JEAH-JACQVES ROUSSEAU

The issue of succession disputes has been and still is a thorn in the flesh for many political, religious and social organizations and institutions the world over. In most African Independent Churches, succession after the death of some leaders has often led to multiple secessions, hostilities and litigation. Banjo (2008:1), in his article entitled ‘A Descriptive Analysis of Succession Crisis and Post-Eyadema Political Developments in Togo’, said that organizations often fail to utilize managerial personnel effectively for leadership development and succession

29

planning systems, and many execute these critical practices through separate human resource functions that shift the responsibility for leadership development away from line managers. Banjo (2008:1) said that succession is broadly understood to mean the process of changing leadership. For him, succession involves three stages: the vacating of power by the older ruler; the selection of the new; and the legitimization of the new leader. Banjo (2008) further asserted that succession times are often tense times for all types of regimes, even where there are established procedures and easy legitimization. This implies that there is no organization, whether religious, social or political, that can be spared from the tensions and pressures associated with the succession processes. Every organization is prone to succession disputes that are usually associated with squabbles and violence if no proper succession planning has been put in place.

Charan et al (2001) said that most organizations fail to execute succession planning, which is a process for identifying and developing internal people with the potential to fill key leadership positions in the organization. He further stated that succession planning is very important as far as it increases the availability of experienced and capable leaders who are prepared to assume leadership roles as they become available. For Charan et al (2001), organizations should have effective succession or talent-pool management to avoid succession disputes, violence and squabbles at the death of the principal leader. Organizations should make succession planning by developing the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the possible successors who will be able to carry on the leadership roles in the same vein the principal leader had intended (Charan et al 2001). Having a succession plan will ensure that potential leaders are constantly developed to fill each needed role. So, proper planning helps avoid many of the disputes associated with leadership succession.

Maphosa (1999) in the article ‘Leadership Succession: A Recalcitrant Problem in the Indigenization of African Economies’, postulated that one of the greatest challenges facing indigenous African organizations today is the crisis of succession. For him, in most organizations, there is vast uncertainty about the future of the organization beyond the founder. He further stated that the success of the Indigenous African organizations largely depends on the organization’s management practices and leadership styles. In most cases, he said, African organizations have always died with their founders. Maphosa (1999) further argued that the main reason for the collapse of some organizations after the death of the founder is the failure by the founders to properly plan for succession. It is imperative to note that every organization

30

must experience a leadership or managerial succession - the process by which key leadership positions are smoothly replaced by others (Fegley, 2006). Maphosa (1999) also articulated that since leaders are mortal, it is imperative for any organization's long-term stability, survival and growth to always look beyond the incumbent leader, develop strategies, and create conditions for a smooth succession. Maphosa (1999) cited lack of succession plan as the root cause of succession disputes in African family organizations. Failure to execute proper succession practices will tend to promote organizational instability by paving the way for succession disputes.

Hart (1993) rightly stated that leadership succession is the last challenge of leadership. For him, leadership succession is the challenge of letting go, moving on, and planning for one’s own obsolescence. He further said that leadership succession events are always emotionally charged with feelings of expectation, apprehension, abandonment, and loss or relief. Hart (1993) also stated that sustainable leadership plans should be put in place to prepare for succession, not as an afterthought, but from the first day of a leader’s appointment if succession disputes are to be minimized.

Drummond et al (2001) are of the view that leadership succession means more than grooming principal successors. They stated that leadership succession means distributing leadership throughout the organization so that it can carry the torch once the principal leader has gone, and soften the blow of principal leader succession disputes.

Lansberg (1988) said that in the absence of succession planning, the sudden departure of the founder-leader could cause major upheavals of power and authority, conflict among heirs, and thorny estate issues. For Morris et al (1997) a thoughtfully developed succession plan can increase the likelihood of co-operation among stakeholders as well as enhance the chance of a smooth and satisfactory succession process. These two scholars both believe that the development of a succession plan implies that the process will be conducted in an orderly fashion with allowance for preparation before, during, and after the succession event, as well as the development of specific criteria for the selection of a successor. In turn, this will minimize succession disputes.

Sundkler (1961) cited obsession for leadership as the underlying factor behind succession disputes in African churches. For him, the church is the only psychological safety valve and legitimate outlet for Africans’ urge for leadership. This obsession for leadership was

31

necessarily caused by the fact that in the 1950s and early 60s most of Sub-Saharan Africa was still under colonial rule. The church was the only place where they could get leadership positions.

Alokan and Ogunyemi (2011) in their article entitled, An Examination of the Politics of Schism and Secession amongst Indigenous Pentecostal Groups in Nigeria: Trends and Prognosis in Church Literature, reiterated that violence, hatred, oppression, tussle for leadership power and divisions have characterized the indigenous Pentecostal churches in Nigeria. For them, the schisms, rifts, divisions and secessions could be traced to doctrinal practices, leadership problems, different interpretations and manipulations of prophetic gifts and sundries. They also cited fake prophecies and revelations as other causes of succession disputes in Indigenous Churches in Nigeria. They clearly stated that schism and secession has resulted in church members backsliding because of lack of trust among church leaders. More so, the succession disputes have led to the emergence of corrupt leaders whose aims and visions are to embezzle money at the expense of the poor and less privileged in the society.

