The Customary Law and the Traditional Leadership Power in Angola—Their Effects on Territorial Planning Issues

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper contains interesting ideas; however, the following remarks should be considered:
1.    Please consider the possibility of wide the keyword adding, for instance, “Decentralization”, “Afrocentricity”, “Cultural Heritage”, “Hybrid Governance Model.”
2.     Perhaps the authors can give additional information regarding Angola’s people’s attitude towards Sobas. For instance, it can be about trust, recognition, respect. Are there any differences between urban and rural areas? Or maybe it can be a scope of future research. 
3.    The authors give an example of the reference [15], where “traditional leaders are often autocratic, invested with mystical and symbolic power” and, according to this point, after the reference [25] gives the conclusions that “This shows that communities had strong trust in such a traditional leadership system, similar as reported by Mvenene.” However, other explanations are possible (such as the fear of power, for example). This point needs justification.
4.    The history of Sobas needs to be specified. They are, to some extent, the unique example of Angola. So, more information on their evolution and modernity should be given. In lines 141-143, two examples of Kings are mentioned. However, it is unclear if they were always in King status or if other roles were also possible. Some facts are given after in lines 195-197, but they are not structured and complete for the reader, who is not well-informed of Angola’s traditions and laws. A table of historical stages or logical schemes could strengthen the paper.
5.    Fig. 1 shows the tied animal and a man with objects like weapons. However, the text citing this Figure describes two historical figures without a proper explanation of what exactly is shown in the pictures. Please consider changing the image in Fig. 1 to another. The portraits of the Kings may be more suitable. Or if the focus is on the participation of public authorities, then additional description is required. Anyway, regarding the broad audience of readers in MDPI publisher’s journals, I would suggest choosing more neutral pictures not to interfere with one’s feelings. 
6.    Adding the reference to the points mentioned in the sentence between lines 234 and 238 will make it more comprehensive. “Although the traditional leaders have been complaining over time about their maladjustment to the dynamics imposed by modernity [example?], they still have an enormous influence on matters related to conflict mediation, community justice, preservation of customs and cultural values, land management, as well as intermediation between the central state and communities [law?].”
7.    Supplementary Materials and Data Availability Statement look like a template.
8.    The description of Sobas' role in cultural identity conservation is not enough. The paper mainly states it as a fact with fewer details. A list of activities and/or some examples can help to fill the gap.
9.    Perhaps the authors examined the Sobas' attitude to official authorities of different levels (community, region, state) and could add this information to enrich the paper; or it might be of future research. 
10.    The authors highlight the strategic options to overcome obstacles (such as developing public participation or upgrading Sobas' public management and administration skills). However, it is unclear how ready these parties are for modern changes. Also, it would be interesting to investigate the connection between more educated Sobas with better managerial competencies and/or actively involved local community and the development of this particular territory (economic, cultural, social, transparent). In the future, such progress could lead to real decentralization of power with elected community leaders (not chosen by the President of Angola).
11.    To make recommendations closer to the decision support system format, please consider giving more detail about the ways to achieve the identified tasks. What exactly can be done in the context of a particular goal?
12.    Chapters 1.1 and 1.2. have the same name “Political and Administrative Decentralisation”.
13.    It is unclear what the result of Chapter 3.1 “Custom and traditional authority” is. Please consider changing the document structure by moving it to the Introduction section.
14.    The given in Chapter 3.2, five distinctive phases in Angola’s history, are interesting. To strengthen the paper, please consider arranging this information in table format and adding a column with the role of Sobas during every stage. 
15.    The fourth planning context – gender equity (line 347) also covers youth inclusion. Therefore, please consider renaming this point to “Equity”, “Equal opportunities,” or in any other more accurate way. This planning context is also out of the attention of the paper and needs additional description. Can a woman also be a Sobas? If yes, perhaps there is data on how many women are/were there among Sobas. Are women involved in local governance or public administration? How many young people are Sobas (if any) or public managers at different levels? 
16.    The proposed Hybrid Governance Model looks like a result. Please consider moving it from the Discussion to the Results section. To make recommendations closer to the decision support system format, please consider providing more details about the ways to achieve the identified tasks. Why these key principals and not another? What exactly can be done in the context of a particular goal? Perhaps the approaches must be implemented in exact order one by one, or some approaches are better to execute simultaneously, or some can be reached only after the other is already implemented. 
17.    Much attention is given to public participation in proposed approaches, but it does not specify its current state. How active is Angola’s population? Are there serious differences among urban and rural areas (or just different regions)? 
18.    In the Introduction, the authors give a small glance at the measures taken in reforming Angola's public administration system. So, it would make a proposed hybrid governance model comprehensive if the authors specified the current state of the proposed approach. Perhaps it can be done by adding the “Status” column (with current progress, for instance: has not started yet, has started but failed, in progress, ongoing in another context, exists in plans, etc.)
19.    In Table 2, “Challenges and recommendations for governance” are given together, which can be very confusing to the reader as it can be difficult to divide points between the challenges and the recommendations.  Moreover, the points in this table are more like stages; 1) we have obstacles; 2) strategies to eliminate them are given; 3) expected benefits are described. Maybe it would be better to arrange these points in the figure, which will remove any inaccuracies in column names.   
20.    It is not completely clear what the authors consider the main result of the paper (proposed hybrid governance model?). The Results section mostly states a problem; however, the Discussion gives strategic recommendations.  The authors make results based on the list of sources, and here, it is crucial to specify the novelty of the authors' approach strictly. This specification can fit the Discussion section in the best way. 
21.    The Conclusions are very general and must contain more information regarding the Results (planning context, hybrid governance model, ways to eliminate obstacles). These particular results were made to solve existing problems and to improve governance in Angola.
22.    The title of the paper could be improved in the direction of the obtained results – the proposed hybrid government model. In the current state, it does not fully reflect the context of the paper.
23.    The paper discussed the specific governance traditions in Angola; due to this fact. Please consider naming it as a case study or specify why the obtained results have a general impact and can be used in different countries/situations. 

