African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance

(AJPHERD) December 2015 (Supplement 1), pp. 37-54.

The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development in

South Africa: The case of the Kingdom of the Rain Queen
MILENA IVANOVIC
Department of Tourism, School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa. E-mail: mivanovic@uj.ac.za

Abstract
The strategic objectives of South Africas government in getting the most impoverished rural areas
in the country out from underdevelopment are: infrastructure development, poverty alleviation and
job creation. In the national policy framework, tourism is singled out as the most effective tool for
achieving pro-poor rural development through community-based tourism. A successful
implementation of pro-poor tourism development at the local level requires an inclusive approach
and developmental governance which depends on effective cooperation between tribal (traditional)
authorities and the local government. Likewise, a successful implementation of community-based
tourism development depends on active participation of community in all tourism related issues
including distribution of benefits. Since the poorest areas in the country are under the rule of tribal
authorities, the question this paper attempts to answer is whether community-based rural tourism
development can be implemented in areas under tribal chieftaincy. In understanding the role of
tribal authority in rural tourism development the focus is on royal villages in the kingdom of
Modjadji, the Rain Queen, in the Limpopo province of South Africa. The key findings from indepth interviews lead to a conclusion that traditional authorities have absolute power in making
decisions regarding every aspect of tourism development in the village, in particular employment
and share of benefits which emerged as the most contentious issue for the community. This points
to an imperative of extending the research agenda on applicability of community-based tourism
under tribal chieftaincy for achieving pro-poor developmental objectives of rural tourism
development in South Africa.
Keywords: Tribal authorities, community-based tourism, rural tourism, Modjadji the Rain Queen,
South Africa.
How to cite this article:
Ivanovich, M. (2015). The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development in South Africa:
the case of the Kingdom of the Rain Queen. African Journal for Physical, Health Education,
Recreation and Dance, Supplement 1 (December), 37-54.

Introduction
Infrastructure development, poverty alleviation and job creation remain the
foremost developmental imperatives for the South African government (DTI
Department of Trade and Industry, 2010; EDD Economic Development
Department of RSA, 2010). Historically, the areas where the worst absolute
levels of poverty are recorded with 20.2% of the population living in extreme
poverty (below food poverty line), and a further 45.5% in moderate poverty
(sacrificing food for non-food items) coincide with the boundaries of the ten

38 Ivanovic
respective Homelands or Bantustans set up by the apartheid regime (Millstein,
2014; Rogerson, 2014; StatsSA, 2012) which were under the administrative rule
of tribal authorities. Many authors contend that having the sole authority over land
ownership and land distribution put tribal authorities in a powerful position in
post-1994 negotiations with the new government and ultimately prevented their
disbandment in the new democratic dispensation (Boonzaaier, 2012; Khunou,
2011; Knoetze, 2014; Oomen, 2005). The institution, status and roles of traditional
leadership according to customary law (GCIS Government Communications,
2014) is recognised in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996,
Chapter 12, section 211). In achieving effective cooperative, interactive and
developmental governance at the local level tribal chiefs are recognised as the
public office bearers and expected to play a critical role in government strategic
objectives (Knoetze, 2014) in particular in rural development for poverty
alleviation and job creation, preservation of arts and culture, sustainable
environmental management, and most importantly tourism (DPLG Department
Provincial and Local Government, 2003).
Notwithstanding that tourism remains the most popular nontraditional rural
development strategy worldwide (Wilson, Fesenmaier, Fesenmaier & van Es,
2001) it dominates South African strategic developmental policy frameworks.
Tourism is identified as one of the six pillars of growth in South Africas New
Growth Path (EDD, 2010) and as a priority economic sector in governments
Medium-Term Strategic Framework 2011-2016 (DPME Department: Planning,
Monitoring and Evaluation of the Presidency of the Republic of South Africa,
2010). The Comprehensive Rural Development Programme 2009-2012 (DRDLR
Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, 2009) singles out tourism
as an effective non-agrarian activity capable of improving the quality of life of
rural people. The National Industrial Policy Action Plan 2010/11-2012/13 (DTI,
2010:82) also prioritized tourism development in rural areas because it is often
community-based and located outside of traditional tourist areas, which
encourage geographic distribution of tourism benefits.
The principle of community-based sustainable tourism development for poverty
alleviation and job creation was delineated in the first national tourism strategy,
the White Paper on the Development and Promotion of Tourism in South Africa
(DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 1996). Communitybased tourism development and its pro-poor focus remain the main themes of the
National Tourism Sector Strategy (NTSS) (NDT National Department of Tourism,
2011) and of follow up strategies, most notably the Rural Tourism Development
Strategy (NDT, 2012a) and the Heritage and Cultural Tourism Strategy (NDT,
2012b). The main purpose of the National Rural Tourism Strategy (NDT, 2012a:
22) is to deal with rural concentration of poverty and unemployment and falling
incomes and lesser job opportunities. In unlocking the potential of tourism in
rural and peri-urban areas, South Africa implemented pro-poor local economic

