This article advances the notion that African epistemologies can be applied in the process of decolonising theology. The Setswana cultural entity known as kgotla is examined in juxtaposition with communion ecclesiology. The objective is to demonstrate how kgotla and communion ecclesiology promote and enhance democracy. Drawing on a literature review, both entities are defined, with attention to their roles, procedures, and underlying democratic processes. Kgotla is explored as an institution and as a space of interaction, information, impartation, and inspiration. These five defining features are also applied to communion ecclesiology, leading to a comparative evaluation of kgotla and communion ecclesiology to demonstrate how the two interplay democracy. Democracy is traced within both kgotla and communion ecclesiology, highlighting how each reflects the principles of transparency, dialogue, participation, and communality. Shared values and virtues emerge as common features of both entities. The article concludes that kgotla, as a cultural construct, and communion ecclesiology, as a theological framework, function together in fostering patriotism, solidarity, and communality.
Contribution
This article contributes to the application of African epistemologies as powerful resources for the decolonisation of theology. It adopts an interdisciplinary approach, engaging cultural anthropology, history, ecclesiology, and ethics.
kgotlademocracykgosicommunion ecclesiologycommunitychurchcultureFunding information This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.Introduction
One of the quintessential approaches to the decolonisation of theology – understood as the liberation of theology from colonial interpretations of the Christian faith – is the utilisation and application of African epistemologies (that is, African conceptualisations that considers both individual and collective perspectives, with particular emphasis on the role of community, culture, and historical consciousness in shaping knowledge) in the interpretation of theological constructs and dicta. I fully subscribe to Magesa’s (1998) assertion that:
To understand a people’s God-talk, one has to be familiar with the symbols and entire system of language they employ for this purpose; thus the necessity of studying the people and their culture, the necessity of knowing their philosophy, psychology and so on. (p. 37)
This is also confirmed by the renowned African theologian Mbiti (1990), who argued that the use of African analogies enables Africans to perceive Christianity not as a foreign import, but rather as good news that fulfils African spiritual longings. African epistemologies are rich in moral teachings that guide and govern societies. Indeed, ‘the foundation of African traditional morality and religion is found in African ontology as expressed in proverbs, myths and sayings of various African cultures’ (Musoke 2018:13). It is a prerogative of African scholars in the fields of theology, philosophy, psychology and related disciplines to recover and re-engage these African epistemologies in order to interpret contemporary ontological realities. Bujo (in Bujo & Muya 2006:267) is correct in noting that ‘Despite the colonial experience of depersonalisation and cultural invasion, African cultures have kept their vitality’.
In pursuit of this aim, this article draws on the Setswana notion of kgotla to illuminate the theological concept of communion ecclesiology. The concepts of kgotla and democracy are defined and analysed comparatively in order to demonstrate their convergence to convey a theological understanding of communion ecclesiology.
The Setswana <italic>kgotla</italic>
Kgotla in Setswana denotes both a rendezvous (place), the event (gathering), and, in some contexts, a settlement conglomerate traditionally referred to as a ward or kgoro in certain Setswana tribes, such as the Bakgatla-ba-Kgafela, Balete, and Batlokwa. A ward is a defined area within a village where a group of families live together in a cluster of households, typically arranged in a circle or semi-circle around a central kraal shared by ward or kgotla members (Otlogetswe 2018:58). Spatially, the kgotla is an enclosed area, architecturally constructed in a semi-circular shape within the village. It is ‘a large open space, semi-circular in shape …’ (Williams 2006:29). It is usually situated in front of the main kraal (cattle enclosure), which in many Setswana cultures also serves as a burial site. This proximity between the kgotla and the burial site proximate the living and the dead; thus, the ancestors are understood to be present in kgotla proceedings. This is confirmed by Setiloane (in Fasholé-Luke, Gray, et al. 1978:407), who notes that ancestors remain active in the lives of their descendants, bestowing or withholding blessings depending on conduct.
Kgotla structures may be constructed from tree branches, stems, or rocks. Functionally, they serve as venues for village assemblies, court cases, and meetings of the village leaders. However, as noted above, kgotla is not merely a physical location but also an event: a communal gathering to discuss significant civic matters, including issues of justice, social development, moral and ethical formation and education. Moumakwa (2010:3) aptly describes it as ‘an institution serving as a forum for policy formulations, decision making, including political and economic developmental activities and judiciary on litigations’. This is further confirmed by Otlogetswe (2018:58), who states that ‘The kgotla is the administrative centre of tribal life where disputes are settled and where tribal or village issues are debated. It is a traditional court where cases are heard’. Historically – and as it continues to be perceived today – the kgotla ground constitutes ‘the centre of the moral and political life where every important issue is discussed’ (Williams 2006:40).
