Traditional chiefs have historically received little attention from political scientists. Writing at the end of the twentieth century, Jeffrey Herbst surmised that many scholars had been deterred from studying chiefs because researchers presumed they were illegitimate but cautioned that “whether or not they are legitimate in the eyes of researchers, whether or not they were created by colonial officials, local rulers are an important factor in African politics that cannot be ignored.” Richard Sklar made a similar point in his review of Africa's contributions to political science a few years earlier, noting that “the practical importance of traditional authority, its real significance, does not depend on the manner of its interpretation by social scientists. The kgotla, the Alake of Egbaland, the marabouts of Senegal exert power in their societies regardless of one or another academic interpretations of their roles.”

This chapter provides some conceptual ground clearing on traditional chiefs, given their limited attention to date from scholars of politics. It begins by defining traditional leaders and describing – with a broad brush – the powers they have held both historically and in contemporary Africa. Then the chapter takes a series of common conceptions (and misconceptions) about chiefs and considers whether the available facts support the claims. Should we think about chiefs as colonial constructs? Are they irrelevant in Francophone or urban Africa? Is it possible to think of them as akin to an economic elite or ethnic group leaders? When considering the facts across the broad range of leaders encompassed under this book's definition of traditional leaders, it is difficult to definitively dismiss any claim as being entirely inaccurate, just as it is impossible to say that any claim accurately characterizes chiefs across the entire continent. Still, the evidence provides more support for some claims than for others.

The stylized facts that emerge from this review are helpful in developing a theoretical framework to understand chiefs' incentives and legitimacy within their communities. For the most part, traditional leaders are unelected leaders who maintain real power within their local communities. In addition, they depend in part on the local society and economy for their material well-being. As socially and economically embedded leaders, I argue that they can usefully be thought of as stationary bandits, as conceived by Mancur Olson.