The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development 39

development (LED) as the novel application of pro-poor tourism in achieving
sustainable livelihoods (Rogerson, 2006) and protecting cultural and natural
resources in poverty stricken rural areas of the country. In this regard South Africa
remains a laboratory in testing and refining the principles of pro-poor tourism
(PPT) in tourism development (Rogerson, 2006). The nature and scope of actual
benefits of pro-poor tourism in rural areas are under intense academic scrutiny
(Rogerson & Rogerson, 2014; Saarinen, 2009) as national government has
prioritized tourism as the most effective sector of pro-poor growth in communitybased rural tourism development (Viljoen & Tlablela, 2007).
While considerable scholarly effort focuses on the pragmatic issues of pro-poor
tourism, sustainability and LED amongst the others, the role of traditional
authority in local tourism development is not given the attention it deserves. This
paper represents a contribution to South African rural tourism discourse as it
explores the little understood role of traditional authorities in the tourism
development nexus and, more importantly, in pro-poor community-based rural
tourism. Against this backdrop the task of this paper is to scrutinize the role of
traditional authority in local tourism development in South Africa as part of the
post-1994 democratic dispensation. More specifically, the paper is set to examine
the power of the relationship between traditional authority and the community
while focusing on the specific issues of cooperation, distribution of benefits,
employment and community empowerment which are central to community-based
rural tourism development. In particular, the paper is set to present the results of a
qualitative study carried out in three royal villages of the Modjadji the Rain Queen
area in Limpopo.
Methodologically, the paper involves analysis of two sets of sources. The first
consists of secondary sources which examine the role of traditional and local
authorities within the South African strategic policy framework underpinning rural
tourism development. The second set comprises the qualitative study based on
primary data collection by means of purposive sampling method and in-depth
interviews.
The paper is structured in three sections. First, the methodology, structure and the
context of the study is presented followed by a short background and situation
analysis of the study area of Modjadji, the Rain Queen. Second, an overview of
the relationship between two main stakeholders, local government and traditional
authority is undertaken as they are constitutionally responsible for carrying out
local tourism developments in rural areas of South Africa. Lastly, the results of indepth interviews are presented and analyzed in the context of the perceived roles
and benefits of three main stakeholders, namely community, tourism employees
and traditional authority.

40 Ivanovic
Methodology and structure
This is a qualitative study based on in-depth interviews of the community members
residing in the Rain Queens royal village of Khetlhakone in Limpopo province
(Figure 1). A survey was conducted during the months of June and July in 2014.
A non-probability snowball sampling method (Yamane, 1973) is used in
identifying community members representing three main community
stakeholders, namely traditional authorities, tourism employees and community
members not directly benefiting from tourism.

Figure 1: Map of the Limpopo Province

(Source: www.mapsharing.com)

The snowball sampling method proved to be the best if not the only possible option
for data collection (Finn, Elliott-White & Walton, 2000) from the community
living in the close-knit village under the absolute control of the royal family. The
snowball sampling recruitment process was carried out by a researcher other than
the author who was born and currently resides in the Khetlhakone royal village.
Even though the researcher was not an outsider the villagers were reluctant to
openly discuss matters regarding the involvement of the royal family in the
villages tourism activity because of the loyalty and respect they have for the royal
family and in some cases because of fear of retribution. The researcher kept a
record of all the difficulties encountered during the interview process. The biggest
problem was gaining trust and getting honest answers even from the people the
researcher had known. Some other problems were that the interviews were

