Microsoft Word - APE-V2N2-p166


Advances in Politics and Economic 
ISSN 2576-1382 (Print) ISSN 2576-1390 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape 

166 
 

Original Paper 

Modern Democracy and Traditional Bantu Governance: 

Towards an Alternative Policy 

Claver Boundja1* 
1 Laboratory for Studies and Multidisciplinary Research in Human Sciences and Environment, Marien 

Ngouabi University, Brazzaville, Congo 
* Claver Boundja, Marien Ngouabi University, Brazzaville, Congo 

 

Received: April 18, 2019          Accepted: May 6, 2019         Online Published: May 9, 2019 

doi:10.22158/ape.v2n2p166                  URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ape.v2n2p166 

 

Abstract 

This study starts from the analysis of the limits of modern democracy to propose a new form of 

Bantu-inspired political governance. The uprising of peoples in democratic countries signals the end of 

democracy based on ultra-liberalism. It is therefore urgent to think of a new type of political 

governance, much more concerned with people’s lives. The traditional Bantu (people) government is 

therefore a model to revisit and update, in this world where people feel abused by politics. We propose 

a political theory, based on consensual governance and the well-being of people. It is necessary to 

assert that the solution to the problems posed by modern democracy can only come from the traditional 

political governance model of the Bantu. 

Keywords 

modern democracy, bantu governance, Africa, political theory 

 

1. Introduction 

The twenty-first century, with the proliferation of the media, is strongly marked by the presence of 

political debates around the future of participatory democracy. Among political actors, the question of 

the governance of society is now locked in the management of public opinion by the media, without an 

analysis of governance models and alternative political regimes. Political governance has become an 

entity of quest and conquest of political power, that is to say in a closed vicious circle in which the 

powers are organized and exercised, in institutional and practical forms, far from the concern for the 

well-being of peoples. 

Of the researchers who critically analyze modern democracy, Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels 

(2016) are arguably the most lucid. They attack the theory at the heart of contemporary thinking about 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

167 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

democratic politics and government, and offer an alternative and provocative viewpoint based on the 

human nature of democratic citizens. Several researchers are also trying to deepen democratic theory, 

with the proposal of different models of democracy (Warren, 2017). But these debates are less and less 

productive. Model-based strategies encourage theorists to over-generalize the place and functions of 

typical ideal characteristics of democracy, such as deliberation and elections. 

This study of social philosophy aims to return to African sources Bantu ancient governance of society. 

We propose a political theory, based on consensual governance and the well-being of people. It is 

necessary to assert that the solution to the problems posed by modern democracy can only come from 

the traditional political governance model of the Bantu. In front of the turbulent horizon and the 

exhaustion of the current political models, inherited from the modernity of power in the West, thought 

by the philosophers of the contract and advocated by the partisans of economic liberalism, it is salutary 

to return to the human power of origins and origins of political power, to think with a fresh eye its 

origin, its functioning and its finality. 

We propose a model of political governance, alternative to the models that are officially practiced by 

the nation states of the world today. It is the Bantu aristocracy, which we define as the political regime 

of the competent servant-governors, that is to say the regime of the people (Bantu) capable of 

consensually leading the governed to their well-being, beyond the game of political empowerment. The 

Bantu chief is a servant governess who is characterized by the primacy and priority he gives to the 

service of others. It is because he is a servant that he is elevated to the rank of political ruler. 

The term “Bantu”, taken from the word “people” in many of these languages, was first proposed by 

Bleek, who in 1851 laid the foundation for the comparative study of the Bantu languages. This term has 

been universally used since (Greenberg, 1999). 

On the other hand, participatory democracy, with pluralist elections as a means of coming to power, is 

showing its limits everywhere in the world, with the protest of peoples (Széll, 2018). Everything 

happens as if the governance of post-election crises takes the place of politics and replaces the art of 

governing the city. It is a kind of challenge governance, in which elected leaders multiply strategies to 

be re-elected in future elections. 

The problematic of this article can be summed up as follows: to the extent that the conquest of power is 

increasingly seen as the royal road to the selfish confiscation of the riches of the community by 

political actors, should not we think of a new political regime, more adapted to the current context of 

the world? 

Why this return to the African past? Charles Darwin was the first scientist to publish a modern theory 

of evolution and the origin of mankind. He was also the first to designate Africa as his place of origin. 

Over the last hundred years, research has shown how right he was, as many aspects of Darwin’s 

precursor work have been confirmed (Leakey, 1999).  

Two hypotheses are to be verified in this article. The first hypothesis is: if Africa is the place of origin 

of mankind, it is clear that it is on this continent that the human species has learned to live in peace 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

168 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

with others in society. The second hypothesis is: traditional Bantu governance is an alternative to the 

crisis of modern democracy. The Bantu ethical aristocracy can therefore provide a pragmatic 

orientation to the political governance of states, instead of participatory democracy. The paper is 

divided into four parts with the first part introducing the thrust of the paper. 