Kgotla is not confined to a central location such as the kgosi’s palace or the kgosana’s main residence. As a structure, it occupies a central position within the kgoro, and certain prominent households may also maintain their own architectural kgotla. These decentralised kgotlas fulfil a range of important functions. For instance, among the Bahurutshe in the Zeerust district and elsewhere, a kgotla serves two primary roles.
Firstly, it functions as a venue for men to conduct marriage-related procedures, including negotiations and ceremonial processes such as patlo [the formal request for or search for the bride] and the delivery of magadi [bride price or dowry]. Attendance is typically restricted to culturally married men representing both the groom’s and the bride’s families – the former as petitioners and the latter as hosts or recipients of the proposal and magadi. These deliberations take place either at the kgotla of the kgoro or at the bride’s household. Similarly, during go isiwa ngwetsi, the same procedural pattern is followed at the groom’s kgotla. Women, either simultaneously or subsequently, conduct parallel proceedings in the lelwapa [the courtyard in front of the main house].
Secondly, the decentralised kgotla serves as a place of mourning and bereavement. When a member of the kgoro or household passes away, men gather at the kgotla to receive information regarding the deceased and to deliberate on subsequent arrangements, particularly those relating to the funeral. A designated individual assumes a central role in communicating information to those who come to offer condolences. On the day of the funeral, men assemble at the kgotla, while women gather either inside the house or in the lelwapa to carry out their respective roles in the funeral proceedings, although both men and women may be present at the burial site. Refreshments during the mourning period and on the day of the funeral are served at these respective locations, namely the kgotla and the lelwapa.
In light of these functions of decentralised kgotlas, it may be concluded that the kgotla plays a significant role in fostering identity, dignity, and disciplined oratory, as well as in facilitating the sharing of information and democratic participation in both celebratory (marriage) and bereavement contexts. Both types of events are inherently communal, marked by participatory engagement and mutual support. A Motswana man finds a sense of dignity through participation in kgotla procedures, while women experience a similar sense of dignity through participation in lelwapa activities. It is therefore necessary to elaborate further on the primary roles of the kgotla.
A village institution
Kgotla, under the leadership of a central figure such as a chief, functions as an institution of identity and dignity. The kgosi acts as the chief executive of the kgotla (Lekorwe 2011:387). In this capacity, the kgosi leads the governance system and, above all, serves as the ‘custodian of culture, custom, and welfare of the people’ (Lekorwe 2011:387). The kgotla provides an important consultative platform. Consultation, according to Lekorwe (2011:387), ‘implies a process where decision-makers solicit the views of those whom the decisions will affect’. In this way, the kgotla functions as an indispensable structure through which the viability of community governance is sustained. One’s identification is closely tied to the kgotla, as these dikgotla (plural) are constituted by specific community units such as clans, totemic groups, or, on a larger scale, entire tribes.
As a village institution, the kgotla also functions as a civil court, hearing and settling disputes and facilitating their resolution, whether by the kgosi or by the elders of the kgotla or tribe. Such cases may be conducted even in the absence of the kgosi, as senior members of the tribe are regarded as executors of justice. Basically, as a judicial forum, the kgotla prioritises restorative justice and reconciliation aimed at mending broken relationships, rather than a strictly punitive approach to justice.
A place of information
In a typical Setswana village, the kgotla serves as a primary site of communication, facilitated by either a kgosana or a kgosi. Lekorwe (2011:387) explains that ‘government officials, including politicians, such as members of parliament and councillors, also use the kgotla as a means of informing the various tribal communities about new legislation’. It is, therefore, a place in which public announcements are made. Moreover, ‘it is still being used extensively to solicit views from the community’ (Lekorwe 2011:387). The kgotla leader – whether kgosi or kgosana – guides discussions, deliberations, and discourses. He announces the agenda for the day, thereafter taking a seat and opening the floor for discussion. A kgotla leader listens attentively and skilfully, and, in a democratic manner, enables participants to express their views without fear of intimidation.