The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development 41

canceled at the last minute or rescheduled numerous times, or were cut short by
the interviewees and the researcher had to resume the interviews on another
occasion. Even with the referrals the community members refused to be
interviewed.
Despite ongoing problems the researcher managed to continue with face-to-face
interviews until the point of saturation when answers became repetitive. The
saturation of information was very quickly reached because the majority of
respondents were not talkative and used only few words in answering the
questions. Except for three respondents who provided additional e insights and
gave few more detailed answers which are cited in the discussion section of the
paper, most of the answers obtained from community members are surprisingly
similar and highly repetitive. The representatives of tribal authorities were more
opinionated and provided more detailed information. The final sample consisted
of three members of the royal family, six employees in tourism and six community
members not working in tourism. The interviews were conducted in the local
Khelobedu language and carried out in conversational style, varying in length from
15 to 30 minutes. Ten pre-determined questions were linked to four main themes
of the community-based theoretical framework developed by Ndlovu and
Rogerson (2004) as presented in Table 1.
The tape-recorded interviews were transcribed and then translated into English.
The content analysis of translated data produced clear subthemes as outlined in
Table 1 which were discussed in the third section of this paper. Colour coding is
used in highlighting the main themes from three groups of respondents as specified
in Table 1. It allowed for each theme to be presented from a viewpoint of all three
stakeholders which further enriched a discussion. The inductive method was used
in data analysis.
The kingdom of Modjadji, the Rain Queen
Modjadji, the Rain Queen, the only traditionally ruling queen in Southern Africa,
settled in the area of Limpopo in the early 16th century and established the
Bolubedu tribe, a Bantu tribe of Northern Sotho origin. The Rain Queen was
respected by all tribal leaders, including the famous warrior Shaka Zulu, who
sought her blessings but were at the same time fearful of her rain making powers.
Thus, Her kingdom was never attacked for fear that as a punishment she would
send drought to their kingdoms.
The Rain Queen rules over 150 villages with 175 000 people in Limpopo province.
According to Transfrontier Park Destinations (TFPD) about 54.4% of the
population of 1.2 million BaLobedu people are women and almost 59% are less
than 20 years old. Literacy is at 34% and approximately 39% of the population
live in extreme poverty and only 34% are literate.

42 Ivanovic
Table 1: Questions used in in-depth interviews as overarching themes and subthemes
TYPE OF
ROLE OF
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
TOURISM
TRADITIONAL
BENEFITS
INVOLVEMENT
ACTIVITIES
AUTHORITY
AND
EXPECTATIONS
1. What kind of
2. What is the role of 5. What kind of
7. What is
tourist activities
traditional authority
tourism jobs are
communitys direct
take place in rural
in rural tourism
available to local
and indirect
Modjadji
development of the
community
involvement in
area
tourism
3. What parties are
6. Who works in
8. What are
involved in decision- tourism and how were expectations from
making on tourism,
they selected
tourism of those
who positioned them
involved and not
to do so, and how
involved in tourism
were they elected
4. How do the
9. What are the types
10. How does
community and
of tourism benefits
tourism affect the
traditional authority
and how are they
local community
cooperate to make
distributed between
and what effects
rural tourism in
the traditional
does it have on the
Modjadji a success
authority and the
traditional
community
authoritys
reputation

The Modjadji tribal authority consists of royal and traditional councils. The royal
compound is situated in Khetlhakone royal village where the secret ceremony of
the rain making is performed annually by the Queen and high-ranking royal
women. After a death of Makobo Modjadji, the sixth Rain Queen at the age of 27
in 2005, her uncle Mpapatla Modjadji has been declared the prince regent until the
queens daughter, now age 8, turns 21 and takes over the reign. Apart from a
captivating and unique history for which the Modjadji Dynasty has been
proclaimed part of the South African National Estate by South African Heritage
Resource Agency (SAHRA) in December 2014, the area is also known for the
Modjadji Nature Reserve which encompasses the worlds largest concentration of
the cycad species Encephalartos transvenosus known as the Modjadji cycad
(GCIS, 2014).
The kingdom of the Rain Queen is situated in Bolobedu district of Limpopos
Greater Letaba, Greater Tzaneen, and Giyani municipal councils (Sefala, 2007).
The mission of the Greater Letaba Municipal IDP for 2014-2015 is for the
promotion of local economic development and poverty alleviation in which
tourism receives the highest priority (GLM Greater Letaba Municipality, 2013).
The cornerstone of all municipal efforts is emphasis on decent work and
sustainable livelihoods as the foundation of the fight against poverty and
inequality (GLM, 2013:15). In achieving that the municipality established
Traditional Leaders Forum consisting of 10 traditional leaders and nine
represented authorities, including the representatives of the Rain Queen, which