 

2. Method 

This article is, as its title suggests, about power in two political systems, namely modern democracy 

and traditional Bantu governance. Power is the central notion, but it is treated in a systemic perspective, 

where one-to-one power relations have little meaning, contrary to what remains practiced in political 

science. Political systems, understood as governing systems of public affairs, are the ones on which the 

study of power relations is concerned. Our method, therefore, is to compare two systems of political 

governance, namely modern democracy and the traditional Bantu system of governance, from studies 

of sociology and politics. This comparison allows us to pose a new political theory. 

2.1 Limits of Participatory Democracy 

The list of studies presented here is not exhaustive, but it takes into account the most important 

research in the English-speaking world. Recent studies of democracy show that this political model is 

running out of steam, especially in its Western variants. Certainly, the crisis of participatory democracy 

is congenital to its institutionalization (Laski, 1933). But modern democracy, which has developed in 

the West, is today the focus of fundamental criticism of scholars and popular protest. Zakaria (1997) 

already spoke of “the rise of non-liberal democracy”. Colin Crouch (2004) calls it “post-democracy” 

and Pierre Rosanvallon (2008) “counter-democracy”. 

Basically, the main problem of participatory democracy is its nature as such. It is now established, with 

the uprising of peoples in the West, that victory in elections is not a reliable indicator of democratic 

quality. The protest movement of “yellow vests” launched in France in November 2018 remains the 

greatest illustration in this area. For months, this movement calls for a referendum of citizen initiative 

and improvement of taxation. This movement is the questioning of the neoliberal system held by the 

ultra-rich, who command the democratic alternation and the judicial system. The question that arises at 

this level is this: how to measure the qualitative reliability of a participative democracy? 

A study by Foa and Mounk (2016) on democratic practices in several countries has shown that people’s 

support for democracy is falling. The crisis of democracy is not limited to Western countries, but it is 

emerging in Japan (Yazawa, 2015) as well as in the Philippines, the former American colony. The term 

of “Popular Democracy”, which is the concept of the socialist countries (North Korea, Vietnam, China), 

is characterized by a single party. Of these countries, China is undoubtedly the most important. It is not 

only the most populous country, but also, soon, the world’s largest economy. Some studies show that 

the United States is a “defective democracy”. Alexis de Tocqueville (1965) in Democracy in America 

(1835) spoke of the US government in terms of “dictatorship of the majority”. 

Today, we have gone from the dictatorship of the majority to the “dictatorship of the masses” (Corner 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

169 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

& Lim, 2016). This phenomenon indicates that, unlike military dictatorships, it is not a pure oppression 

by consent of the majority, but of the survival of the system. As can be seen, the debate on participatory 

democracy is rich in paradoxes. David van Reybrouck (2016) supports the idea against elections; Pierre 

Rosanvallon (2008) and Jason Brennan (2016) argue for a counter-democracy. And the arrival of the 

Internet and its social networks has led us to believe that everyone’s access to information should 

promote participatory democracy. But it soon became apparent that social networks are controlled by a 

few gigantic corporations, and their main interest is to generate profits, even leading to some form of 

user dependence, thus increasing social control. Consequently, social media is able to overthrow 

authoritarian regimes only makes these regimes more authoritarian and paranoid (Gayo-Avello, 2017). 

Much research focuses on the causes and consequences of direct democracy and the legitimacy of 

political regimes. Over the last two decades, an abundant literature has dealt with the growing 

disaffection of citizens with respect to representative democracy. The existence of several problems in 

the process of political representation is reflected in the behavior of citizens who have gradually 

abandoned traditional modes of electoral participation and party membership. The tendency is to move 

towards more reactive forms of participation such as demonstrations and petitions. In light of these 

developments, researchers have begun to speak of a “democratic malaise” because citizens are moving 

away from the political process as a whole. One possible solution to this uneasiness has been the 

adoption of direct democracy procedures through which citizens can have a say in political 

decision-making. Studies show the decline in the legitimacy of the democratic regime around the world. 

The recent street uprising in France is only an indication of the attitudes and behavior of citizens 

towards the political authorities. 

The concept of legitimacy, as we know, concerns the way in which power can be used by state 

institutions and the reaction of citizens. Legitimacy can be broadly defined as the ability of a political 

system to engender and maintain the belief that existing institutions are the most appropriate or 

appropriate for society. Understood in this way, legitimacy encompasses three dimensions: compliance 

with established norms, justifiability of rules by reference to shared beliefs, and expressed consent of 

people living in the same society. 

