‘Model Tribes’ and Iconic Conservationists? The Makuleke Restitution Case in Kruger National Park

Abstract

This article investigates how the Makuleke community in Limpopo Province achieved iconic status in relation to land reform and community‐based conservation discourses in South Africa and beyond. It argues that the situation may be more complex than it first appears, and the ways in which the Makuleke story has been deployed by NGOs, activists, academics, conservationists, the state and business may be too simplistic. The authors discuss historical representations of the Makuleke ‘tribe’ against the backdrop of their experiences of living in the borderland Pafuri region of the Kruger National Park prior to their forced removal. After investigating the ways in which the chieftaincy, and its relation to communal land, has been strengthened by local mobilizations against threats from the neighbouring Mhinga Tribal Authority, the authors suggest that a central tension in the Makuleke area is the conflict between democratic principles governing the legal entity in control of the land (i.e., the Communal Property Association), and traditionalist patriarchal principles of the Tribal Authority. The article shows how these restitution‐linked processes became implicated in the establishment in 2002 of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. The authors also argue that the image of the Makuleke as a ‘model tribe’ is both a product of changing historical circumstances and a contributor to contemporary discourses on land restitution and conservation.

White Belonging and Brokerage at a South African Rural Frontier

“…It also resonates with a classic continuity in nature conservation efforts in South Africa, whereby chiefs and 'model tribes' are constructed as natural beneficiaries in conservation-development blends (see Robins and van der Waal 2008). In this case, a racialised notion of project competency and management was constructed, that aimed to open up space for brokers like Etienne as the strategic partner in intermediary roles who could help communities adopt modern management standards, tie in investors and help coordinate complex support networks.…”

Teaching Archaeological Pasts in South Africa: Historical and Contemporary Considerations of Archaeological Education

“…Robins 2001;Robins and van der Waal 2008). At Mapungubwe, descendant communities' negotiations for repatriating artifacts and reburying human remains devolved into internecine antagonism: petitioners sought to discredit one another by each claiming to have a deeper connection to the site (records are on file with SANParks).…”

National parks and environmental justice: Comparing access rights and ideological legacies in three countries

“…The Makuleke people who had lived and farmed there were first allowed to remain, but in 1969 they were forcibly removed and their land was turned over to SANParks (de Villiers 1999). The community was relocated without compensation to a much smaller area with fewer resources (Robins & van der Waal 2008). After 1994 the community lodged a restitution claim against SANParks, and a lengthy and complicated process of negotiations ensued (de Villiers 1999).…”

“…The establishment of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area is considered a further threat to the community's present control over their land. Even though they own land in the park they are not directly represented in the management structure of the transfrontier park and the community leadership feels sidelined by the authorities (Spierenburg et al 2007;Robins & van der Waal 2008). The Makuleke case is generally hailed as the solution to dilemmas between conservation and development interests.…”