The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development 43

meets quarterly with the mayor of the municipality to discuss the issues of
development, including tourism, and service delivery in areas under their
authority. Arising from evident cooperation between two authorities the following
section will explore to what extent the community-based rural tourism
development for poverty alleviation and job creation is actually implemented in
the area under investigation.
Powers at play
Despite the fact that a complicity of some chiefs acting as an effective
administrative arm of the apartheid regime (Jacobs, 2000) resulted in a decline of
their popular legitimacy and deterioration of their authority (Butler, 2002)
evidence exist that the system of tribal authority has survived apartheid
(Boonzaaier, 2012) and when compared to earlier sources (Hartman, Kriel,
Boonzaaier, Els & Wessermann, 1993) remains largely intact in South Africa. The
results of South Africas census of 2011 (StatsSA, 2012) reiterate the widespread
influence of tribal authority in rural communities in six of the nine South African
provinces (Eastern Cape, Free State, KwaZulu Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and
North West). Of the South African population of 51.8 million more than 17 million
people or 33% of residents in 708 traditional communities pledge their alliance to
traditional leaders (Oomen, 2005).
The South African traditional authorities currently comprise of 11 kings and one
queen, 829 senior traditional leaders (amakhosi), 5311 chiefs (inkosi), 7399
recognized headman/headwomen (induna) and 15 000 unrecognized
headman/headwomen (Johnston, 2014:253). These are organized in the national
and provincial houses of traditional leaders established by the National Act 10 of
1997 and respective provincial legislations. The Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa (Chapter 12 Section 219(1) (a)) classifies traditional leaders as
persons holding public office with specific duties whose salaries, allowances and
benefits are determined according to the Payment of Traditional Leaders Act of
1995 (No. 29 of 1995) and section 5 of the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers
(No. 20 of 1998). The specific roles and functions of tribal authorities in achieving
national developmental objectives related to each of the three spheres of South
African government (national, provincial and local) are specified in the White
Paper on Traditional Leadership and Governance (DPLG, 2003). Apart from their
traditional duties (wellbeing of communities, land use and land tenure, agriculture,
health, wealth distribution, community development, traditions, culture and
customs, and, conflict resolution; DPLG, 2003:12) they are assigned critical roles
in assisting government in implementing rural development strategy and service
delivery at the local level (GCIS, 2014). At the first sitting of the National House
of Traditional Leaders in Cape Town on 18 April 1997, Nelson Mandela urged the
members that tradition should not be seen as a sentimental attachment to the past,
but as a dynamic force relevant to present-day realities (Goodenough, 2002:14).

44 Ivanovic

One controversial area is that the effectiveness of local government in

implementing municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and providing
service delivery is often frustrated by traditional authorities. As the ownership and
distribution of land still remains in the powerful hands of traditional leaders and
not local authorities the majority of leaders are reluctant to release land for
development (GLM, 2013:107). For example, in the Greater Letaba Municipality
in Limpopo the focus of this study, traditional authorities refused to release land
needed for integrated sustainable human development as part of the municipal IDP
2014-2015 (GLM, 2013). In an attempt to resolve a standoff with tribal leaders the
local municipality explicitly set out strategy of continuous appeal to traditional
authorities for land availability (GLM, 2013). Even though the Constitution clearly
states that in the new democratic dispensation traditional authorities as public
office bearers should not be regarded as the fourth sphere of the new government,
local government still remains weakened in enforcing their own policies, plans
and strategies at the local municipal level (Khunou, 2011; Sefala, 2007).
Certain strategic tourism documents reveal government frustration in dealing with
traditional authorities. In the NTSS the national government concedes that current
efforts of national, provincial and local government in new product developments
in rural areas were largely unsuccessful (NDT, 2011). This is due to a serial
reproduction of the same products and experiences by the neighbouring
municipalities as well as poor quality, poor management and the lack of
maintenance of cultural and heritage attractions (NDT, 2011:42) under the
upkeep of traditional authorities which not only hampers the authentic tourist
experiences but also damages the image of South Africa as a tourism destination
(Ivanovic, 2014; Ivanovic & Saayman, 2013a, 2013b). Building on these points
the Rural Tourism Strategy recognizes that some prime tourism locations are
governed by traditional leaders who are entrusted to take decisions on behalf of
rural constituencies (NDT, 2012a:36). The Rural Tourism Strategy contains an
outright warning to tribal authorities. While exercising their powers and
performing their duties under customary law the tribal authorities shall give
support to the policies of the national government, regional councils and local
authority (municipal councils) and should refrain from any act which undermines
the authority of these institutions (NDT, 2012a:36). Arguably, the most important
national objectives of tourism as a tool of poverty alleviation and job creation
through community-led development in rural areas is hindered by an ongoing
conflict between local government and tribal authorities.
Despite claims of being disempowered by the national government the traditional
authorities remain highly influential symbolic and moral force in post-apartheid
South Africa (Williams, 2010). Keulder (1998) argues that the post 1994 decision
by the state to acknowledge tribal authorities was purely pragmatic as it allowed
national government to exercise some power over rural areas which evidently did