Then, legitimacy is more and more seized according to two axes. The first axis concerns the normative 

or objective aspect, relating to the working principles and the functioning of the State institutions. Here, 

the focus is on decision-making and the exercise of power. The second axis refers to the legitimacy of 

descriptive or subjective type, referring to the public evaluation of the quality of the institutions’ 

performance. In short, a diet is legitimate when the population perceives it as such. The compliance of 

state institutions with the rules has no effect if citizens do not believe that these rules are legitimate. If 

they are not justified in the terms of shared beliefs, the population is likely to reject institutions and 

withdraw support. This type of legitimacy is evaluative in that citizens decide whether political 

institutions are acceptable. The descriptive approach to legitimacy substantially covers the subject 

(population), the object (public institutions) and the relationship between the two (attitudes and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

170 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

behaviors as effects of institutional characteristics). 

Moreover, it is possible to situate legitimacy at a more precise level, namely that of the evaluation of 

the populations on the capacity of the institutions of the State to exercise legitimately the political 

power. It is about assessing the acceptance, consent and support of the population to a specific system 

of governance. Subjective legitimacy includes notions such as political support or trust. This means that 

citizens have the ability to identify their common interests and to develop standards to evaluate the 

performance of state institutions, with regard to these interests. The degree to which citizens’ standards 

are achieved determines the degree of legitimacy. This complex process runs through forms of support 

to state institutions and (specific) elites or to the political community and the regime. Institutional trust 

is a useful concept but too narrow to equate it with legitimacy. We can say that the political system of 

participatory democracy is losing legitimacy. 

The gradual weakening of representative democracy has opened up alternative solutions, with more 

opportunities for political involvement of citizens (Peter, 2011). If citizens suspect corruption in the 

political decision-making process, legitimacy ends up being lost. Thus, if citizens consider that the 

degree of their influence on policy making is weak, legitimacy may also be weak. Elections in 

democracies should be the key mechanism for ensuring citizen participation. However, elections rarely 

provide citizens with effective opportunities to influence policy makers. The elections are intended to 

allow citizens to choose between several intermediaries who promise to group and represent their 

interests. 

From this point of view, they are of a competitive nature, opening the field to the confrontation between 

competitors (parties or candidates) with general promises, often quite similar, which are rarely pursued 

after the elections. Moreover, even when the choices between competitors are significant election 

results do not always reflect the popular will, being artificially influenced by the rules of the game. It is 

not surprising that the public is increasingly dissatisfied with the system of representative democracy, 

as to the taking into account of their opinion in public policies. In this sense, the representative 

mechanisms are not replaced but rather complemented by different means of political engagement of 

citizens. 

How, then, can the presence of direct democracy have an impact on the perception of the legitimacy of 

a regime? This question refers to the fundamental aspects of self-identity (values, rights and freedoms, 

sovereignty) that require major changes in society. Such changes can hardly be accepted if debates take 

place only among the political elites in parliament without the participation of civil society. The tools of 

direct democracy used to solve problems are not intended to avoid debate and conflict, but for 

additional legitimacy. Citizen involvement and the use of direct democracy instruments can legitimize 

these changes. 

Similarly, representative institutions and politicians often try to use tools of direct democracy to 

legitimize their policies, increase their chances and win back citizens. The elites can control some of 

the direct democratic practices and submit to the citizens referendum questions that are in accordance 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

171 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

with their will. Over the past five decades, changing social trends have favored the development of a 

large category of citizens. 

As political parties simplify choices, a growing proportion of people welcome the opportunity to 

express preferences without mediation. Citizens appreciate their involvement in decision-making, so 

that a more direct democracy leads to greater citizen satisfaction. When representative institutions do 

not meet the expectations of the public, direct democracy can change the degree of discontent by 

promoting the emergence of a (partial) system of self-governance. This allows for the pursuit of 

interests and preferences that may (for various reasons) be excluded from representative politics. 

Ultimately, sociological studies in Europe indicate that the provisions relating to direct democracy at 

the national level and the use of referendums at the national level are associated with legitimacy. The 

major conclusion is that the tools of direct democracy can have an impact on the legitimacy of the 

regime when they are applied. When provisions remain only on paper, direct democracy can not trigger 

the expected attitudes of citizens. In addition, there are differences between Eastern and Western 

Europe in relation to legislation, so that relations with the regime’s subjective legitimacy go in different 

directions. In practical terms, the mechanisms observed are quite similar but much more powerful 

among the countries with a lower degree of democratization. It is therefore possible to positively 

include direct democracy as a source of subjective legitimacy in analytical frameworks. As a result, 

direct democracy does not only appear to be a cure for citizens’ uneasiness, but also a potential factor 

for strengthening legitimacy. 

2.2 Traditional Bantu Societies and Their Social Organization 

We present here the organization of Bantu societies of the past, according to studies conducted by 

anthropologists, to show the relevance of this organization today. This is to defend the idea that this 

political organization is superior to participatory democracy, as far as it works according to consensus. 