A place of impartation
Setswana culture, like many African cultures, is patriarchal. Every adult man is entitled to attend the kgotla. As the kgotla is predominantly a male space – although in some tribes, women have more recently been permitted to participate – most education relating to the tribe (including history, the justice system, marriage protocols, and livestock management) is conveyed there.
The sharing of information does not take the form of didactic rhetoric such as formal lectures or lessons in which the teacher occupies a central role. Rather, learning in African contexts is often acquired through observation and attentive listening to others. As individuals speak, others gain insight and wisdom. Discussions are typically grounded in lived experience, serving as a means of imparting communal wisdom. This shared wisdom provides an essential pathway to critical reflection because African philosophy ‘finds its full meaning only in the community in which it is nurtured and for which it is destined’ (Makumba 2014:101). The kgotla, therefore, functions as a platform through which African sages or cultural constructs are imparted as paradosis to subsequent generations.
A place of interaction
It is within this context that democracy, as understood in the African worldview, is displayed. Community members interact about matters that affect their livelihoods, whether positively or negatively. There is a recognised freedom to express one’s views and feelings. As Williams (2006:40) observes, ‘everyone who wished to speak was encouraged to give his view …’. This ethos is reflected in the Setswana proverb mmua lebe o bua la gagwe [everyone is free to speak candidly, even at the risk of error] As Lekorwe (2011:388) notes, ‘this then implies that there is freedom of speech and discussion is conducted in a free atmosphere’.
A place of inspiration
In Setswana culture, the kgotla is regarded as a sacred space in which spiritual connections are enacted. It is at the kgotla that the gods are invoked by patriarchs. Such invocations may take the form of intercessions for divine intervention in times of disaster or calamity, including drought, floods, lightning strikes, or any epidemic outbreaks. Sacrifices, petitions, intercessions, and incantations may be performed at the kgotla by the chief, either in the presence or absence of the tribe. In this context, the chief’s role as the priestly figure of the tribe becomes evident, because ‘the priestly functions were also transferred to the chief’ (Bammann 2016:73).
<italic>Kgotla</italic> and democracy
It is evident that the kgotla is neither a unilateral institution nor a personal space that can be claimed by any individual as legitimately his or hers alone. Rather, it is the setting in which the community gathers to deliberate and make decisions. It is the means by which members of the tribe or kgoro ‘interact to reach agreement on how to handle a particular issue’ (Chiroma 2020:68). At the kgotla, discussions and decisions concerning the development of the village take place. Decisions are typically reached by consensus (Bammann 2016:72) rather than by formal voting. The chief is expected to possess the skills of active listening so that, at the conclusion of deliberations, he may announce a final decision grounded in the collective discussion. Once this decision has been articulated, no countermotions or points of order may be raised, as expressed in the proverb lefoko la kgosi le agelwa mosako [the chief’s word is final and authoritative]. Bammann (2016:72) affirms this noting that ‘the chief is where all the threads come together. He consults his people; he listens when the daily tribal and council meetings in the lekgotla take place’.
This demonstrates that Africa is not unfamiliar with forms of democratic practice. As Chiroma (2020) observes:
[F]orms of democracy have been present in African communities over the centuries as can be seen in, for example, the kgotla system in Botswana, where all members of the community are allowed to speak and decisions are made by consensus. (p. 68)
African democracy, in this sense, is both deliberative and participatory, as power is distributed across all the members of the kgotla, ‘so that all stakeholders are also participants who can take part in the deliberations’ (Chiroma 2020:69). All kgotla participants are afforded an equal opportunity to express their views through questions, comments, and critical engagement, as the kgotla functions as a forum for public debate.
One important observation is that, in contemporary contexts, the kgotla is no longer exclusively a male domain. Historically, traditional practices and cultural norms often led to the exclusion of women from certain kgotla activities. Viewed through modern cultural lenses, the kgotla may be seen as a site where women were marginalised due to the traditional gendered power relations and its predominantly male spatial configuration (Lekorwe 2011). However, as the kgotla institution continues to evolve, women increasingly participate in kgotla events as full participants or members of the tribe, clan, or kgoro.