The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development 45

not succeed. Since the authority of the tribal chiefs stems from their absolute
power over material (security, land, resolving disputes) and spiritual/ancestral
worlds the community members under traditional rule are completely submissive
to their authority. So the question remains to what extent the line between
citizenship and being a subject in the system of tribal chieftaincy remains
impenetrable in a situation when supposedly community-led tourism development
is driven and overseen by traditional authorities (Williams, 2010). Indeed, it can
be questioned whether the concept of community-led tourism development (Binns
& Nel, 2002), as envisaged by the government is implementable in a context where
poverty is extreme and where obedience, respect and submission to tribal
authorities is not negotiable.
A critical issue, is how the benefits of tourism development are distributed
between traditional authorities and community members, both those involved and
not involved in tourism. Tribal authorities are resolute that the development of
tourism in the communities under their rule has only one purpose, namely to create
jobs and alleviate poverty by economically benefitting the communities. This
claim is in conflict with the fact that in 2000 the Congress of Traditional Leaders
of South Africa (Contralesa) decided to establish a private venture capital
investment firm which effectively allowed traditional leaders to monopolize the
so called identity economy as part of South Africas burgeoning rural and cultural
tourism industry (Ndlovu, 2013). A claim of monopolisation of cultural identity is
evident in the case of the kingdom of the Rain Queen, the main study area of this
paper were the royal family have sole ownership of the lodges in Modjadji Nature
Reserve, part of African Ivory route which are managed by Transfrontier Park
Destinations (TFPD), and essentially benefit from all tourism activities in the area
driven by the Modjadji brand.
Who said what in the Kingdom of The Rain Queen?
The principles of successful community-based tourism proposed by Ndlovu and
Rogerson (2004:438) are operationalized in the questions as part of in-depth
interviews presented in Table 1. While cautioning that there is no absolute
blueprint for ensuring that tourism will work for rural development the authors
identify the following guiding principles: to promote empowerment as a precursor
of community involvement in tourism; encourage active participation; identify
both tangible and intangible benefits of tourism; share the benefits and costs of
tourism; support diverse livelihood options; develop positive relationship between
community and other stakeholders.
Khetlhakone royal village is where most of tourism activity takes place. The
village has three sub-villages with a chief representing the Rain Queen. In order
to protect the identity of the interviewees the villages are labelled A, B and C

46 Ivanovic
without identifying the names of sub-villages. If the reference is not made to a
specific village the term village denotes the royal village.
Tourism activities
Culture and heritage seemed to be the most important elements of rural tourism in
the kingdom with the traditional authorities showing a strong sense of pride in
tourism to the village. Members of the local community both working and not
working in tourism were divided on the issue of what is the main reason for tourists
visiting the village. While some were under the impression that tourists only visit
the Modjadji Nature Reserve, the others knew that of course this place is known
of its Rain Queen, so yes people from all over the world are interested in visiting
the village (respondent from village B) but were not aware that tourists are
allowed to visit the Royal compound. A local respondent from village B
mentioned that tourists accompanied by a tour guide also visit a local school where
children under the instruction of their teachers recite poems, perform short plays,
sing and dance and show tourists their sculptures and drawings. This authentic
addition to the overall tourist cultural experience in the village raises awareness of
community needs and further engages tourists through volunteer tourism.
In light of the fact that local people, both those groups benefiting and not
benefiting from tourism unexplainably lacked decisive knowledge about types of
tourist activities going on in their village points to a lack of consultation process
with the community and their exclusion from decision making regarded critical
for sustainability of community-based rural tourism development.
The role of traditional authority
The traditional authorities understand that their role in tourism development is to
regulate, monitor, promote and generate significant economic benefits for the
village. In addition, their responsibility is to attract tourists throughout the year, to
determine the rules of behaviour and to keep the village clean and safe for tourists.
Evidently, traditional authorities know their role in tourism development and
perform their duties willingly and for the benefit of local community.
By their own admission, traditional authorities have an absolute power in decisionmaking whither justified by the fact that they came up with the idea of tourism in
the village which placed them in a position to make decisions regarding
development. Moreover, since the history of the Rain Queen represents the main
attraction for the village, it is their traditional role to protect, promote and interpret
culture and tradition. A respondent from the Royal council justifies this as part of
their hereditary right to rule: If we have been so successful in ruling this village
for decades making decisions every now and then, how can we fail to make
decisions on tourism and how can we fail our people all of a sudden. The most

