Dr Tafataona Mahoso

THERE is a profound link between technology and rituals and protocols of place and space.
Take for example the profound rituals which the discovery of fire technology unleashed: ‘from the burning bush of Genesis to the Olympic Flame; from the altar candles to the combustion engine and the astronaut’s space craft; from the mother’s hearth to fires for sacrificing sweet incense to the highest God; from the match-stick to the beacons that guide air planes for take-off or landing’.
African living law therefore requires the youths to ‘embrace your imagination’ and ‘harness technology’ in accordance with the living laws of unhu.
This means that African youths must scientifically examine and evaluate the protocols and rituals which are being constituted and instituted for instance through the common misnamed social media and other phenomenon which the latest technologies have brought about.
They must also examine and understand the purpose and interest of those who promote certain gadgets and platforms as opposed to others.
I have mentioned the vast array of rituals and protocols which the discovery of fire unleashed to enrich human life.
In Ushaba, Jordan Ngubane gives us some insight into the reasons why apartheid man and the white slave master (in Africa and in the West) universally feared and banned the African drum (ngoma).
“An African theologian, trained in Europe, recently delivered a sermon in the Anglican Cathedral in Cape Town and stated that the (African) drum (ngoma) constitutes the key into the understanding of the African; that it is his Bible, his theology and his ritual (of place and space) rolled into one; that when he beats the (ngoma), God arises in him.
(The African theologian) told his white audience that what white Christians need most is to cultivate the capacity to respond to the elemental message of the drum beat; to grasp the implications of the truth that when the African beats the drum, he issues a command to creation; when he dances… he involves himself in the process of commanding creation; in the elemental harmony which makes him (a munhu).
“This was communism (to the slave master and to apartheid man).
“A fortnight (after the sermon), the theologian was banned; it became a crime for him to preach from any pulpit or to attend any gathering of any type or to have anybody in his house other than members of his immediate family, his doctor or lawyer, of course any policeman”.
The teaching which the African theologian attempted, and which resulted in his banning and house arrest, is part of the African curriculum in African living law which in Zimbabwe had to be evacuated to the pungwe in the liberated zones during the Second Chimurenga.
The story gives us a glimpse into the white man’s response to African indigenous knowledge, indigenous technology and originality.
This is in great contrast to the common slogan telling youths to just ‘embrace technology’!
Unfortunately for us now, African youths are being told to abandon and forget the pungwe and all its rituals and protocols.
They are being told instead to just ‘embrace technology’ regardless of whose technology it is or what it does.
These are some of the messages in the local press which bombard African youths today:
“African culture collides with basic human rights,” — Sunday Gazette, April 10 1994; or
“Do we still need Chimurenga narrations?” – The Star, Voice of Mash West, June 18 2014; or
“Yesterday died last night,” – Newsday November 30 2010.
Chimurenga was fought on the basis of African living law precisely because all the guerrilla armies and the rural communities supporting them were terrorists and outlaws in terms of the prevailing Roman Dutch Law and English Common Law in Rhodesia.
This was made perfectly clear in Rhodesian Foreign Minister P. K. Van Byl’s letter of appeal to the US government against the African freedom fighters on January 12 1979.
The 1998 book called Pursuing Grounded Theory in Law: South-North Experiences in Developing Women’s Law, went some way to recognise the continuing vibrancy of living African law in Zimbabwe, but the authors could not free themselves of the derogatory or pejorative language which has become conventional among non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academics and lawyers when describing indigenous African knowledge and practice.
The authors made the following observations, for example:
“If the (legal) researcher starts with a research design to collect data on the interviewee’s knowledge of the content of legislation the finding at the end of the research might be that there is ignorance of the law, but this could be a very misleading finding for a number of reasons.”
“Some individuals may not be able to articulate their knowledge in the formal sense (and in the alien language being used), but may have (more than) adequate perceptions of the relevant norms in their practical consciousness, norms that have been internalised in the course of the socialisation process and followed without deliberation or reflection. Ordinary individuals are aware of norms and often debate their content and defend their perceptions of local norms.
“But they do not usually articulate these as norms or legal concepts (familiar to those steeped in Roman-Dutch or English law), but (they articulate these) as information they have acquired from various sources or imbibed as part of the community.
Thus, both formal law and customs and practices can be among the (Southern African) population as detailed and precise discursive knowledge or as applied unconsciously assimilated knowledge.”
In other words, the researcher is in danger of mistaking her own ignorance for the ignorance of those being interviewed.
“To avoid falling into the trap of assuming ignorance of the law when there is knowledge among the community of norms and practices, the researcher should ask a number of fundamental questions…”
One of the fundamental questions is: How could a people wage a liberation struggle as outlaws for over 50 years and succeed without law of their own? How can the same people behave (after independence) in such a way as to suggest that they have no law of their own and they must now be taught Roman Dutch Law by their former slave master?
l To be continued