Cut inumber of recognized RSA monarchies

[observer]

The Republic of South Africa is to de-recognize 6 of the currently 13 recognized royal familes in the country on the death of the present incumbent. The grounds for the action are that these "royal families" were invented by the former apartheid regime.

A list of which familes will continue to be recognized and which will not can be found at www.timeslive.co.za/local/article577051.ece/Zuma-advises-delegitimised-royals-not-to-go-to-court.

I wonder if other African countries, suich as Nigeria, may follow this lead?

[Cinderella]

That is a big story! Thank you for posting it.

[Aidan Work]

Jul 30, 2010 5:43:17 GMT observer said:

I wonder if other African countries, suich as Nigeria, may follow this lead?

The constitutions of some African countries,such as Botswana,The Gambia,Ghana,Nigeria,Sierra Leone,Somaliland,Uganda,& Zambia,actually contain clauses that protects & recognises traditional monarchies.

These clauses would be extremely difficult to change without causing offence to the various monarchs & tribes concerned.Any government or politician who would try could find themselves out of office.

Aidan.

[observer]

Some republican constitutions do recognize the position of non-sovereign tribal monarchies (e.g., Uganda, Ghana and, of course, the RSA). Others do not (e.g., Democratic Congo). The fact that the RSA is going to de-recognize some tribal monarchs, that Uganda abolished them completely for a time (then re-recognized most of them and even created a completely new one - Ruwenzururu), and that some republics never recognized them at all (Sudan, e.g., Sultanate of Darfur), suggests that the situation may be not as black and white as you suggest, Aidan. The abolition of sovereign monarchies in much of Africa (not only the Commonwealth ones but also Tunisia, Libya, Ethiopia, Egypt, Central Africa Empire, Rwanda, Burundi) suggests that attitudes to monarchy on the African continent are flexible.

[hovite]

Aug 1, 2010 0:19:08 GMT observer said:

The abolition of sovereign monarchies in much of Africa (not only the Commonwealth ones but also Tunisia, Libya, Ethiopia, Egypt, Central Africa Empire, Rwanda, Burundi) suggests that attitudes to monarchy on the African continent are flexible.

All the countries mentioned by Aidan were formerly under British control and the survival of their traditional governments was due to the British policy of indirect rule. Native states were largely left to govern themselves, not just in Africa, but also in Asia.

Returning to the original post, here are another couple of links:

www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=421980

www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2010-07-29-zuma-deposes-two-kings-names-six-more-illegitimate