ABSTRACT
In pre-European times the political system of the Arusha was contained within the institutional complexes relating to the parish age-groups and patrilineal descent groups. In keeping with the dominant Masai ethos, there were no specialised political or administrative roles of authority which could be described by the terms ‘chief’ ‘headman’, etc. Particular roles such as those of age-group spokesman or lineage counsellor were, as they still are, inherently ones of influence rather than authority; and although it was not altogether impossible for men in these roles to resort to coercive sanctions to achieve their public end, this was uncommon and was disapproved by the men themselves and by the members of the groups which supported them. 1 Such infrequently-used sanctions were a final recourse in the face of utter intransigence, and were exerted only with general, explicit public approval. By conscious intent, spokesmen and counsellors were specifically selected by their fellows because of outstanding abilities. They acted as foci of discussion and action in which their fellows participated. Insofar as they were leaders, they merely guided opinion by virtue of their greater experience and aptitude in handling men and affairs. They were, however, continuously aware of opinion as it tended to emerge and crystallise in formal and informal discussion, and they were unable to act in contravention of a coherent expression of it. Intractable differences of opinion amongst members of their groups could render these leaders impotent. Thus, although their influence was marked, especially in view of their personal abilities, if it tended to develop into authority it began to lose its efficacy, because there was no established basis for the effective maintenance of authority. In discussing and attempting to decide and administer such typical issues as a bridewealth dispute, an offensive raid, the direction of new pioneering expansion, the development of irrigation works, or a ritual performance, the men of influence varied according to both the kind of issue and the groups of people involved in it. In any issue these men could not enforce decisions against the adamant opposition of their opponents, but could seek only a mutually acceptable compromise of some kind. But there was no centralisation of decision-making except in the most indirect fashion. Most deliberations and decisions were of a more or less local kind—at the parish level—or they involved a scattered selection of people, patrilineally related, amongst whom (except for the closest agnatic ties) geographical contiguity was an important feature. A cause celebre might, in its long drawn-out proceedings, come to involve men and particularly lineage counsellors from a wide geographical as well as patrilineal range; but these were most infrequent, and led to no permanent, large-scale centralisation of politico-jural authority or action.
