The foregoing observations suggest that the constitution of any people or nation, written or unwritten, derives from its customary rules of life ; and that what we now call "democracy" was generally the earliest system among various peoples throughout the ancient world. What was a relatively new development was absolute monarchy.
Among the Blacks, democratic institutions evolved and functioned in a socio-economic and political system which Western writers call "State- less societies" or "Societies without chiefs." When these societies were referred to as "primitive" democracies, the writers are in fact doing the very opposite of what they intended . Far from being just a descriptive term for backward peoples, "primitive" also means "the first," the beginners. Moreover, many of these "stateless societies" were states in fact without necessarily conforming to a predetermined Western struc- tural pattern of state. Indeed, what is called a "stateless society" in Africa
would hardly be classified as such in the West, for the Western definition of a state does not include the requirements of one man as its executive head-a state being any collection of people occupying a given territory, and living under their own government independently of external control.
These facts are set forth at the outset because both the constitutional system and its offspring, African democracy, originated in "chiefless societies." And, what is even more significant, democracy reached its highest development here where the people actually governed them- selves without chiefs, where self-government was a way of life, and "law and order" were taken for granted.
The basic structural outline of these states remained the same throughout Africa . There were the usual variations and exceptions. The amazing thing was and is the uniformity-amazing how the most basic elements of ancient black civilization could have been held on to, conti- nent-wide, by all of these dispersed and isolated groups in spite of the continuing impact of unimaginable forces of destruction .
The lineage ties and responsibilities and the age-grade or age-set system were the earliest institutions through which the African constitu-
tion functioned, and out of which its democracy was born . It was a network of kinsmen, and alleged kinsmen, all of whom descended from the same ancestor or related ancestors . All might live in the same community or state, but they were often scattered far and near in separate and independent societies.
The ancestor from whom they claimed descent was always "great" because of some outstanding deed or extraordinary achievements . These generally grew in magnitude as time and the generations passed, thus causing the true achievements to be overlaid by the false claims growing out of praise songs. Each generation of poets and storytellers gave the imagination full range in Romantic glory . Myths were born in this manner, and the later concepts of both royalty and divinity gained support from the same source. In contiguous independent chiefdoms the lineage was the powerful factor in providing the basis and incentive for the later formation of kingdoms and empires . No people in African
history used the concept of kinship ties more effectively then the Lunda in the remarkable expansion of their empire. Even more remarkable than the territorial expansion of the Lunda empire was their idea of a nation as one big brotherhood.
Accordingly, instead of first attempting to conquer and annex by force, they would approach independent states and seek to demonstrate from oral history that all of them were merely segments of a common lineage, all brothers in fact. It appears that the majority of states believed in the principle of a common ancestry and readily became members of the empire . Some required more facts before they were convinced, still others were not convinced or preferred to remain separate and independent. These were generally conquered and given a lower status in the nation than those who united voluntarily.
But we are considering lineage before the rise of kingdoms and in particular, the lineage as the governing and organizing force in states without chiefs or kings, where community consensus was the supreme law that anyone could ignore only at his peril.
There were interesting aspects to the many situations where a large number of these chiefless states were scattered over a wide territory, each independent of the others, yet all fully aware (and unlike in Lundaland, had to be convinced) that they belonged to a common lineage. Kinship found expression in trade and in temporary confedera- tions when attacked by external foes (those not considered to be
members of their lineage) . There were quarrels and warfare between these member states of the
common lineage . The highly humane aspect of African warfare that puzzled many Western visitors doubtlessly developed from the widespread recognition of lineage or kinship ties. For in the much heralded "tribal wars" the main objective was to overcome or frighten away the adversary, not to kill at all if it could be avoided . Hence the hideous masks and blood-curdling screams as they charged . Even when the enemy was defeated or completely surrounded, escape routes were provided, the victors pretending not to be aware of them. Indeed, there are reports of "rest periods," called when neither side seemed to be winning. At such times the warriors on both sides might meet at the nearest stream to refresh themselves, kid each other, and laugh at each others' jokes until the drums, gongs or trumpets sounded for the resumption of the battle. This was traditional Africa . How did it change to a warfare of killing, lineage or no lineage? How did it happen that even now in our modern and "advanced" civilization some of the most murderous and inhuman of wars are fought by Blacks against Blacks,and this in the face of their increasing awareness that they are in fact one people? It is quite clear that in early Africa "war" was not much more
than a frightful game when among themselves . Was the radical change brought about by the death-dealing incursions from Asia and Europe?
This raises other questions of great urgency : Are we really civilized today? Have we not substituted the trappings of civilization-our
triumphs in science, technology, and the computer "revolution" -for civilization ties? Suffice it to say that the steady weakening of lineage
ties and its spirit of unity was also a weakening of the sense of
brotherhood and unity among the Blacks. Today it finds little expression except in various languages or tribal groups, and these maintain it more
and more as a cohesive force to be used against all others.
Lineage, then, was the most powerful and effective force for unity and stability in early Africa, and this was so true that a state could be self- governed without the need for any one individual as ruler, chief or king. Everyone was a lawyer because just about everyone knew the Customary laws.
The age-grade or age-set (also called "class" was the specific organi- zational structure through which the society functioned .
Classification was determined by the period in which one was born. All persons born in the same year, or within a general but well-defined
period before or after a given year, belonged in the same age-grade . Each grade covered a block of years : Age-grade one might include all children up to age twelve; grade two, from thirteen to eighteen ; grade three, nineteen to twenty-eight; grade four, twenty-nine to forty; and grade five, forty and above. There was seniority within each grade according to age and intelligence . Intelligence and wisdom were supposed to match one's age. Stated another way, the African philosophy that accorded so much deference to elders was based upon the
assumption that, call other things being equal, those who were living in the world and experiencing life before others were born should know more than these others. This qualification is important because it was later applied in the election of chiefs and kings . Being heir to the throne was not enough. One had to meet other qualifications or be passed over. Therefore, being older or the oldest in one's group did not command the usual respect if one was lazy, a troublemaker or a fool .