The authority of the chief or headman (kgoro [leader]), or their representatives, was considerable in the pre-colonial era, although this authority was somewhat reconfigured during the apartheid and democratic periods. Nevertheless, the presence of the kgosi remains integral within traditional forums such as the kgotla, where he listens, discerns, evaluates, and ultimately formulates conclusions. It is at the kgotla that he hears views, petitions, and complaints, and issues directives as deemed necessary (Kooijman 1980).
Despite this hierarchical structure and the prominence of the kgosi, the defining characteristic of kgotla remains the maximal participation of all involved. It is not a leader-centred, idea-restricted, or rigidly agenda-driven programme; rather, it is an open forum in which fears and reservations are set aside and transparency and freedom prevail. This resonates with what, in Swahili, is termed the baraza, described as ‘the African experience of conversation in public meetings to discuss important matters’ (eds. Opongo & Béré 2021:6). A kgotla meeting (lekgotla) may continue until it becomes evident that no new contributions are forthcoming. ‘Only then could the Kgosi sum up the discussion and the consensus’ (Williams 2006:40). Members of the community regard attendance and participation in the kgotla both as a communal responsibility and an honourable gesture. There is, moreover, an intrinsic dynamic that draws individuals into participation. In line with Nkafu (1999:171), participation with others constitutes a vital force that transcends the individual ‘I’ and embraces the collective ‘we’, moving from individual existence towards communal being.
Communion ecclesiology reflected in the <italic>kgotla</italic> system
In the Reformed tradition, communion ecclesiology is understood as a theological approach that emphasises the relational nature of the church as a community in which the triune God dwells personally and mutually with his people. This understanding bears close affinity to the Catholic view of communion ecclesiology as plebs adunata, that is, ‘a people united in the unity of the triune God’ (Lumen Gentium 4). It represents an ecclesiological synthesis that ‘unites the discourse on the church with the discourse on God and with the life from God and with God’ (Ilo 2021:170). As a theological discipline, communion ecclesiology seeks to cultivate a community in which members are relationally linked, reflecting the essence of God as relational. The church, as a communion, ‘is a web of interwoven relationships’ (Doyle 2000:13). The Christian community dwells together with God in a state of homothumadon [togetherness], a mutuality that is innately inseparable. Resane (2008:221) expresses this by stating that ‘The church participates in the life of the triune God as both the future hope and the present experience’. Doyle (2000:13) further observes that the church as a communion ‘offers a share in the life of the Trinity’. Communion ecclesiology is thus inherently participatory, as the Spirit of God, active through God’s word and sacraments, constitutes the essence of the church. Their homothumadon is captured by Volf (1998):
It is the Spirit who constitutes the church. People, however, must accepts the gifts of God in faith (even if this faith is itself a gift of God); they must come together, and they must remain together. (p. 176)
The emphasis lies on the formation of a unique community – a koinonia, a communio, a fellowship bound together by the Spirit. Communion ecclesiology understands the church as a spiritual and salvific reality that transcends a merely juridical conception of ecclesiology (Congar 1985; Flanagan 2011).
Communion ecclesiology is dynamic, with communal life enriched through charismata that enable the experience of genuine communality. Lawler and Shanahan (1995:9) rightly observe that ‘there is no genuine community without active communion, without the active and mutual sharing of life, love, and truth’. This perspective is reinforced by Moltmann (1992:118), who notes that ‘we give one another life and come alive from one another’. Church communion is strengthened through interconnectivity grounded in faith in Jesus Christ and enhanced by the Holy Spirit, who bestows charismata generously upon the community, both individually and corporately.
Where patriotism fosters cohesion within a tribe, horizontal comradeship nurtures homothumadon within the church. This community is centred on Jesus as Kgosi, who leads and guides his tribe in all processes of decision-making. The community [ekklesia] convenes, in a manner analogous to the kgotla (church) to participate in discussions of how to move forward as a gathered community of faith. The kgotla may be described as a Gesellschaft [society], in that it is a human institution and a visible entity. In both the kgotla and communion ecclesiology, one observes that ‘religion is chiefly functional, or a means to serve people to acquire earthly goods (life, health, fecundity, wealth, power and the like) and to maintain social cohesion and order’ (Nyamiti 1976:11).