The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development 47

interesting argument by the same respondent is that by having a few members of
the Royal council with diplomas in tourism they do not need to use only their royal
powers to put themselves in charge of tourism but also have the right education to
make it work.
On the question of cooperation with the community, the respondent from the
traditional authorities provided an educated answer on how community-based
development should be implemented. They recognized the need and importance
of partnership with the community to make tourism a success and emphasized their
own responsibility to strengthen the cooperation between them. In addition,
sharing information on new developments, equal opportunity in decision making,
random meetings to discuss tourism in the area and valuing each other as equal
members are all listed as important factors. However, community members
working in tourism revealed that cooperation is poor and little contact occurs
between the two stakeholders. They conceded that traditional authority is the pillar
of tourism in the village and that it is their prerogative to decide what has to be
done. It was revealed by one respondent from village B that tourism employees
have to get approval before making any decisions as it shows respect for their
village leaders. It contradicts the claim made by traditional authorities that they
have to be consulted only in certain matters and that tourism employees often make
decisions without consultation.
Local residents confirmed that traditional authorities play a dominant role in
tourism development in the village. Even though traditional authorities claim that
tourism is developed for the community, the community feels that tourism has
nothing to do with them. Cognisant of the fact that tourism belongs to traditional
authorities the respondent from all three villages appreciate the fact that traditional
authorities never came to any harsh decision that affected them negatively without
consulting them. The respondent from village A reveals that the community is
not consulted when there are any developments or changes besides telling them
how they should be friendly to tourists, treat them well and how they should
behave. In summary, local residents feel that the relationship with traditional
authorities kind of doesnt exist. Interestingly, the community has split views on
the issue of future cooperation with traditional authorities; while some community
members are willing to cooperate if given the chance the others expressed no
interest in tourism.
The perspective of an older resident of village C with many years of work
experience in tourism best captures the relationship between traditional authorities
and community members. According to this respondent there can be no tourism in
the village without traditional authorities because the village belongs to them,
they are the owners of the village and thereby have a right to allow and not allow
certain things. If they decide tourism is not good for the village then it will stop
regardless of what anyone else might feel.

48 Ivanovic

Community benefits
Traditional authorities maintain that the main reason for introducing tourism
development in the village is to generate economic benefits for the local
community as according to a member of the Royal council after all, tourism is
for them. They also claim that the community receives the most tourism benefits
through income and employment. Tourism jobs available to the local community
are tour guiding, local tourism officers, security guards, shop keepers, sales
personnel, cleaners, receptionists, creating and selling arts and crafts, dancing,
catering and a number of small business. The traditional authorities are also
adamant that the members of the local community are always considered for jobs
first. Every chief in the area is notified of the vacancy so that the community
members have first opportunity to apply for the position and the applicants have
to state the village and the chief they fall under. However, the chief from village
C admits that because of the shortage of skills and qualifications amongst locals
they have to advertise vacancies for senior positions in local newspapers as they
cannot risk taking people without skills. (Chief of village B). It is confirmed by
employees in tourism who mostly get informal and temporary jobs because as is
conceded they lack formal education and the right skills necessary for formal jobs.
All employees agree on the two most important personal benefits from tourism
namely: that they receive an income which they would not have received if it was
not for tourism; and that they do not need to go outside the community to work as
seasonal migrants and leave their families behind. All of them are thankful for the
jobs they have which are very difficult to find in rural areas and they praise tourism
development in the village and the role of traditional authorities.
Remarkably, even though tourism development is initiated for the community
benefit, members of the local community were not aware of any jobs available in
tourism. Even though there are few community members who admit that if people
are willing to work they would most probably find jobs (respondent from village
C) the majority claim that only those related to the royal family or with
connections to chiefs and senior tourism staff can get employment in tourism.
They also claim that although being better qualified, they were nevertheless
overlooked in favour of those with royal family ties.
The community also seems divided on the issue of benefits. Community members
are adamant that only the royal family benefits from tourism and not the
community. This is confirmed in the way the income generated from tourism is
shared; the first portion is used for salaries of tourism employees, the second goes
for improvement of infrastructure in the villages and the third to the royal family
responsible for tourism development. There are some members who live off
donations by performing and playing music for tourists for which they express

The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development 49

their deepest gratitude. It comes as no surprise that the community is grateful for
every minor benefit they receive from tourism as the area exhibits high levels of
poverty, unemployment, migration and illiteracy. Nevertheless, these cannot be
viewed as sustainable or community-based.
Community involvement and expectations
Traditional authorities seem sincerely concerned with underdevelopment of the
area, high level of poverty and lack of employment opportunities and their aim is
to pull the village out from poverty. They see tourism as a viable tool in improving
the area because it does not require much from local people but just their
willingness to participate. We already saw that receiving formal employment is
not reserved for the local community. It is interesting to note that lack of education
is mentioned by traditional authorities in every single context so far. The chief of
village A explains that as tourism generates some sort of income for the members
of the local community with which they send their children to schools, it will
break a cycle of poverty and generation of educated individuals will emerge
which will ultimately bring prosperity to the community as a whole.
Tourism employees expect tourism to create decent jobs with fair pay in the future
which only reveals that at present this is not the case. Local residents expect
improved infrastructure, better access to services, enhanced image of the village
and that everyone has the same opportunity to get employment in tourism.
Nevertheless, the majority of local people did not have high expectations from
tourism. Some local members even see tourism as a negative thing and feel that
tourists are disrupting their daily lives. They complain that at all times they must
be cognizant of their own behaviour and be friendly and helpful as required by
traditional authorities.
On a positive note tourism is seen to have improved the quality of life of local
residents as they value education more and have adopted new technology. The
main benefits for the community are improved illiteracy rates, higher standard of
living and a more enthusiastic and entrepreneurial community. An enhanced
image and improved economic situation in the villages is seen by both sides as an
important testament to the effectiveness of traditional leadership. Indeed, local
residents state that when they are outside their village they are treated as if they
are part of the royal family.
Conclusion
In researching the question of the role of traditional authorities in the communitybased development in the rural royal village of the Rain Queen, the results from
in-depth interviews lead to interesting conclusions when compared with Ndlovu

