44 AFRICAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS
political heads against him, and in their intrigues for power the political heads were ready to take advantage of this. Thus the potential conflict of these loyalties was a strong check on misrule and gave the people some control over their rulers.
VI. The People and Their Leaders
The working of these forces depended on the fact that political leadership was personal. In theory, any one could approach his superiors through their courtiers, though it might take some days. A chief (and even the king) was supposed to deal with his people himself and should not altogether delegate this duty. Chiefs and indunas knew most of their subjects, with their relationships and ancestry; if a stranger arrived at a capital all details about him were asked. To a lesser extent this applied to the king. The chief attended his people's weddings and sent his condolences, or visited them, if a relative died. The Zulu sum this up by saying 'the people respect their chief, but the chief ought to respect his people'.
This intimacy between the chief and his people, despite the ceremonial which surrounded him, was largely possible because there was no class snobbery among the Zulu. The chief was still regarded and treated as the 'father of his people'; 'they are your father's people', he was told; 'care for them well'. And did not the chief belong to the tribe, especially if it had subscribed the bride-wealth for his mother ? There was no insurmountable barrier to marriage between his and any of his subjects' families. Though the courtiers had greater knowledge of affairs than the provincials had, the Zulu all had the same education and lived in the same way; and any one could take his part in the chief's council or assist in judging a case. Birth, age, courage, and wisdom all affected the attention a man would get; but every one could speak. Wealth brought a chief closer to, did not remove him from, his people. For under the conditions of Zulu life wealth did not give a chief opportunity to live at a higher level than his inferiors. He had more wives and bigger homesteads, but he could not surround himself with luxuries, for there were none. Wealth, in the form of well-filled granaries and large herds of cattle, gave a man power only to increase the number of his dependants and to dominate many inferiors. From the point of view of the chief, it may be said that he had to be rich in order to support his dependants; and