Comparing the <italic>kgotla</italic> and communion ecclesiology
The fundamental principles of both kgotla and communion ecclesiology is that they embody comparable virtues and values. The virtues evident within the kgotla are likewise discernible within communion ecclesiology. Musoke (2018:25) identifies these virtues as truthfulness, honesty, sincerity, bravery, courage, diligence, intelligence, justice, moderation, forgiveness, reconciliation, respectfulness, and helpfulness, among others. Within the kgotla, these virtues are often expressed idiomatically or proverbially, as illustrated under the subheading ‘Democracy at kgotla and in communion ecclesiology’ below. By contrast, communion ecclesiology, which takes the Bible as its normative framework of faith and practice, grounds these virtues in scriptural texts.
Is communion ecclesiology an institution?
Communion ecclesiology understands the church as a mystical communion, that is, the spiritual unity of all believers in Christ, transcending time and space and reflecting the divine relationality of the triune God. It is not a visible object or entity that can be conceptualised merely as a physical phenomenon. By contrast, the church (kgotla) may be described as a human association characterised by formal organisation, structures, and office. It has some authoritative or institutionalised office and is governed by certain rules and procedures. In this respect, communion ecclesiology is more closely aligned with Gemeinschaft [community]. According to Brunner (1952:107), the church is not an institution but a brotherhood [Bruderschaft], a pure communion of persons [Personengemeinschaft]. Similarly, Bonhoeffer (1963:123) describes the church as an interpersonal community. Communion ecclesiology thus understands the church in its inner essence as Gemeinschaft, while in its outward expression, it also assumes the form of Gesellschaft [society]. The kgotla, by contrast, is primarily a Gesellschaft owing to its structured procedures and institutional features, whereas communion ecclesiology emphasises the church as Gemeinschaft because of its mystical character as the body of Christ. In this sense, communion ecclesiology interprets the church as a ‘supernatural organism vivified by the Holy Spirit, a fellowship sustained by the outpouring of divine grace’ (Dulles 1987:50). This perspective underscores that communion ecclesiology does not primarily conceive of the church as an institution, but as a spiritual unity constituted by the work of the Spirit, who unites all those who place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and are endowed with spiritual gifts by that same Spirit.
Communion ecclesiology is informative
A reading of the book of Acts and the Epistles reveals that the ecclesia functioned as informative. There was an absence of secrecy regarding what God was doing. Announcements were regularly made concerning God’s activity in various regions. The Jewish authorities themselves observed that the apostles had filled the whole of Jerusalem with their teaching (Ac 5:28). Likewise, the Jerusalem assembly listened attentively as Barnabas and Paul recounted the signs and wonders God had performed among the Gentiles through them (Ac 15:12). The Apostle Paul could similarly testify regarding the Thessalonians:
Your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God …. (1 Th 1:8–10)
Paul also came to know of the Colossian church through information conveyed by Epaphroditus (Col 1:7). In a manner analogous to the kgotla, information is shared concerning progress, challenges, and events affecting the church at the time. Through various structures of the church such as synods, conferences, and assemblies the ecclesia remains informed about matters affecting the communion, whether doctrinal, ethical, or missiological.
Communion ecclesiology is a channel of impartation
The uniqueness of communion ecclesiology lies in its inclusive relationality with God. As ecclesia, the act of gathering entails communion not only with fellow saints but also with God himself. Communality therefore possesses both a focus and a purpose. This is underscored by Jacob and Varghese (2020:196): ‘A community which constantly engages with God, His Word and world, will definitely impart the values of the Kingdom of God’.
These values are cultivated through the study of the apostles’ doctrine, which constitutes one of the hallmarks of communion ecclesiology as reflected in Acts 2:42–47. Through this doctrine, the communion learns both the fundamentals of faith (dogma) and the ethical values of the Kingdom. Jacob and Varghese (2020:197) identify these values as ‘unity, love, care, being mindful of each other’s needs, helping in weaknesses, forgiveness and correction, and acceptance …’. Without doctrine and ethics, the communion risks being reduced to a merely secular entity.
Communion, like the kgotla, functions as a platform for teaching – a catechetical space in which the traditions of the morafe [church] are transmitted to subsequent generations. Cultural constructs are imparted at the kgotla, just as ethical norms are conveyed through communion ecclesiology. While the modes of transmission may differ, the intended outcome remains similar. At the kgotla, learning occurs through listening, observation, and participatory dialogue; in communion ecclesiology, this is complemented by the additional dimension of formal instruction, not as an absolute requirement but as an enhancement of the learning process. In this regard, one may recall the apostolic declaration: ‘And for this purpose, I was appointed a herald and an apostle – I am telling the truth, I am not lying – and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles’. Ultimately, ‘the entire educational system is oriented towards the promotion of community life’ (Bujo 2010:70).
