THE KINGDOM OF THE ZULU 41
brothers, and his uncle$; the adherents of each of these homesteads were very jealous of their 'prince's* prestige and felt a local loyalty to him as against the adherents of other 'princes'. Before and after the death of a chief, these groups vied with one another to have their 'prince' nominated as heir, and were even ready on occasion, despite their tribal loyalties, to support him against the he:r when he assumed power. Faction fights between these sections continue to-day, often flaring up over trivial matters; and when Government assumed rule in Zululand it inherited a rich legacy of their feuds and of inter-tribal feuds. Even the members of wards under commoner indunas often came to blows, for at weddings and hunts they assembled as members of military sections or wards, and if a fight started between two men their fellow members would support them. Thus in every Zulu political group there was opposition between its component sections, often manifested through their leaders, though they co-operated in matters affecting the welfare of the whole group.
The opposed groups within the nation were united by the common service of their leaders in the council of the larger group of which they were part. The administration ran in separate threads from king to a particular chief, to a particular induna, to a particular lineage-head; all these threads were woven together in the council system. Though the group-heads were the main part of what bureaucracy there was in the simple Zulu social organization, their functions as bureaucrats and as group-heads were not entirely identical, In previous paragraphs some of their functions as group-heads have been reviewed. As administrators, they watched their people's interests and ruled them according to the orders of their superiors, and they also used their people's backing in their struggles for administrative power, perhaps against the people's interests. They and the officers about a court were the link between a ruler and his subjects, but frequently tended to become a barrier between them, for they were jealous of their rights, resented any encroachment on their privileges and sometimes acted independently of the ruler. The people had to consider these officials in approaching their rulers, the rulers were largely compelled to conduct their relations with the people through them. There was therefore an unstable balance of duties and interests between the group-heads acting as courtiers and other courtiers, and the rulers and the people.