After nearly a century of linguistic and archaeological studies, it is established that the distribution of 

Bantu languages is the effect of the population growth (generally called Bantu expansion) that began in 

the Benue Valley, between the south East of Nigeria and western Cameroon (Johnston, 1919; Bakel, 

1981; Vansina, 1984, 1995). This is mainly supported by the fact that Bantoid languages, considered to 

be ancestor of Bantu languages, are currently spoken in this region (Greenberg, 1949; Guthrie, 1962; 

Lwanga-Lunyiigo, 1976). Relatively new population growth and the colonization of new territories are 

still accepted by most scholars as the most reasonable explanation for the geographical dispersion and 

relative homogeneity of Bantu languages (Schoenbrun, 2001). It has also been suggested that the first 

stages of migration have followed two main paths, which have been defined as “western” and “eastern” 

flows (Vansina, 1984, 1995; Schoenbrun, 2001). 

An alternative scenario was proposed by Guthrie (1962). While agreeing with Greenberg and others on 

the center of origin of the Bantu languages, he proposed the Katanga region, located in the south of the 

Democratic Republic of Congo, in the middle of the equatorial forest, as the region from which 

Bantu-speaking populations were spreading. However, some authors have highlighted the reductionism 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

172 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

of these assumptions on the basis of a single large population migration related to language propagation 

and molecular ecology has emphasized the relevance of local migration processes (Lwanga-Lunyiigo, 

1976; Ehret, 2001; Schoenbrun, 2001). Population genetic studies have clarified the dynamics 

underlying the current distribution of Bantu populations at the regional and sub-continental levels 

(Mitchell, 2010). 

Proto-Bantu were ruled by leaders and spiritually by minister-diviners. They recognize a unique, 

almighty, but distant God of human destiny. A Bantu village is a chieftaincy. And this one can include 

under its authority several hamlets. Clan and village are related, as are lineage and tribe. Thus, the 

inhabitants of a village consider themselves almost all as parents. A good leader is necessarily a 

historian of the clan tradition, ethnic. It is up to the leader who is often doubled by a diviner to say, as a 

sign of celebration and eulogy, the story of the deified ancestors who are also leaders. We can therefore 

understand the permanent symbiosis that exists between the world of the living and that of the dead by 

the effect (action, word, ceremonies) of the recognized and crowned leader. The basic elements of 

Bantu politics are provided by the kinship system and the system of intermarriage: the lineage leader is 

virtually erased from the leader of the lineage group. Each leader has a human group, and the eminent 

chief is precisely the chief of the earth or of all the ethnic, national land. 

Authority is in a sense crystallized into defined characters that command specific groups: the 

socio-political life is constituted by the total life of the group. This life integrates directly any economic, 

artistic, religious or social activity of each member of the group. The peoples speaking the Bantu 

languages, coming out of prehistory, following long migrations due to an increase in the population, the 

mastery of agricultural and metallurgical techniques, have created social entities more or less wide to 

perpetuate life. As much as myths and legends represent Bantu’ genesis in time and space, their ideas, 

their beliefs, all the riches of their intelligence, so social structures are the living expression of their 

external, political organization. 

The Bantu were divided into tribes: each tribe ended up occupying a particular location, without 

intermingling with the other tribes. The Bantu tribes (duala, fang, kikuyu, teke, kongo, mbochi, sena, 

sotho, zulu ...) are the result of the ancient migrations of the Bantu people in central, eastern and 

southern Africa. A Bantu tribe is therefore a portion of the Bantu people, having a definite 

establishment after long migrations, having its political and spiritual leaders, its judges who form a 

council, its special individuality, adoring protective deities. In pre-colonial black Africa, the emergence 

of states did not destroy social, cultural, economic and political importance of families and tribes. 

Everywhere in the Bantu world, we find the same basic system of households (enclosures whose 

different boxes house members of the same family: children from the same father and a wife or wives 

of it and the possible wives of the children), of lineages, of clans, of tribes, with heads of family, 

lineage, clan and tribe. The models of which different, but the clannish system (groups several clans by 

integrating them with the tribes) does not miss anywhere: it is the cement even of any Bantu tribe. In 

Bantu societies, the fundamental units are constituted and directed by groups of descent. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

173 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In the Bantu world, there are three types of political structures, namely the states with a central 

government, small states organized in village-communities, under chiefs, clans and tribes without 

leaders, but led by councils: class of age and seniors. We know that the colonial order has used 

traditional chiefdoms to impose itself, notably by creating the “Indigenous Justice”. It is also known 

that the Ujamaa, the basis of socialism in Tanzania, put the community, solidarity and democratic spirit 

of the traditional African society, in which everyone worked and everyone lived by their own toil. 

In the tribe, each group, each community, each village has its leader. When a community grows, it 

splits in turn into small communities, with their respective leaders. Thus, the chieftaincies are 

independent of each other, politically. However, they remain linked by kinship ties (clans, lineages, 

families). There is therefore no central authority with a highly structured administrative and judicial 

apparatus as in royalty. The chief’s roles are: the direction of religious ceremonies, the arbitration of 

palavers, the conduct of war, the organization of commerce. 