Communion ecclesiology is interactive
Communion ecclesiology is grounded in the essence of koinonia, wherein both the triune God and believers exist in a mutual relationship characterised by open communication. This is highlighted by Zsupan-Jerome (2014):
The trinitarian God as the communion of Father, Son, and Spirit is both the source and fulfilment of human communion and thus serves as the fundamental theological standard of social communication. (p. 49)
Such sociality presupposes active interaction within the communion. As the triune God is inherently missional, he engages the ecclesia in a perichoretic manner. God addresses the church through his Word, while the church responds to God in prayer; this mutuality is further deepened in worship, where the church expresses her imaginations (thoughts) and emotions (responses) in appreciation of interactivity with God. Worship therefore constitutes communion – a gathering of koinonia for the glorification of God (Ryken 2001:70). In a manner analogous to the kgotla, this interaction entails the exchange of ideas, expressions of honour towards the kgosi, deliberation on the advancement of the morafe [tribe] the implementation of justice, and the offering of instruction and correction. Similarly, the ecclesia engages in mutual edification and self-empowerment. In an era marked by rapid technological advancement and increasing complexity, both the kgotla and communion ecclesiology continue to foster and reinforce communality. They employ contemporary means of communication to strengthen relationships, thereby nurturing both community and communion in a qualitative sense.
Communion ecclesiology is inspirational
When men and women go to the kgotla, they do so with urgency, as many of the kgotla meetings are convened by the kgosi. Since lefoko la kgosi le agelwa mosako, those who are summoned are expected to respond promptly. In a similar manner, as Jesus is the Kgosi of the ecclesia, those called into fellowship respond with readiness, recognising the gathering as a place of inspiration.
Inspiration is the mental and spiritual stimulation which, through its dynamic resurgence of dormant emotions, is continually sought by Christ’s followers. Those called by Christ desire to commune with God and with fellow believers. This response is not coerced but voluntary, arising under the inspirational influence of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration thus influences church polity, worship, and doctrine. Just as the decisions and deliberations of the kgotla influence governance and justice, so communion ecclesiology influences the procedures, strategies, and ethical life of the church.
In summary, as Resane (2021:7) observes, communion ecclesiology is ‘the community that is Christo-pneumatic in essence, as it derives its inspiration and direction from Christ and the Spirit’.
Democracy at the <italic>kgotla</italic> and in communion ecclesiology
Democratic participation lies at the heart of both the kgotla and communion ecclesiology. In both spheres of this study, the role of the voice is central. Each space is characterised by its oral and dialogical nature, where individual voices are acknowledged and valued as contributing to communal life. This is aptly captured in the observation that ‘democracy is intimately connected with public discussion and interactive listening’ (Sen 2005:13).
Both the kgotla and communion ecclesiology embody an African anthropocentric perspective that emphasises the importance of relationships as the crucible for moral formation. Democracy emerges when all voices are afforded equal opportunity and attention. Words function as the primary means through which participants make their presence known. Bujo (2010:70) highlights the significance of the word, noting that ‘it establishes the foundations of the community and causes it to grow, because it means life’. In the African worldview, the word carries the potential for both life and death. The Setswana proverb lefoko ga le bowe, go bowa monwana conveys the enduring weight of spoken words: once uttered, they cannot be withdrawn. Similarly, la pele ke la pele, la morago ke dithuthuntswane (the first word carries more weight than the last) highlights the lasting impact of initial expressions. Words can therefore destroy or build a community, and freedom of speech within a democratic framework must be guided by ethical responsibility. Given the inherently oral and dialogical character of both the kgotla and communion ecclesiology, careful selection of words and attentiveness to modes of expression are essential. The idiomatic expression ‘o tlhophe mafoko fa o buwa’ [‘be selective in using the words’] emphasises the need for forethought and reflection prior to speech. This is particularly significant in contexts of justice where false testimonies may expose one’s character. As the proverb ‘kgomo e tshwarwa ka dinaka, motho ka loleme’ [‘bulls are bound by their horns, people by their tongues’] suggests, speech reveals the character and heart of the speaker. The potential misuse or abuse of freedom of expression thus necessitates prudence, wisdom, and ethical sensitivity in communal settings, whether in society or in the church.