Daneel (1988) in his book Old and New in Southern Shona Independent Churches: Leadership and Fission Dynamics cited theological, doctrinal, financial misuse, and hunger for power as leading factors that cause succession disputes in African Independent Churches in Zimbabwe. For him, disputes over church doctrine or law, the ambition to rise to leadership (ukuru), the zeal to belong and to be recognized, the tribal political system of leadership that puts emphasis on inherited leadership, and the appointment of office bearers to positions of power using the kinship system are some of the major causes of succession disputes in African Independent Churches in Zimbabwe.

Barrett (1968) in his book Schism and Renewal in Africa: An Analysis of Six Thousand Contemporary Religious Movements cited historical, political, economic, sociological, ethnic, religious and theological factors as contributing factors in succession disputes in different African religious movements. For Barrett (1968) economic deprivations can cause disputes to emerge as people react against the exploitation of power or other riches by those in power. He further said that separatism and disputes could be caused by rigid policies and discrimination in a church. Other causative factors that Barrett cited include tribal tensions, pressure groups, the struggle for power and social injustice. Barrett (1968) further said that disputes in AICs lie in a number of causal factors that are woven together. For him, some of the causative factors are of local application while others are universal. He admitted that different observers arrive

32

at different explanations as to the causes of succession disputes depending on their particular approach and experience. This study looks at the causes of succession disputes in the ZAFM church and whether there could be any similarities with what other AICs have experienced or are experiencing.

Molobi (2011) in the article ‘Power Struggle, Poverty and Breakaways in the African Independent Churches’, reiterated that breakaways were the result of spiritual and doctrinal differences, internal politics, hunger for leadership, status issues and financial squabbles, power struggles and poverty among the African Independent Churches. Molobi (2011), writing on AICs in South Africa, reiterated that historical tensions have impoverished the state of many African Independent Churches. For him, such tensions have often led to divisions and breakaways within the AIC denominational structures.

Molobi (2011) identified many causes for the tensions resulting in breakaways among the AICs and these include the struggle against apartheid, migrant labour, lack of housing, unemployment, and poverty. For Molobi (2011) the struggle for leadership and inadequate funds among the AICs were key frustrations, with disagreements over financial aid and disputes within the churches resulting in resentment among the Zionists and apostolic groups.

Other causes of secession of AICs that Molobi identified include hunger for leadership. This is when a subordinate feel that he should be the leader of the church and then seeks for some excuses for a confrontation with the church leader. This will then give room for them to stop coming to church and start their own. Secession may result because of the highly decentralized nature of the AICs and their difficulties in communication, distance and lack of education.

Molobi (2011) gave an example of Saint Paul Apostolic Faith Mission Church of Archbishop Masango in the East Rand that seceded from the Saint John Apostolic Faith Mission of Christine Nku in the 1980s. For Molobi (2011) these churches are still splitting into further splinter groups today because of misunderstandings and conflicts that erupt frequently in them. All these secessions show power struggles by some of the leaders who may want to assume positions of leadership in the church. Molobi (2011) also asserted that the Zion Christian Church (ZCC) of Lekganyane was not immune to power struggles. The ZCC of Lekganyane split into two major groups – that is, the ZCC of the star and of the dove. Important to note is the contention that leadership has been cited as the major cause of these splits.

33

Kagema (2014), in the article ‘The Challenge of Church-hopping in Kenya: Factors Leading to the Migration of Church Members from the Methodist Church in Kenya’, gave such factors as conservatism, poor leadership, over-emphasis on monetary giving, exaggerated development projects, the new phenomenon of prosperity gospels, spiritual thirst, poor evangelism, and lack of proper worship styles as major contributing issues of succession disputes in Kenya. The views of Kagema are very useful as we endeavour to bring out the causes of succession disputes in ZAFM church.

Kuhn (2001), in an article ‘A Study into African Independent Churches (AICs) in Nyanza/ Kenya’, gave the causes of succession disputes as doctrinal disagreements, lack of spirit possession, miraculous healing and speaking in tongues on the part of the to-be leader. He also cited zeal for leadership, questions of polygamy, and wrangles over church funds as other causes of succession disputes. Kuhn also stated that the Holy Spirit might also tell someone to secede and start a new church. The current study would look at the extent to which such issues as polygamy and embezzlement of funds may cause leadership contestations in the ZAFM church.

Seibert (2005:136) in “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal” Zion churches in Mozambique since the early 20th Century asserted that frequent schisms and splits have always been a characteristic feature of AICs in general, and Zion churches in particular. Zionist churches have a history of recurrent splits from the original founder of the church. For Seibert, leadership struggles within a church can affect the whole religious community. He cited many reasons for internal strife and consequent separations, ranging from succession struggles after a leader’s death, competition for power, struggles for prestige, and accusations of embezzlement of funds and arguments about doctrine, including the question of polygamy, issues of religious practice, and claims of divine visions to found one’s own church. Interesting to note is the idea that the phenomenon of beliefs in the spiritual nature of visions can be found both in the bible and in African traditional religion. The current study would try to look at what causes completion for power and how religious practices facilitate leadership contestations in the ZAFM church.

