There are the long term reigners, the life Presidents, and there are the rain makers of one kind or another. In theory, they are, I suppose, one and the same thing. The Chief in drier parts of the continent is traditionally the bringer or maker of rain. If he found himself in difficulty he was always able to seek the help of those locals whose full time profession was rain making. Alternatively, as with the Regent Isang Pilane in Mochudi, he could bring in expert rainmakers from abroad who were believed to possess additional rain making skills. Was this I wonder the origin of the reliance on the outside expert which has been such a feature of the last 50 years?
Despite Isaac Schapera’s marvelous book on rainmaking I still fail to get a proper grasp on this thing. If the Chief fulfilled his duty and responsibility and brought rain, he would not only receive the usual plaudits but more importantly he would be a great deal more secure in his Chair. But if this scenario worked for the Kgosi with rain, why did it not work him, in reverse, for drought? If he was the bringer of rain, I don’t really grasp why he was not also regarded as the bringer of drought? In which case he would have been a candidate for the big drop. There must have been for all those Dikgosi a desperately thin line between the two with the lesser officer holders perhaps being less vulnerable than those at the top. But who were those at the top? In the pre-Independence days there were the Dikgosi and there were the Dikgosana, the Headmen.