Democracy in both the kgotla and communion ecclesiology is further marked by participation. Both derive their defining character from participatory engagement, where no member is expected to remain passive. Participation is not individualistic but is grounded in communal identity, shaping shared ways of living, thinking, and acting (Musoke 2018:19). Each person is afforded the freedom to articulate thoughts, feelings, and convictions. Life within the community is enriched through such participation, which also embodies solidarity and stewardship in relation to others and to the wider cosmos. As Nyamiti (1973) observes:
Man is regarded as intimately related to other fellow-men and beings; and the universe is conceived as a sort of organic whole composed of supra-sensible or mystical correlations or participations. (p. 22)
This underscores the inherently relational, participatory, and interactive nature of both the kgotla and communion ecclesiology. Their democratic character is expressed through the freedom of speech and dialogue, grounded on fraternity. Humanity is understood as relational, giving rise to fraternal outcomes that embrace solidarity, which, according to Nkadimeng (2025:47), ‘is ontologically embedded in every human person’. Whether gathered at the kgotla or within the communion ecclesiae, participants constitute a fraternity marked by ‘communion, solidarity, [and] unity …’ (Nkadimeng 2025:50). In this way, both contexts demonstrate a shared democratic approach in the expression of both notional and experiential sentiments.
Conclusion
African epistemologies may be ontologically appropriated in the project of decolonising theology. The Setswana kgotla and communion ecclesiology demonstrate democratic practice as both facilitate themselves through the freedom of expression. Both are communal in their composition and are marked by a high degree of transparency, dialogue, and openness. It is therefore evident that the kgotla, as an African institution, and communion ecclesiology, as a theological discipline, play a significant role as moseka phofu within epistemological discourse. Resane (2018) aptly captures this role:
This is a moseka phofu [a herald] who is not afraid to lose voice to defend what rightly belongs to her. In the African worldview, a moseka phofu’s voice is loud and clear. His voice warns the community of the ensuing danger. He alerts the society of the authorities’ intentions, like the king’s coming, new directions to be taken or even calling the assembly. This tells us that in this context, engagement in dialogue should be an incessant theological deliberation undertaken in a transparent procedures and processes. (p. 7)
The kgotla and communion ecclesiology thus emerge as two democratic entities characterised by transparency, participation, discipline, order, freedom, patriotism, cohesion, solidarity, togetherness, and communality. Both promote a shared set of values and virtues, including truthfulness, honesty, sincerity, bravery, courage, diligence, intelligence, justice, moderation, forgiveness, reconciliation, respectfulness, helpfulness, unity, love, mutual care, and acceptance.
While the kgotla communicates these values and virtues didactically through idiomatic and proverbial expressions within a framework of active participation, communion ecclesiology conveys them through the biblical text – particularly the apostles’ doctrine – and further incorporates the dynamic of formal instruction as an enhancement to the learning process. In both contexts, these processes are enacted democratically within the life of the community.
AcknowledgementCompeting interest
The author declares that no financial or personal relationships inappropriately influenced the writing of this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Kelebogile T. Resane: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Resources. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own, has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication, and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Data availability
The author confirms that the data supporting this study and its findings are available within the article and its listed references.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s findings, and content.
