Khama III � Chief, King, Kgosi or Kgosikgolo?

Sandy Grant | Wednesday May 3, 2017 16:51

Now there are those who wish to adjust or correct the recording of the past so those of the more deserving Dikgosi are given that title – although it does beat me as to how anyone can sensibly decide between the one and the other. In recent times there has been a significant, in particular push to get this title adopted.

One problem in doing so is with the Dikgosi of the major Tswana tribes being accorded the title and the others not. Yet another problem would be that the Head of State could, in theory merely be another King in line with all the rest. If this individual happened to be a commoner, an absurd situation would arise. The only solution, presumably, would be to accord the Head of State the title of Emperor, which again would be ridiculous. But if you really want to be confused by titles consider the case of the British George VI who was King first and Emperor second, or William and Mary who were joint Kings of England in the 17th century. I am not at all clear how such titles were historically acquired in Africa, either in Zululand or Buganda, for instance.

I believe that there were no Kings in West Africa, but there were Emirs who richly deserved the title King, but had no need of it because ‘Emir’ fitted them neatly. And elsewhere there were pashas and sultans and viziers and so on. Nor am I much clearer as to how such a title was achieved in Europe. Possibly, the answer lies with Napoleon who simply declared that he was Emperor and crowned himself.

It may be therefore that the many others before him in so many different countries simply awarded themselves the title when they had beaten off all opponents and felt that they do with a little more in the way of power trappings.  The title ‘King’ obviously relates to the extent of individual power which has invariably needed to be accompanied by power symbols – in Europe with the crown, the orb and scepter. In this country, the equivalent would be the leopard, or in the case of the Ngwato, the lion skin and the spear.

But if the title King was not achieved as a result of military victory it could, presumably, only have been acquired by inheritance. What then happens when the predecessor neither enjoyed the title of King nor was supreme in war? It does seem to me that those who push for the rectification of the historical record by introducing the important word King are themselves perpetuating the abuses of which they complain. When two perfectly good terms, kgosi and kgosikgolo, are available, why opt for the imported variation?