50 Ivanovic
and Rogerson (20014) principles of successful community-based tourism
development in South Africa.
The members of the local community, both benefiting and not benefiting
from tourism, are unaware of the full scale of tourist attractions in the
village and are not consulted on any issue of tourism development which
contradicts the claim that tourism is developed for the community and for
their benefit only. These reveal that traditional authorities do not encourage
active participation and do not develop a positive relationship with a
community.
The community members working in tourism are not being empowered to
make decisions which confirms that tribal authority does own the village
and have complete, authoritarian control over every aspect of tourism
development. This does not promote a principle of empowerment as a
precursor of community involvement in tourism.
The community members are not aware of any available tourism jobs, are
under the impression that only the royal family benefit from tourism and
are grateful for the little income they have because of tourism. In addition,
it is ironic to claim that tourism mostly benefits the community as it allows
them to develop skills, get empowered, get decent employment and break
the cycle of poverty, yet the reality is that they cannot get jobs because
they are not skilled, trained and empowered. These outcomes do not
support the principle of sharing of benefits and costs of tourism even
though to some extent they support diverse livelihood options and tangible
and intangible benefits of tourism for the members of the community.
These conclusions negate any possibility that tribal authority-led tourism
development can be labelled pro-poor and community-based. Arguably, in its
current form, it does not adhere to the principles of community-based pro-poor
rural tourism development as envisaged by the government. What was observed
is the great respect the community has for traditional/tribal authorities which is the
reason why they enact their role in tourism as the tribal subjects not as the citizens.
It is evident that the community is caught up in a vicious circle of obedience and
submissiveness rendering their role in tourism far from meaningful. Indeed, they
serve as authentic props in creating a symbolically authentic cultural stage
(Ivanovic, 2008) which perpetuates a mythical sense of friendly, happy, idyllic
and secure place frozen in both time and place.
Even though traditional authorities are knowledgeable about the main principles
of community- based tourism development and emphasize the importance of
working together with the community which is given as the reason for a success
of village tourism, this is not what was perceived by the community. Lack of
cooperation and consultation in decision making means that the community is
completely disempowered which leads to apathy and lack of interest. Indeed, the
Modjadji community shows a dependency syndrome as they expect government

The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development 51

to take a leading role in tourism development, hold them by the hand and tell
them what to do (see Nzama, 2010; Mnguni, 2014).
In final analysis, notwithstanding that new more effective developmental
governance models are developed (Boonzaaier, 2014) to successfully integrate the
roles of local and tribal authorities, an unexpected question arising from this study
is whether traditional authorities really want to cooperate with the local
government and to what extent the local government has the ability to implement
their own tourism strategies and consequently be held responsible for their failure.
References
Binns, T. & Nel, E. (2002). Tourism as a local development strategy in South Africa. The
Geographical Journal, 168(3), 235-247.
Boonzaaier, C.C. (2012). Towards a community-based integrated institutional framework for
ecotourism management: The case of the Masebe nature reserve, Limpopo province of South
Africa. Journal of Anthropology, 2012, 1-19.
Butler, M. (2002). Traditional authorities: Know where to land. Traditional authority and land in
KwaZulu-Natal. AFRA, the Association for Rural Advancement. Pietermaritzburg, KwaZuluNatal.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996). Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (1996). White Paper on the
Development and Promotion of Tourism in South Africa. Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers.
Department Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) (2003). White Paper on Traditional
Leadership and Governance. Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers.
Department: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of the Presidency of the Republic of South
Africa (DPME) (2010). Medium Term Strategic Framework 2011-2016. Pretoria, RSA:
Government Printers.
Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) (2009). Comprehensive Rural
Development Programme. Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (2010). National Industrial Policy Action Plan 2010/112012/13. Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers.
EDD, Economic Development Department (EDD) (2010). New Growth Path: Framework.
Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers.
Finn, M., Elliott-White, M. & Walton, M. (2000). Tourism and Leisure Research Methods: Data
Collection, Analysis and Interpretation. England: Pearson Education.
Government Communications (GCIS) (2014). South Africa yearbook 2013/2014. Pretoria: GCIS.
Available at: www.gcis.gov.za