ReferencesBammann, H., 2016, The Bahurutshe: Historical events, culture and religion (traditional and Christian) in Dinokana/South Africa from 1857 to 1940, Lit Verlag GmbH & Co, Zurich.Bonhoeffer, D., 1963, The communion of Saints, Harper and Row, New York, NY.Brunner, E., 1952, The misunderstanding of the church, Lutterworth, London.Bujo, B., 2006, ‘Introduction to the declaration of the Pan-African Meeting of Third World Theologians’, in B.Bujo & J.I.Muya (eds.), African theology: The contribution of the pioneers, vol. 2, pp. 261–271, Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi.Bujo, B., 2010, The ethical dimension of community: The African model and the dialogue between North and South, Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi.Chiroma, J.A., 2020, ‘Democracy, citizenship and civil society’, in S.B.Agang, D.A.Forster & H.J.Hendriks (eds.), African public theology, pp. 67–80, HippoBooks, Buburu.CongarY., 1984, Diversity and communion, SCM Press, London.Doyle, D.M., 2000, Communion ecclesiology, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY.Dulles, A., 1987, Models of the church (expanded edition), Doubleday, New York, NY.Flanagan, B.P., 2011, Communion, diversity, and salvation: The contribution of Jean-Marie Tillard to systematic theology, T & T Clark, London.Ilo, S.C., 2021, ‘Reimagining African ecclesiology: Missionary and structural reform and the task of an African illuminative ecclesiology’, in E.O.Opongo & P.Béré (eds.), African theology in the 21st century: A call to Baraza, pp. 166–200, Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi.Jacob, J. & Varghese, J., 2020, ‘Spiritual formation as shaping public engagement’, in B.M.Jacob (ed.), Public theology: Exploring expressions of the Christian faith, pp. 194–207, Primalogue Publishing, Karnataka.Kooijman, K., 1980, Bokaa: Leaving and learning in an African village, International Extension College, Cambridge.Lawler, M.G. & Shanahan, T.J., 1995, Church: A spirited communion, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN.Lekorwe, M., 2011, ‘The Kgotla and traditional leadership in Botswana’, in D.I.Ray, T.Quinlan, K.Sharma & T.A.O.Clarke (eds.), Reinventing African chieftaincy in the age of AIDS, gender, governance, and development, pp. 383–402, University of Calgary Press, Alberta.Magesa, L., 1998, African religion: The moral traditions of abundant life, Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi.Makumba, M.M., 2014, Introduction to African philosophy, Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi.Mbiti, J.S., 1990, African religions and philosophy, 2nd edn., Heinemann Educational Publishers, Oxford.Moltmann, J., 1992, The spirit of life: A universal affirmation, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.Moumakwa, P.C., 2010, ‘The Botswana Kgotla system: A mechanism for traditional conflict resolution in modern Botswana. Case study of the Kanye Kgotla’, Master’s thesis in Philosophy of Peace and Conflict Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, University of Tromsø.Musoke, M.E., 2018, Ontological foundation of traditional African morality, Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi.Nkadimeng, I.T., 2025, Authentic Fraternity: The Notion of Fraternitas in Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate and Africae Munus, Casa Lago Press, New Fairfield, CT.Nkafu, M., 1999, African vitalogy: A step forward in African thinking, Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi.Nyamiti, C., 1973, The scope of African theology, Gaba Publications, Kampala.Nyamiti, C., 1976, African tradition and the Christian god, Issue No 49 of Spearhead Series, Gaba Publications, Eldoret.Opongo, E.O. & Béré, P. (eds.), 2021, African theology in the 21st century: A call to Baraza, Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi.Otlogetswe, T., 2018, ‘Power relations in Setswana names: A study of kgotla and kgosi names’, Nomina Africana32(2), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.2989/NA.2018.32.2.2.1326Resane, K.T., 2008, ‘A critical analysis of the ecclesiology of the emerging apostolic churches with special reference to the notion of the Fivefold Ministry’, PhD thesis in the Department of Theology – Dogmatics and Christian Ethics, University of Pretoria.Resane, K.T., 2018, ‘Transparent theological dialogue – Moseka Phofu Ya Gaabo Ga a Tshabe Go Swa Lentswe (A Setswana Proverb)’, Religions9(2), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9020054Resane, K.T., 2021, ‘The influence and legacy of the shepherding movement on the current neo-Pentecostal movement in South Africa’, Journal for the Study of Religion34(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3027/2021/v34n2a2Ryken, P.G., 2001, The communion of saints: Living in fellowship with the people of God, P & R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ.Sen, A., 2005, The argumentative Indian; Writings on Indian history, culture and identity, Allen Lane, London.Setiloane, G.M., 1978, ‘How the traditional world-view persists in the Christianity of the Sotho-Tswana’, in E.Fasholé-Luke, R.Gray, A.Hastings & G.Tasie (eds.), Christianity in independent Africa, pp. 402–412, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.Volf, M., 1998, After our likeness: The church as the image of the Trinity, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.Williams, S., 2006, Colour bar: The triumph of Seretse Khama and his nation, Penguin Books, London.Zsupan-Jerome, D., 2014, Connected toward communion: The church and social communication in the digital age, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN.
How to cite this article: Resane, K.T., 2026, ‘Kgotla and communion ecclesiology: Democracy interplay’, In die Skriflig 60(1), a3287. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v60i1.3287