The tribe comprising several thousand people was the largest political unit among the Sotho and Nguni 

(Zulu, Ndebele, Xhona …) of Southern Africa. In these two groups (Sotho and Nguni), the leader was 

all-powerful, but an overly authoritarian leader quickly became unpopular: he was abandoned to go to 

another leader more lenient and more just. 

Two councils assisted the chief in his functions: a small council and a wider council or assembly. The 

first council included the chief’s confidants: they helped him in his daily tasks of material and cultural 

management of the country. The Assembly was composed of all the subordinate chiefs, though of some 

importance. Problems affecting the entire nation were discussed, and any adult man could participate 

freely. The leader could be criticized during the assizes of the Assembly. 

The Sotho or Nguni leader was considered the symbol of national unity, tribal: he personally directed 

all religious, judicial, administrative and military affairs. We could also talk about the Bemba (20 

political units) or Songo chiefdoms. 

A chieftaincy is a much more flexible political organization than a kingdom with hierarchical and 

centralized government structures. From the cultural point of view, a chieftaincy is no less “civilized” 

than a vast kingdom. The chieftaincy is a complete political organization. Chieftaincy and kingdom are 

two distinct forms of government in their nature and not in essence: the chieftaincy is a small state, 

while the kingdom is a much broader state. 

In pre-colonial times, the Kongo had created a vast political entity: the Kongo Kingdom. The Bemba, 

they were politically organized within a multitude of separate head units, on the tribal territory. But 

here and there, there was an administration, an economy, leaders of lineage and clan, especially the 

national consciousness to perpetuate, through the structures put in place, the glory of distant ancestors. 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

174 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Result 

As we have shown, modern democracy is less and less able to solve the problems of social peace. And 

the organization of traditional society among the old Bantu seems to be a model for thinking about a 

new post-democratic political regime. We call this model Bantucracy, which is based on traditional 

Bantu governance. The Bantu political system is based on four levels of relationship: the relationship of 

man with God and ancestors, the relationship of man to the world, the relationship of man with other 

human beings, and the relationship of the man with himself. Political leaders take these four forms of 

relationship into account. 

According to several accounts that trace the origins of the Bantu tribes, God relatively confers power to 

men through alliances. The initiative of the covenant with men comes from God. We are not talking 

about any social constraint or any collective or individual demand that may have led God to take the 

initiative. God is truly the real source of power. He alone has chosen the men he calls to power. No 

strength or cunning interfered with the choice. The reasons for the choice belong only to him; we can 

only understand the consequences. The will of God is translated into a dream. The dream is thus 

revealed to be an effective means of revealing, in matters of power, the will of God. The call, although 

addressed to men, is essentially individual. Each future leader receives his message, and each message 

is surely special, tailored to each personality. The initiative and the choice of God do not eliminate the 

risk dimension in the Bantu power. It often involves going beyond oneself and one’s society. 

What does the action of the ancestors represent? The ancestors appeared in the dreams of men are the 

apparent sign of the will of God. They reassure future leaders: they believe because they know their 

ancestors and their wisdom. The ancestors are, in fact, the effective link of the invisible world with the 

visible world. They represent the idea of lineage and succession that fundamentally inspires Bantu 

power. Election alone is not enough. To perfect the election, God and the ancestors submit future 

leaders to three days’ training. The week in several African traditions lasts four days: the three days of 

work and a day of rest. The exercise of Bantu power is conditional on an “election” and Bantu 

formation. 

The unity of the Bantu peoples, it must be remembered, is based on the ancestral language called 

proto-bantu. They must refer to a common kinship exemplified by the term “people” (Samwiri, 

Lwanga-Lunyiigo, & Jan Vansina, 1999, p. 65). It can thus be said that the place of “people” or Bantu 

is central to the social and political organization of the Bantu peoples. 

In Bantu languages, there is no equivalent word to the concepts of kingdom or Republic. There is only 

one word for power. Power is called Bokonzi in Lignala, Bumfumu in Kikongo and ubukhosi in Zulu, 

for example. Bantucracy is not a kingdom or a republic, but a power. The definition of power in a 

societal context highlights two elements, namely the rulers and the governed as actors, and the different 

relations of governance that they maintain between them. These two elements are perceptible through 

the degree of communication between actors and the impact of decisions on each other. It’s about 

recognizing that power is a set of systems whose elements interact.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

175 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The relationship of power does not come under the control of the periphery by the center, but it consists 

in the capacity, by the governor, of a decision which concerns his means of action. It is from the 

decision of the governor that one can assess the autonomy or dependence of the governed in other 

power relations, relative to the well-being of all. In other words, a relationship is of a political nature 

only to the extent that it is likely to be evaluated, after the fact, as a chain of social welfare impacts. 

As a result, power relations in Bantucracy are subject to two requirements, namely, connectivity, which 

means that conditional connections of power reach all participants in the community, and that of 

cohesion, which requires that participants are grouped into clusters whose internal power links are 

positive and the external links are negative. These are the two requirements that constitute community 

coordination. The requirement of connectivity refers to the flow of powers from one participant to 

another, while the requirement of cohesion refers to the regrouping of participants in power, from one 

pole to another. Both requirements act between them. The flow of power affects the grouping of 

participants and the latter, on the path of power. 

