The State and the Social. Ørnulf Gulbrandsen
significance of this apparatus of capture – in the sense of Deleuze and Guattari (1991: 360) – is particularly apparent at times when larger communities were to be integrated, in which case they might be divided and distributed among various wards. In this way they were strictly subject to the hierarchy of the morafe, located spatially close to the political centre and always under close surveillance by the ruler's retainers. This practice gave rise to systematized power relations radically different from those of other Southern Bantu polities, where large descent groups were allowed to develop in ways that more frequently led to factionalism and succession (see Schapera 1956: 175).
In this context it is particularly important that among the Northern Tswana the division of descent groups into small sections distributed between different wards gave rise to networks of crosscutting loyalties, facilitating the ruler's exercise of checks and balances of power. The consequent strengthening of the central power was evident from the fact that the authority of ward kgosana and their deputies was largely a matter of delegation and thus subject to the ruler's control. In addition, the kgosi had the authority to reshuffle the distribution of agnatic segments among the various wards or – as occasionally also happened – pick such segments from different wards in the pursuit of constructing a new ward.
Nevertheless, the fact that immigrants were brought under the immediate authority of a ward kgosana does not mean that their incorporation automatically contributed to the strength of the ruler. That of course depended on the ruler's control of the respective dikgosana. Significantly, a substantial number of these dikgosana were members of the royal family, some of them close enough to the ruling line to represent a challenge to the ruler. This means that if the rulers lacked the measures to ensure the dikgosana's support, immigration might well have aggravated rivalry for the bogosi.
It is in this context that the significance of cattle manifests itself as a measure to amalgamate the power structures surrounding the kgosi and counteract such challenges: being in control of vast herds, the kgosi was not only in a position to bring potentially challenging agnates into a position of dependency. By the formation of a network of cattle clientship amongst commoner dikgosana, the kgosi both gathered political support against rebellious agnates and loyalty amongst those who were delegated the authority to integrate the vast numbers of ‘foreigners’ into the hierarchical sociopolitical order of the morafe. From this position of strength, the three merafe in focus here expanded their respective territories and brought under their domination a number of outlying communities (Gulbrandsen 1993b). These subject communities were instrumental both in exploiting the hunting territories to the benefit of the kgosi, to whom they also were compelled to pay levies and tax, and to herd the large royal herds and those of wealthy, high-ranking people.
This trend of trade and accumulation of cattle centred in the bogosi should, however, not be taken as an indication that the rulers of these merafe operated in a region that was characterized by peace and harmony. During the first part of the nineteenth century the various Tswana groups of this region frequently raided each other and occasionally engaged in conflicts that amounted to small warfare (Schapera 1942a: 13–14, 1952: 21; Parsons 1982: 118). Such violence found, of course, its major culmination during the devastating intrusion of the Matabele, known as difaqane, by which the Tswana were conquered and dispersed for more than a decade (c.1825–1837). Yet in the long run, these aggressive actions served, on the whole, to consolidate and strengthen the three merafe under discussion. As so often happens in times of serious conflict, the central power, being in control of the age regiments, provided the necessary internal cohesion and thus became vitally important (see Cohen 1985: 276). In particular the kgosi, as commander-in-chief and recipient of booty (both cattle and people), gained considerable authority.
All these merafe were at times stricken by serious dynastic conflicts, occasionally to the extent that a morafe was temporarily separated into mutually independent sections, yet in due course reunited by one conquering the other (see Schapera 1952: 12). In the manner known from indigenous polities all over the subcontinent (Gluckman 1963: 9ff), conflicts within ruling families might lead to secession of a splinter group. In the present context, after the Bangwaketse and Bangwato departed from the Bakwena in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century,7 Batawana's secession from the Bangwato is the only case which resulted in a permanently independent morafe. There are several reasons for this (see Schapera 1952: 15ff), including reconciliation and return, hosting by another morafe and, most importantly, the British policy that all inhabitants of the territory – the ‘native reserve’ in British terms – were compelled to submit to the authority of the Tswana kgosi recognized by the colonial power and granted extensive credentials (see below). At any rate, on the basis of Schapera's (1952: 11–15) meticulous accounts it is evident that very few, if any, royal sections of the merafe here have prevailed permanently beyond their royal centres and represented a potentially challenging force.
In summary, I have argued that the strength and scale of the Northern Tswana merafe in focus here were in progress from the late eighteenth century, mainly conditioned by the linking up with long-distance trade, abundance of wildlife, vast unexploited pastures and incessant population increase by capturing numerous alien groups into their structures. That is, people were either searching for safe harbour in an increasingly violent landscape or conquered and subjected to one of the merafe. Under these conditions, I have argued, the three Tswana merafe in focus here underwent major transformations, the two significant ones relevant to the present argument being: (a) the amalgamation of the power structures around the dikgosi by the formation of cattle clientship of nonroyal leaders, including some of those of foreign origin; (b) the use of the ward system, combined with cattle clientship, which enabled the ruling groups to incorporate people conquered and hosted in ways that effectively put them into the mill of assimilation and made them integral to the hierarchal structure of the merafe, adding progressively to their strength and scale.
The decisive mediating factor was cattle herds which grow fast under favourable ecological conditions and the dikgosi's exclusive linking up with the intercontinental trade of fur and ivory and their control of trading in the region. The propelling factors were thus of a global kind – intercontinental trade and the imperial expansion into the continent that brought numerous communities and families in flight westwards from the most troubled areas. (By the way, it is a highly intriguing point that, as I shall explain in Chapter 3, cattle – in combination with global trade connections – played a similarly crucial significance in the formation of the postcolonial state in Botswana.)
As for people, I have explained that the rise of the Tswana merafe went hand in hand with that core group in due course becoming a numerical minority. In control of bogosi, they prevailed as the ruling communities progressively asserted their dominant position. By means of particular practices of social incorporation and cultural assimilation, political integration of groups conquered or hosted in the royal centres worked to the effect of developing primary identification with the core group which recognized them as full members of their morafe (see Chapter 6). This is, however, not the whole story. Within the vast territories claimed by the merafe, there were always a number of outlying communities that resisted the overlordship of the rulers of the Tswana merafe of present concern. They were mostly of foreign origin, but also included groups seceded from the royal centre of other Tswana communities in the region. In order to comprehend how the Tswana merafe consolidated and expanded their domination at the edge of the Kalahari and beyond, I shall, in a subsequent section, explain the significance of being brought under British overlordship.
Anticipating that, let me point out that the transformations I have been concerned with in this section involved the development of a civic government (puso) highly instrumental to the British establishment of a colonial state in the country, confirmed by Roberts' (1972: 103) assertion that ‘the administrators of the Bechuanaland Protectorate had at their disposal from the outset a group of closely similar and already highly sophisticated judicial systems, the higher levels of which could be incorporated in the official structure