Oosthuizen (1981), in the book Succession Conflict within the Church of the Nazarites: IBandla ZamaNazaretha, raised leadership type as the source of conflict between Londa Shembe and Amos Shembe after the death of Shembe II. According to Oosthuizen, Amos

34

contended for a democratic type of church while Londa contended that the church is a chief and tribe type of a church.

Oosthuizen (1981), writing about the church of Isaiah Shembe, reiterated that most leaders err by not designating their successors more clearly. Leaders in AICs either do not choose their successors or they keep the issue a secret until they die. In most instances, this issue is kept a secret because AICs will be following the example of the appointment of a successor to a chief where the secret is kept to prevent the successor being eliminated by enemies.

For Oosthuizen (1981), the Zulu king is not merely a political head but also a mystical and religious head and the divine symbol of the Zulu people's well-being. Oosthuizen (1981) also stated that after the death of Shembe I, tensions arose between his three sons concerning the succession issue. The three sons of Shembe were Isaack Stanela Shembe, the eldest son and the general heir according to Native Law and not Johannes Galilee Shembe or Amos Kula Chitokwakhiwayo Shembe. Contrary to the native law, Shembe I elected Johannes Galilee, the second son, to take over the leadership roles. This did not augur well with the other group that wanted the traditional Zulu procedure for the election of a chief to be followed. The majority however abided by the decision of Shembe I that his second son, the university trained Johannes Galilee Shembe, be his successor. Critical reflection on the story of Shembe brings to the fore two patterns of the appointment of a leader the democratic method, which is based on the choice of the congregation and where the leader is primus inter pares, and the Prophet- type leadership appointment system which is based on the metaphysical figure of the chief or principal leader (Oosthuizen, 1981). The current study would like to investigate how leadership succession models used in the ZAFM church foster succession disputes. The study seeks to investigate the causes of succession disputes in the ZAFM and see if they are similar to those in the church of Shembe. The study would also bring to the fore the different succession models used by the ZAFM church in the selection of a new leader.

Oosthuizen (1981) also stated that where a leader is the sum and substance of his followers, a crisis develops when he dies and no leader has been clearly indicated. The major reason is that the followers have been so intimately connected with the whole being of the leader that they find the cessation of this relationship nothing less than traumatic.

Oosthuizen (1981) pointed out that the death of Shembe II aroused a succession dispute that caused grave conflict within the iBandla zamaNazaretha. Oosthuizen (1981) clearly stated that

35

two factions arose one supporting Amos Shembe, brother of Shembe I1 and another supporting Londa, son of Shembe II. The clashes even turned to blood and this led to the death of Elfas Mpimpiza Nduli, a prominent elderly preacher and leader of the Church. Nduli was stoned to death after he was pushed out of the building where Shembe II's body was taken. Nduli, as Oosthuizen postulated, was accused of poisoning Shembe II. As the disputes were escalating, Amos Kula Shembe claimed that an “overwhelming majority” of members present at a meeting officially appointed him as the ostensible head of the Church, and above all, he claimed that the majority of the members of the Church accepted and recognized him as the leader of the Church. The disputes intensified when another faction claimed that Londa Shembe was the Titular head of the Church. The study by Oosthuizen brings to the fore two leadership succession practices: selection through votes, and appointment by the leader stepping down. The study by Oosthuizen is very important in this study as far as it brings out some of the conflicts that are caused by the death of a principal leader of the AIC.

Melton (1991) rightly stated that the period following the death of the founder or leader of a group is critical. A period generally leads to major disruption and often-fatal consequences for the group itself. For him, most leaders of AICs have marked natural ability in their leadership, teaching, speaking and preaching. They also have followers who ascribe to them supernatural or paranormal powers. He also reiterated that some leaders are seen as incarnations of the divine, and some are seen to be in special contact with the supernatural realms. Some AIC leaders are, for Melton (1991), charismatic because they are discoverers of new truth or insights through their hard work. Melton further stated that the life of most AICs pivots on the charismatic leader and thus after his or her death, the church splits or succession disputes occur because the unity of the church was hinged on that person. Further, the religious life of some of AICs is shared around the leader. It is for this reason that the death of the founder is experienced as a sad or traumatic event. It often leads to power struggles, with the loser breaking away and taking some supporters to establish a rival group. Melton (1991) suggested that a smooth leadership transition process is ideal for a more orderly succession. For Melton (1991), if no clear successor is named, the property of the deceased is prone to be won by rivals. This study by Melton is very important in that it points out that the problem of succession is a determinative trauma that causes the split of the church if no proper succession plans are followed.

36

Masondo (2015), in his article, Prophets Never Die. The Story of Bishop P.J. Masango of the St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission said that the St John Apostolic Faith Mission has a protracted history of conflicts and schisms. For him, at the heart of the conflicts there is contestation over