The learning place of governance is probably the common house. In almost all the traditional Bantu 

villages, the common hut, built by all the inhabitants in the center of the village, is the place where the 

“old” as well as the young people met to share their stories, their knowledge of the country and the 

world, the food too. Living together in the common space was characterized by respect for the other, 

the exchange of knowledge, the sharing of assets and the reception of foreigners. The common house 

was the soul of the village. 

The new Bantu political system that we propose therefore has as a basic principle, the consideration of 

the country as the common house, which federates all the human energies of all citizens towards the 

well-being of each and everyone; he is “all in one”. As a soul of the new country, he lives only by the 

breath of each and everyone: “he is a par and in all”. The death of a citizen weakens it, the birth of a 

child or even the naturalization of a stranger vivifies it. The idea of common house, a common box of 

Bantu (people), disqualifies exclusions, eliminates barriers, institutes nonviolence and dialogue as a 

system structuring relations between its members. 

This proposed new system is based on five key ideas: 1) reconciliation; 2) a leader (Mfumu) instituted 

in accordance with tradition, mentality and traditional spirituality, which symbolizes unity, he reigns, 

but does not rule; 3) governance according to modern democratic norms, acquired from the evolution 

of the world, while promoting participatory consensus, the traditional Bantu-indigenous mode of 

management of men; 4) respect for the personality of human entities; 5) the reframing of citizen 

political expression in a system that guarantees political freedom, citizen participation, unity and 

solidarity of peoples, non-violence and the life of the country. 

These five key ideas of the Bantucracy system are highlighted in the Code of the Alliance, a true 

national pact, which takes the place of constitution. The Bantucracy system induces a new approach at 

the institutional and territorial level, the common house federal economic, the common house 

economic (the Solidarity Economy), and in terms of international relations (openness to the world), 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

176 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

with the head the Chef. 

 

4. Discussion 

Our discussion is about data from Bantu traditions before colonization. This choice is justified by the 

fact that we want to propose a solution to the failure of Western-style democracy, which has shown its 

limits both in Europe where it was born, and in Africa, where it is completely inadequate. 

4.1 The Chef (Mfumu) 

The Bantu Chief follows divine right, natural law, civil laws and custom. It is these four normative 

pillars that give the African prince his credibility. Claude Tardits rightly points out: 

“All African rulers, whether they were at one time or another qualified as divine or not, have an 

obligation, that of acting so that the population and the livestock of which it lives are fruitful, so that 

the watered lands keep their fertility and that starvation is averted. They fulfill these obligations by 

recourse, direct or indirect (...) the failure, whatever the age of the king, can entail its elimination 

(Tardits, 1990, p. 38). 

It is in the articulation between divine right and natural law that the essential role of the sovereign in 

traditional Africa must be located. The obligation of the sovereign, concretely, is to promote and defend 

life, so that the growth of its power is proportional to the multiplication of births. In other words, each 

new birth is considered to increase the power of the ruler, and conversely, all death is a diminution of 

his power. A. I. Richards (1959) and his collaborators conducted a survey in 1952-1953 on the study of 

all the problems posed by chieftaincy in Africa. 

This study focused on the political systems of fourteen populations in Uganda and Tanganyika that 

occupy a continuous territory stretching from northern Lake Albert to Lake Tanganyika: the eight 

chiefdoms of Bantu, namely Buganda, Busoga, Bunyoro, Toro, Ankole, Buhaya, Buzinza and Buha, 

Busukuma, which is a federation of 47 small chiefdoms, and five polysegmentary societies: Amba 

(under Toro guardianship since the beginning of the century), Gisu, Kiga, Alur and the Lugbara. The 

Alur have an intermediary organization between the poly-segmental society in the strict sense and the 

multi-kingdom. The investigators employed two methods: the classic descriptive method and the 

questionnaire survey of chiefs. For all four categories of distinguished chiefs (county chiefs, 

sub-county chiefs, parish chiefs, headmen), 1156 questionnaires were completed, which provide 

information on the education, career and status of chiefs. AI Richards, who presents the survey and 

draws the conclusions, gives an analysis of the political systems of the Bantu Inter-lacustrine which, 

from a historical point of view, are actually pre-feodal and must be compared to the European political 

systems of the 9th and 10th centuries, rather than those of the Middle Ages proper. By analogy with the 

facts of Europe, African systems that have their equivalent in a still “tribal” Europe are considered 

feudal. 

From the point of view of social philosophy, the question that arises at this level is: why this 

unwavering link between political power and life? 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

177 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The answer to this question allows us to identify the fundamental point on which all political 

philosophy is built in the Bantu context. It is recognition of the fact that human beings, animals, plants, 

minerals, as well as sovereign power itself, come from the same divine source. And, more deeply, life 

in its entirety comes from this source or from an invisible elsewhere, so that the role of the sovereign is 

to govern the living in the sense of their natural return to the common source. It must be said that 

political philosophy in the indigenous Bantu context is based on metaphysics of life. 

