Sebudubudu, David, and Patrick Molutsi. "The elite as a critical factor in national development: the case of Botswana". Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 2011.  

The paper examines the role of the coalition between the political leaders and elites as a critical factor in Botswanan’s development. The paper focuses on their social-cultural roots and how this has shaped coalition building among the political elites and afford them a collective vision for national development. The authors describe this as a grand coalition of ethnic, racial and regional interests that defines the multi-racial character of Botswana’s development. The paper explains how traditional leaders and modern political elites manage opposing worldviews to institutionalize power without any major conflict. The authors conclude that Botswana has been successful in blending some aspects of traditional institutions into the modern structures of governance. This was necessary as chiefs were very powerful (they controlled land, natural resources, culture and tradition) before independence. At independence chiefs sought to retain some of their powers whilst the new elites felt that chiefly rule was undemocratic and had to be replaced by a national democratic government. Through the house of chiefs, the chiefs form an advisory part of the parliament in Botswana. They are also considered national leaders who conduct judicial appeal cases, custodians of culture and tradition across the country.

Ray,Donald I., and E. Adriaan B. van Rouveroy van Nieuwaal. "The New Relevance of Traditional Authorities in Africa: The Conference; Major Themes; Reflections on Chieftaincy In Africa; Future Directions." The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 28,no. 37-38 (1996): 1-38.

The authors argue that there has been a lapse on the possible relationship that exists between contemporary African State and traditional authority i.e. chiefs. There has often been a disjuncture between state structures and civil society in much of Africa. While the view is widely held that Africa's democratization should draw from its cultural traditions, little has been done to analyze systematically the extent to which this does or can occur. The authors argue that traditional authority acts as a unique linkage between the contemporary state and civil society in many African countries in the areas of democratization, development, human rights (including gender) and environmental protection, but that these linkages were often unrecognized, ignored, or misunderstood.

Ray,D. I, T. Quinlan, and K. Sharma. "Re-inventing African Chieftaincy in the Age of AIDS, Gender and Development”. Chieftain: The Journal of Traditional Governance. Volume I, 2006.

The authors sought to provide evidence that traditional leaders are re-inventing themselves and their offices in terms of how they promote development for their communities. They found considerable evidence that many traditional leaders are very involved in promoting development in Ghana, and to lesser degrees in South Africa and Botswana. The authors argue that the major reason for the continuing involvement of traditional leaders in community development in Ghana, Botswana and South Africa was that traditional leaders continued to have access, outside the state, to their own sources of political legitimacy (i.e. credibility) in their communities. The political legitimacy of traditional leaders is “differently-rooted” than that of the post-colonial state. This is based on the concept of “divided legitimacy” in which political legitimacy is divided between the postcolonial state and the traditional authorities. The authors also found that in South Africa and Botswana, there is a gradual progression to formally appointing and allowing women chiefs/ traditional leaders. However, the authors do not explore the driving factor for female inclusion, their status, roles and degree of authority as compared to their male counterparts.

Mershon, Carol. "What effect do local political elites have on infant and child death? Elected and chiefly authority in South Africa." Social Science & Medicine 251(2020): 112902.

Mershon argues that traditional authority has local power and the potential to affect public goods. She questions how electoral pressure and chiefly authority affect social welfare by examining the response of traditional authority in supplying public goods such as pipe born water and sanitation services in South Africa as political elites invest and implement public goods and service delivery. The fact that political elites can determine where and who gets access to drinking water for example, gives room for political manipulation. As more and more African countries seek to grow their democracies, traditional leaders who are mostly unelected elites also serve as vote brokers for party politicians and in turn get to control the provision of public goods in their communities. Mershon describes the relationship between the African ‘local’ voters and their chiefs as complex, based on reciprocity and to some extent, exploitation. In Mershon’s study she finds out that the majority of black African households in S.A were more likely to face child or infant mortality under the age of five. Where the chiefs are strong(influential,) the mortality rate was much lower. Also, households in districts where voter turnout was high, had a relatively lower probability of infant and child death. Most significantly, her study showed that where the ANC party dominance coincides with strong chiefly authority, voter turnout rises and thereby reduces the likelihood of infant and child deaths.

Knierzinger, Johannes. "Chieftaincy and development in Ghana: From political intermediaries to neotraditional development brokers. "Department of Anthropology and African Studies of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 124 (2011).

The article posits that traditional authority figures are today best referred to as neo-traditional actors who are involved in the development of Ghana. These actors comprise of stool fathers, elders, linguists, development chiefs, chiefs, and queen mothers. There is an intersection between chieftaincy, politics, and development. Politics and development go hand in hand because when chiefs are concerned with the development of their areas, they are indirectly doing politics as they charge on government of the day to bring development to their communities. Chiefs are still popular because the institution is credited with the ability to adapt to change and fluidity as a neo-traditional system. The Chiefly elite is part of the political elite in Ghana performing functions such as dispute settlement, custodians of land, repository of customary law and ensuring community participation in development. They are development brokers who lobby international agencies and government for projects to be brought to their communities. Chiefs use social capital; social networks, maintain relationships between them and the government. Chiefs shifted focus to development agents because of their reduce roles in formal politics.

‍

Kita, Stern Mwakalimi."Barriers or enablers? Chiefs, elite capture, disasters, and resettlement in rural Malawi." Disasters 43,no. 1 (2019): 135-156.

The study explores the role of traditional leadership in community development. Specifically, it looks at the role of elites as development actors and how other actors can work with them in delivering public goods and services in Malawi. These local elites - mainly chiefs, are powerful individuals who take control or alter the delivery of public goods and services, usually at the expense of the local populace who need it most. The study looks at different forms of elite involvement in Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) activities, specifically resettlement and disaster relief in rural districts of Malawi. The study found that traditional elites influence, positively or negatively, community level delivery of CCA or DRR practices in rural Malawi. When there are resistances towards resettlements due to climate disasters, local elites are usually at the forefront of resistance by speaking against it. Because chiefs are in control of customary lands in most African countries, they are in privileged position to control the local population and in effect government interventions.