Chiefs, subchiefs and local control: negotiations over land, struggles over meaning

Abstract

Control over and access to land in Nso, Cameroon, has always depended on social identity. Control over land is a central symbol of leadership, both historically and today. Since the mid-1970s the Cameroonian state has instituted land ordinances and stressed privatisation and land titling, while Nso ideology has continued to emphasise access to land as a right of Nso citizenship. The contradictions set up by these two differing views are exacerbated by disputes between the Fon Nso and his sub-chiefs, in this case the Fon Nseh, over the right to control access to land. This prerogative, represented by the licence to collect taxes for the people farming on the land, is further complicated by the relationship of the two rulers and their constituents to the national state. Each Fon reinvents tradition by reinterpreting a series of historical events to buttress his claim, the Fon Nso stressing rights in people and the Fon Nseh stressing rights in territory by virtue of his ritual obligation to the ancestors residing there. This article examines the complex relationships and the distribution of power among these traditional rulers, the new elites and the national state.RésuméLe contrôle et l'accession à la terre à Nso, au Cameroun, a toujours dépendu de l'identité sociale. Le controle de la terre symbolise l'idée de chef, à la fois dans le passé et encore de nos jours. Depuis le milieu des années 1970, l'état camerounais a établi des arrêtes fonciers et renforce la privatisation et le droit foncier, alors que l'idéologie Nso a continué à accentuer l'accession à la terre comme un droit de citoyenneté Nso. Les contradictions produites par ces deux points de vues différents sont encore plus exacerbées par les désaccords entre le Fon Nso et ses sous-chefs, dans ce cas le Fon Nseh, sur le droit de controler l'accession à la terre. Ce privilege, representé par le droit de percevoir les impôts payables par les fermiers travaillant sur la terre, se complique encore davantage quant au rapport des deux chefs et de leurs partisans à l'état moderne. Chaque Fon réinvente la tradition en dormant une nouvelle interpretation à certains événement historiques pour étayer sa revendication: le Fon Nso met en valeur les droits du point de vue des gens, alors que le Fon Nseh renforce les droits dans la perspective du territoire en vertue de l'engagement rituel qu'il porte envers les ancêtres qui y résident. Cet article analyse les rélations complexes et la repartition du pouvoir parmi ces chefs traditionnels, les nouvelles élites et l'état moderne.

Inequality and Social Conflict Over Land in Africa

“…Here, one must understand 'accumulation' to refer not merely to the material benefits of landed resources but to the 'symbolic capital' that links, for example, political authority with control over land and patronage (Goheen 1992). Critical to the construction and maintenance of these 'chains' of patronage is access to state structures and procedures, including land policy 'reforms' of customary tenure.…”

Violence, Sacrifice and Chiefship in Central Equatoria, Southern Sudan

“…3 A sample of the literature includes : Goheen 1992;Nyamnjoh 2004;Ray 1996;van Kessel and Oomen 1997;Vaughan 2000Vaughan , 2005West and Kloeck-Jenson 1999. Mamdani's distinction between citizens and subjects, asking whether, as brokers, chiefs are also implicated in narrow state patrimonialism, and whether therefore their resurgence may entrench a (colonial-style) system whereby access to rights and resources is confined to recognized members of a 'community', defined by its chief (Buur 2004;West 1998). While the strong links between urban-centred government and home villages lead Geschiere and Gugler (1998) to conclude that everyone is 'both citizen and subject ', Fanthorpe (2001) focuses on youth in Sierra Leone who were 'neither citizen nor subject' as a result of the exclusionary legacy of colonial chiefdom policies.…”

People of the Chisel: Apprenticeship, youth, and elites in Oku (Cameroon)

“…Herzfeld has noted the "resentment" and "resistance" of the apprentice toward his master in rural Crete (1995:134). This process represents a struggle on the part of the palace elite of the Grassfields to sustain their legitimacy rather than a smooth integrationist process, and it parallels the palatine elites' struggles to domesticate the new elites without loosing legitimacy-a wider dilemma amply described by Blank (1989), Eyoh (1998( ), Fisiy (1992, Fisiy andGoheen (1998), Geschiere (1997:100, 213, 277 n. 18;1999:230), Goheen (1992:145, 148-162), Nkwi (1979, Nyamjoh and Rowlands (1998), Rowlands (1994Rowlands ( ,1993, and Warmer (1995). Similarly in Oku, as carvers with little or no formal training age and build social ties, a minority among them are absorbed by the palace hierarchy to whom they pose a threat.…”

“…The objects given in tang are similar to Dillon's (1990:77) cam-able property among the Meta'. Chem-Langhee et al (1996:155) describe the process of tanging palace societies in Nso', and Goheen (1992:403) records a variant use of this word, also in Lam Nso', where presenting gifts to the palace-known in Oku as "washing the palace" (se suu ntokl-is known as "tanging the Fon." In common with Dillon's informant's description of earning (1990:161), offering gifts to masquerade groups in Oku constitutes a form of initiation that bestows rights on the giver to shares of gifts from new initiates in the future.…”