It is logical that the head of the nation, comes from the common box, and established by him. He 

represents the nation. It derives its legitimacy from ancestral powers, the state and religious moral 

authority. He is enthroned according to ancient and religious rites. He is sworn on a religious text. It 

does not exercise executive power, except in the matters hereafter specified and recognized by the Code 

of the Alliance and the constitutional laws. It acts, in this case, by ordinance. 

It invests by ordinance the Federal Chancellor, following his election by the Federal Parliament; he 

invests, always by ordinance, the governors of the counties. Mfumu raises high military jobs and 

appoints senior magistrates on the proposal of the High Council of the Judiciary. It promulgates the 

laws and treaties in the twenty days following the transmission to it, either by the office of the federal 

parliament or by the office of common house, according to the nature of the law. In case of reservation 

on his part, he appeals to the constitutional court for a check of the conformity of the law or the treaty. 

If the constitutional court declares compliance, Mfumu promulgates the said law or the treaty. 

MFumu guarantees the solidarity of traditional peoples and counties. It may, when the circumstances so 

require, declare a state of emergency either nationwide or over a county. Mfumu can also put federal 

governance and finances under federal tutelage in case of threat by said county of national unity and 

solidarity.  

It ensures and guarantees the national unity. Also, it is outside the political games. His institution and 

his exercise of power escape the struggles and criticisms of political parties. He cannot lend his support, 

or his moral or financial contribution to a political association. His political responsibility cannot be 

sought in any national jurisdiction. On the other hand, his criminal responsibility can be committed for 

assassinations, war crimes, crimes against humanity, act of genocide. 

As soon as he is enthroned, he cannot, for the rest of his life, pursue any other professional activity. It 

enjoys full support of common house. 

4.2 The Purpose of Bantu Power: To Secure People’s Lives 

Bantu power is in its essence word. The word of a person is the person himself. As such, it suggests 

engaging the whole person as a being and acting. The Bantu word is in its essence word-action. The 

consequences arising from this word-action have a known origin, the person who is the source of the 

word. In what does the word-action of the prince differ from another? The word-act of the prince is 

marked. Thanks to the sign on his forehead, the authority of the prince is now in the eternal river of 

power, with that of the other princes. 

Said word-action is granted by God to the elect to create and guarantee the life of the Bantu. Indeed, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

178 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

the prince, without being founder of the power, participates and pursues the act of creation by restoring, 

in the time and the geographical space, the harmony and the balances of the principality, all this in 

order to guarantee the life men and ensure their perpetuation. 

The purpose of power is, in a simple way, taught to any successor appointed in interviews with his old 

master in power. As an example, we reveal the interview on this subject: 

After a night of heavy rain, the reigning Mfumu calls his appointed successor, future mfumu to ask him 

how he spent the night. The youngster answers that he slept deeply. The Chief retorts, “I did not close 

my eyes”. Why? The son Amazed. “Because of the people of others; indeed, when you will be 

consecrated Mfumu, each morning you will have to ask yourself the following questions: Do the people 

of others, are they doing well? Is there not an epidemic that threatens them? Do they eat well? Does the 

earth continue to produce well? Are not their homes threatened by some phenomena, such as rain? 

Here are the five key concerns of the mfumu each day of his reign. “Father, what other people are who? 

The son asks the son, future mfumu. “Mfumu governs men. Do not think they are your property. That 

would be a serious mistake for you. These people belong to God; he entrusted them to you to lead them. 

My son, I will reveal to you a great secret, a great principle: if you deliberately shed human blood, even 

far from home, be sure that this blood will strike your house and sink into your house one day. Human 

blood never pours itself deliberately without return”.  

The importance and nobility of the prince’s office imposes rigor in the choice of a suitor. While 

distinguishing itself by its severity and its constancy, the Bantu practice diversified the processes to 

adapt to the situations, which situations were imposed to it. It has, however, validated and preserved the 

original process of creation. 

At the elected potential, it is imperative to give an initiation. It is a long training. In the image of the 

totality of God’s teaching about power, the initiation of Bantu power covers the domains of knowledge 

in general, of individual and social behavior, of knowledge and practice of rules, principles and uses of 

power. The key rule in this area is to follow the footsteps of the ancient princes. Initiation extends into 

the comprehension and interpretation of supernatural phenomena, it being understood that with 

consecration, the prince becomes an intermediary between the visible world and the invisible world. 

 

5. Conclusion 

The Bantu political system that we propose is a form of governance by the people, from the bottom up. 

