remains unresolved?
These questions deserve a serious institutional response.
Not insults.
Not political labelling.
Not silence.
Not endless postponement.
HARARE CAN HAVE BOTH
I believe the debate should move beyond the false choice between traditional authority and modern government.
Harare can have an effective City Council.
Harare can have accountable metropolitan government.
Harare can have national government oversight.
And Harare can also have its historical heritage and traditional custodians properly recognised within the Constitution and the law.
The challenge is to design a system that respects all of these institutions without confusing their responsibilities.
That is leadership.
That is planning.
That is nation-building.
LET US STOP BEING AFRAID OF HISTORY
Those who oppose any discussion about restoring or recognising Harare’s historical chieftainship should explain what exactly they fear.
Do they fear ceremonies?
Do they fear cultural revival?
Do they fear historical research?
Do they fear the creation of heritage institutions?
Do they fear dialogue between traditional custodians and modern government?
Or do they simply prefer the status quo because they have become accustomed to a city disconnected from its ancestral story?
A dysfunctional status quo should never become the definition of normality.
Harare deserves better.
And the descendants of the people whose history is intertwined with this land deserve the opportunity to have their history heard, documented and considered.
This is not about taking Harare backwards.
It is about asking whether Harare can move forward without erasing the people and institutions that came before it.
The Shumba Gurundoro — the Great Lion — should not have to roar forever from the margins of its own history.
The Mbari clan should be allowed to ask legitimate questions about its heritage.
Zimbabwe should be mature enough to listen.
And if the historical evidence supports the restoration or recognition of a traditional institution, then the country should have the courage to examine the matter through lawful, transparent and respectful processes.
Harare belongs to the future. But its future cannot be separated from its history.
As Sovereign Custodian of the Mbari Clan, I will continue to speak about the historical, cultural and ancestral questions surrounding Harare.
Not because I seek to replace modern government.
But because a people without memory can easily lose their identity.
And a city without respect for its history can become nothing more than buildings, roads and boundaries.
Harare is more than that.
It has a history.
It has communities.
It has heritage.
It has ancestral memory.
And it is time Zimbabwe had the courage to confront that history honestly.
I have spoken. Those with ears to hear have heard. We now expect dialogue. We expect fairness. We expect recognition of history. And above all, we expect change — real change.
Comments
About Author
