Paper short abstract:

The paper inquires into negotiations of authority between members and leaders of mining unions in Zambia. Analysing miners’ support of and opposition to union officials it will discuss different principles of leadership and show how members’ criticism puts pressure on leaders to be more accountable.

Paper long abstract:

While many studies on authority in Africa have been focusing on traditional and personalist grounds for legitimacy this presentation will explore relations of authority, which are not predominantly structured by ethnicity or clientelism, but a number of different norms and constraints. Using the case study of three miners' unions in the Zambian Copperbelt it will discuss the circumstances under what members do or do not support union representatives. I argue that members' criticism and their contestation of the union's authority lead to more rational-legal accountability on the one hand while at the same time yielding personalist relationships between members and leaders.

Many miners seem to contest the authority of the union leadership in Zambia, indicated by a series of wildcat strikes in 2011-12, insults and threats against representatives, and the formation of splinter unions. Miners see a gap between their normative expectations (legitimacy beliefs) and the behavior of union officials, which causes distrust on both sides. Confronted with accusations from the members union officials take efforts to become listening leaders, while at the same time facing constraints when trying to put the ideal principles of leadership into practice. Representatives not only bow to the demands of their members, but also to pressure from the companies, the government, and the value of "industrial harmony". Exploring the multiple ideas and practices of authority emerging from the reciprocal exertion of power between union members and leaders will be the aim of this paper.