In Bantucraty, the prince is the protector of the people. The protective function of the prince has its 

origin in the “shelter” character of the Bantu power. The primary mission of a prince is to protect life, 

to perpetuate it; God and the ancestors, who gave them that power, did the same to them. As soon as a 

prince is enthroned, he becomes the leader of all the people, including thieves, liars and assassins. It 

does not operate a selection between good and bad, those to keep and those to reject. The protection it 

affords to all cannot be equated with any complicity with the perpetrators; protection is related to life. 

When an assassin, even if caught on the spot, is threatened in his life and enters the prince’s residential 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

179 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

court, his life is safeguarded and now protected. This guarantee does not amount to an amnesty; the 

culprit remains liable to judgment and punishment, except those which are prejudicial to his survival. 

The protection of the Bantu prince also covers human rights. It has the authority to determine and 

specify the rights of each, the authority to defend the rights and to sanction violations. The Bantu 

princes structured this authority, gave it body by the establishment of the judicial institution. Within the 

Bantu institutional power, the body of administrators assumes, among others, the judicial function. 

It is established that the “shelter” character of the people of Bantu power has generated the judicial 

system. In order to be closer to the people, the judicial system has been structured and decentralized; he 

has thus meshed the Bantu territory. Any decision of justice pronounced in the principality can be the 

object of a last resort before a prince. He examines the appeal and pronounces his decision without 

further appeal. In practice, being close to the concerns of the population, mfumu (chiefs of territorial 

constituencies) play the role of last resort. 

 

References 

Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce 

Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882731 

Bakel, M. (1981). The “Bantu” Expansion: Demographic Models. Curr Anthropol, 22, 688-691. 

https://doi.org/10.1086/202753 

Brennan, J. (2016). Against democracy. The case for democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882939 

Corner, P., & Lim, J.-H. (2016). The palgrave handbook of mass dictatorship. Basingstoke: Palgrave 

Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-43763-1 

Crouch, C. (2004). Post democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

de Tocqueville, A. (1965). Democracy in America. London et al.: Oxford University Press [1835]. 

Ehret, C. (2001). Bantu Expansions: Re-Envisioning a Central Problem of Early African. The 

International Journal of African Historical Studies, 1(34), 5-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097285 

Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2016). The danger of deconsolidation. The democratic disconnect. Journal of 

Democracy, 27(3), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0049 

Gayo-Avello, D. (2017). Social media Won’t free Us. IEEE Multimedia, 98-101. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2017.2911439 

Greenberg, J. H. (1949). Studies in African Linguistic Classification: I. The Niger-Congo Family. S J 

Anthropol, 5, 79-100. https://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.5.2.3628626 

Greenberg, J. H. (1999). Méthodologie et préhistoire africaine. In Histoire générale de l’Afrique I. 

Paris, Publié par l’organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture. 

Guthrie, M. (1962). Some Developments in the Prehistory of the Bantu Languages. J Afr Hist, 3, 

273-282. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185370000311X 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape              Advances in Politics and Economic                       Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 

180 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Johnston, H. H. (1919). A comparative study of the Bantu and Semi-Bantu languages. Oxford: 

Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/1780295 

Laski, H. J. (1933). Democracy in crisis. London: Allen and Unwin and New York: AMS Press 

(Reprint 1969). 

Leakey, R. (1999). Les hommes fossiles africains. In Histoire générale de l’Afrique II. Afrique 

ancienne. Paris, Publié par l’organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la 

culture.  

Lwanga-Lunyiigo, S. (1976). The Bantu Problem Reconsidered. Curr Anthropol, 17, 282. 

https://doi.org/10.1086/201717 

Mitchell, P. (2010). Genetics and southern African prehistory: An archaeological view. J Anthropol Sci, 

88, 73-92. 

Peter, F. ( 2011). Democratic legitimacy. New York: Routledge. 

Richards, A. I. (1959). East African Chiefs. A Study of Political Development in some Uganda and 

Tanganyika Tribes. London: East African Institute of Social Research. 

Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-Democracy. Politics in an Age of distrust. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755835 

Schoenbrun, D. (2001). Representing the Bantu Expansions: What’s at Stake? J Afr Hist Stud, 34, 1-4. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/3097284 

Széll, G. (2018). Democracy and participation in the twenty-first century. International Review of 

Sociology, 28(2), 209-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2018.1477203 

Tardits, C. (1990). À propos du pouvoir sacré en Afrique: Que disent les textes? Systèmes de pensée en 

Afrique noire, 10, 38. https://doi.org/10.4000/span.855 

van Reybrouck, D. (2016). Against elections: The case for democracy. London: Bodley Head. 

Vansina, J. (1984). Western Bantu Expansion. J Afr Hist, 25, 129-145. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700022829 

Vansina, J. (1995). New Linguistic Evidence and “The Bantu Expansion”. J Afr Hist, 36, 173-195. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700034101 

Warren, M. E. (2017). A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory. American political Review 

111(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000605 

Yazawa, S. (2015). The crisis of democracy in Japan. Open Democracy.  

Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22-43. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/20048274