This article examines two contradictory conceptions of customary law, as either fundamentally democratic or autocratic, and their impact on the constant reconstruction of and resistance to chiefly authority in modern-day South Africa. In the last 15 years or so South Africa has witnessed a strong legislative agenda to centralise the power of senior traditional leaders. The new traditional authority laws’ ahistorical, authoritarian understanding of customary law – as something to be defined and imposed on rural communities by senior traditional leaders – is directly opposed to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of customary law as something to be determined with reference to practice from and acceptance by the people whose customary law is under consideration. This article studies the net result of these contradictory processes on local contestations over chiefly power in the Eastern Cape. It displays the state’s concerted efforts to impose a model of traditional authority that empowers senior traditional leaders, even in contexts where local communities strongly contest this model, arguing that it contravenes their custom and history, as well as their democratic rights. The article highlights the enduring legacy of apartheid constructions, and the powerful role of contemporary governments in their recreation. New laws are an important tool in this process. They entrench an apartheid model of traditional leaders and minimise rural democracy. It is only with serious efforts of community mobilisation and legal education and support that local communities can successfully access the courts to challenge the actions taken by an alliance of chiefs and state. Ultimately, our analysis highlights an understudied link between the functioning and legitimacy of chiefs in democratic states and the autocratic or democratic conception of the customary law underlying the powers of such chiefs.

本文研究了两种相互矛盾的习惯法概念，无论是从根本上讲是民主的还是专制的，它们对现代南非不断重建和抵抗主要权威的影响。在过去的15年左右的时间里，南非目睹了强有力的立法议程，以集中传统高级领导人的权力。新的传统权威法律对习惯法的历史性，专制性理解是由传统高级领导人定义并强加给农村社区的，这与宪法法院对习惯法的解释直接相反，后者是参考实践来确定的。和正在考虑其习惯法的人们的接受。本文研究了这些矛盾过程在东开普省对主要权力的局部争夺中的最终结果。它显示了该州的一致努力，以建立一种赋予传统高级领导权力的传统权威模式，即使在当地社区强烈反对这种模式的情况下，也认为这种模式违反了他们的习俗和历史以及他们的民主权利。文章强调了种族隔离制度的悠久历史，以及当代政府在其娱乐活动中的强大作用。新法律是此过程中的重要工具。他们巩固了传统领导人的种族隔离模式，并最大程度地减少了农村民主。只有在社区动员，法制教育和支持的认真努力下，地方社区才能成功地向法院提出挑战，以挑战酋长和国家联盟采取的行动。最终，我们的分析突出了民主国家酋长的职能和合法性与作为这种酋长权力基础的习惯法的专制或民主观念之间的联系，但尚未得到充分研究。