THE KINGDOM OF THE ZULU 43
The kings killed all brothers whose rivalry they feared. Uncles (fathers in the kinship system) were less likely to oust the king, and while the people should not complain against the king to his brothers they could appeal to one of his uncles. The kings, and all officers, were always on the watch for these threats to them. As the medicines of a ruler were believed to make him immune to the influence of his inferiors, if he felt ill in the presence of some person he could accuse the latter of sorcery.
The king had to treat all his brothers (and chiefs) carefully, lest they became centres of disaffection against him. The tension between the king and his brothers was a check on the king's rule because his subjects could shift their allegiance to his brothers. In addition, because the Zulu were strongly attached to their immediate political heads, the chiefs, and would even support them against the king, the chiefs had power to control the actions of the king. On the other hand, the chiefs remained dependent on the king. He could enlarge the powers of his favourites or assist the rivals of a recalcitrant chief.
Within tribes the chiefs held power under similar conditions. They could use armed force against disobedient or rebellious subjects though they had to inform the king that they were doing this. The^e were stronger checks on their rule. Their subjects could complain to the king if they were misruled. Though a man could in theory sue the king, he was not likely to do so; a chief could be brought before the king's court. Misrule by a chief would strengthen the hands of his brothers within the tribe and these brothers, unless the king intervened, might seize power. A quarrel with an important brother or subject might induce him to live elsewhere with his personal adherents. While misrule drove subjects to other chiefs a good and generous rule would attract followers. The Zulu have it that a chief should be free and generous with his people and listen to their troubles, then they will support him in war and 'not stab him in his hut'. The forces of fission and integration which marked the early political organization were still at work in the Zulu nation and to benefit by them it behoved a chief to rule wisely and justly in accordance with the wishes of his people.
The Zulu had loyalties to their various political heads. While these loyalties did not generally conflict, if king, chief, or induna abused his power the people would support one of their other