The Zulu State Under Dingane (1828-1838)

Jacquelinne Marroquin, The Zulu Under Dingane (c. 1828-1838)

During Dingane’s reign, the Zulu state faced behaviors and events similar to those exhibited by Shaka. I argue that, to an extent, Dingane was no different from Shaka for he made false promises to the Zulu people, became a violent leader, and did not let justice be overseen by the court chiefs. When Dingane took over after Shaka’s death, he “inaugurated his reign with promises of amnesty, peace and prosperity for the weary Zulu people” (Robinson Smith, Document 25). Furthermore, it is important to note that the Zulu people were not fond of Dingane and realized later on that Dingane was full of false promises and incompetence. 

First I argue that when Dingane became the new ruler, he promised the Zulu people peace which he did not deliver. Dingane showed his violent side earlier in his reign when he set his own people for failure and death by encouraging men to “go and have premarital intercourse with girls [then] the great men, his brothers and other of importance, thereupon entered his isigodhlo and sported with the girls there” (Robinson Smith, Document 27). Afterward, Dingane proceeded to arrest the men and he started calling other ordinary men “to be at once killed with straight, thick, and short sticks” (Robinson Smith, Document 27). I argue that Dingane believed the Zulu people would accept him and praise him with no hesitation and seeing how that did not happen Dingane proceeded to reveal his true violent self which was similar to Shaka’s. Dingane’s decision to show his violent side speaks to how Shaka’s legacy and behaviors were still very much alive and would be followed by his predecessors like it or not. The Zulu people, from higher social classes and powerful positions all the way to the average men, faced Dingane’s wrath. 

Dingane promised amnesty to the Zulu people in an effort to gain the people’s acceptance and to avoid opposition. Amnesty was one of the promises because Dingane’s predecessor, Shaka, decided the people’s fate and had control over the tribunal. One of Dingane’s attempts to accomplish such amnesty involved fixing the court/judicial system, so he replaced Shaka’s court with his own people. It is not hard to believe that, once again, Dingane did not fulfill his promises of amnesty. At first, it seemed like these new chiefs “[had] full responsibility for dealing with and settling all the disputes of the people [and that] Dingane did not and would not interfere with this tribunal” (Robinson Smith, Document 26). Unfortunately, it was all a facade because Dingane did have control over the decisions made in the tribunal and it all “proved to be only a show of justice [for everything] was reported to him (Robinson Smith, Document 26). And once again, this was another false promise. 

Once Dingane took over, he also promised to bring prosperity to the Zulu people. Prosperity looked differently and took different forms either economic or social during the time of the Mfecane. Dingane’s idea of prosperity was related to or shown through control, power, and acquisition. For Dingane to see his definition of prosperity become a reality, he needed a strong and brave army. Unfortunately for him, he “could not inspire the same demonstrations of bravery [as Shaka] in battle. His armies, in fact, performed rather poorly” (Robinson Smith, Document 25). Under Dingane’s control, the army lost many bottles, lost their prestige, and became incapable of “winning in wars against admittedly hostile neighbours” (Robinson Smith, Document 26). The Zulu people saw no signs of prosperity; instead, they saw a military downfall. 

I claim that under Dingane’s rule, the Zulu people still faced injustices, losses, and brutality. It can be argued that Dingane tried to win people over by proposing different alternatives like peace, amnesty, and prosperity, but in the end, Shaka’s shadow and dreadful legacy were always present. Furthermore, acknowledging that the Zulu people and many other characters like Fynn did not accept nor support most of Dingane’s propositions and efforts further explains why he acted and responded the way he did.