52 Ivanovic
Greater Letaba Municipality (GLM) (2013). Final IDP for the Greater Letaba Municipality.
Available at: http://www.greaterletaba.gov.za
Goodenough, C. (2002). Traditional Leaders: A KwaZulu-Natal Study 1999-2001. Durban:
Independent Project Trust.
Hartman, J.B., Kriel, J.D., Boonzaaier, C.C., Els, H. & Wassermann, I. (1993). Report on the
Development of Tribal Authority in Gazankulu. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
Ivanovic, M. (2014). The perceived authenticity of iconic heritage sites in urban tourism: the case
of Constitution Hill, Johannesburg, South Africa. Urban Forum, 25, 501-515.
Ivanovic, M. (2008). Cultural Tourism. Cape Town: Juta academic.
Ivanovic, M. & Saayman, M. (2013a). South Africa calling cultural tourist. African Journal for
Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, Supplement 2 (September), 138-154.
Ivanovic, M. & Saayman, M. (2013b). Selling or telling? Experiencing South African cultural
heritage tourism products. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance,
Supplement 2 (September), 172-186.
Jacobs, S. (2000). The politics of traditional leadership. E-Politics, 1, 3-5. Available at:
www.idasa.org.za
Johnston, A. (2014). South Africa Inventing the Nation. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Keulder, C. (1998). Traditional Leaders and Local Government in Africa: Lessons for South
Africa. Pretoria: HSRC.
Khunou, F.S. (2011). Traditional leadership and governance: Legislative environment and policy
development in a democratic South Africa. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 1(9), 278-290.
Knoetze, E. (2014). Legislative regulation of the development functions of traditional leadership:
In conflict or cohesion with municipal councils? Speculum Juris, 28(1), 161-195.
Millstein, M. (2014). Information in the mediation of power in Delft, Cape Town. Nordic Journal
of African studies, 23(2), 100-119.
Mnguni, E. (2014). The role of traditional leaders in the promotion of cultural tourism in the South
Coast of KwaZulu-Natal: A case study of Umzumbe municipality. Journal of Education and Social
Research, 4(6), 265-270.
Ndlovu, M. (2013). Contending versions of post-apartheid South African nationhood: insights
from cultural villages. In S. Ndlovu-Gatsheni & F. Ndlovu (Eds.), Nationalism and National
Projects in Southern Africa: New critical Reflections (pp. 189-205). Pretoria: AISA.
Ndlovu, N. & Rogerson, C.M. (2004). The local economic impacts of rural community-based
tourism in the Eastern Cape. In C.M. Rogerson & G. Visser (Eds.), Tourism and Development
Issues in Contemporary South Africa (pp. 436-451). Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa.
National Department of Tourism (NDT) (2011). National Tourism Sector Strategy. Pretoria, RSA:
Government Printers.

The role of tribal authorities in rural tourism development 53

National Department of Tourism (NDT) (2012a). Rural Tourism Strategy. Pretoria, RSA:
Government Printers.
National Department of Tourism (NDT) (2012b). Culture and Heritage Tourism Strategy. Pretoria,
RSA: Government Printers.
Nzama, T. (2010). Challenges of sustainable rural tourism development in KwaZulu-Natal.
Inkanyiso, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), 44-53.
Oomen B. (2005). Chiefs in South Africa: Law, Power & Culture in the Post-Apartheid Era. New
York: Palgrave.
Rogerson, C.M. (2014). Rethinking slum tourism: Tourism in South Africas rural slumlands.
Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic series, 26, 19-34.
Rogerson, C.M. (2006). Pro-poor local economic development in South Africa: The role of pro
poor tourism. Local Environment, 11(1), 37-60.
Rogerson, C.M. & Rogerson, J.M. (2014). Agricultural and local economic development in South
Africa. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 26, 93-106.
Saarinen, J. (2009). Sustainable tourism: perspectives to sustainable tourism. In: J. Saarinen, F.
Becker, H. Manwa & D. Wilson (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism in Southern Africa: Local
Communities and Natural Resources in Transition (pp. 77-91). Clevedon: Channel View.
Sefala, M.J. (2007). Roles and functions of traditional leaders in developmental local government
in Limpopo province. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Pretoria, South Africa: Tshwane University of
Technology.
StatsSA, (2012). Census 2011. Statistical release PO301.4 (revised). Pretoria, RSA: Government
Printers.
Transfrontier Park Destinations (TFPD). BaloBedu online source. Available online
http://www.tfpdfoundation.org/communities/balobedu Accessed 24 May, 2015.
Viljoen, J. & Tlabela, K. (2007). Rural Tourism Development in South Africa: Trends and
Challenges. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Williams, J.M. (2010). Chieftaincy, the state and democracy: political legitimacy in post-apartheid
South Africa. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D.R., Fesenmaier, J. & van Es, J.C. (2001). Factors for success in rural
tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 132-138.
Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics, An Introductory Analysis (3d ed.). London: Longman.

54 Ivanovic