Author Response

1. Added, thank you for suggesting
2. Yes, we consider this issue in the next steps of our research, as this issue was not part of the current research
3. The suggested issue was not risen in the research, so we prefer to not tackle this in this paper
4. The term “king” is a translation of Soba to English – and is not more used in literature. This is shortly explained in line 173. Further information about the historical stages is added to lines 362 ff.
5. Thanks for the recommendation – info is added to the figure legend.
6. A reference is added to the text
7. It is not clear what this means!
8. Agreed - but different examples are provided along the text
9. Yes, this can be the issue of further research
10. We consider this rather as a speculation, the research does not support such statement
11. This request is not clear, as the other reviewers did not mention this we prefer to keep it
12. Thanks for noticing – the heading is changed
13. This chapter contains a reflection on the relationships betw. customary and formal law, we prefer to keep it here
14. Thanks for suggesting - more details are provided about the role of Sobas in the different phases.
15. Thanks for calling attention to this issue. We agree that this issue is out of the main topic – we suggest deleting it.
16. This issue is now better explained in lines 481 ff
17. Public participation is foreseen by law but is not put in place yet – so there are very few experiences – this is explained in lines 131 ff. Deepening this issue could be a subject of future research.
18. To be able do this we need further research what is not possible at this point
19. We prefer to keep the table as it is – as they reflect the different steps in the process
20. This issue – the recommendations for a hybrid model where the Sobas can have a role to play is tackled as a discussion topic – as the model is not yet well developed.
21. We added a sentence about the novelty of the proposed model – lines 570 ff
22. We disagree – the title was carefully discussed, and it is not our goal to set (yet) the model in the foreground

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the role of traditional local leaders, Sobas, in Angola. 

To improve, I suggest:

1. Explain the constitutional framework in more detail. What are the powers of provinces, municipalities, and local government? What is the difference between a municipal and a local government? What is their power and how much money do they have? Where is their money coming from? 
2. In theory, empowering local government over provincial government is better, as local government, nor provincial government is closer to the people and thus more democratic.
3. Line 99-100 states: local governments have not been implemented yet. If that is the case, then the whole article falls apart. You cannot write about the advantages of local governance if local governance does not exist - yet.
4. This statement also contradicts what the authors state in the introduction (lines 40-42): "the lack of powerful local authorities jeopardizes and effective autonomy of local government." If there is no local government (yet), then the problem is bigger than just a lack of powerful local authorities."
5. Explain the connection and overlap of Sobas and local government.
6. The theory of Afrocentricity, in my mind, demands that traditional Angolan structures of government are recognized. Democratic development should then aim at democratizing local leaders, i.e. Sobas. The authors mention attempts at training Sobas in public administration, but this should be explained in detail.
7. The authors mention that the heads of regional bodies are appointed by the president (line 35). What regional bodies are those? Are Sobas appointed by the president?
8. Are there any villages councils that hold Sobas accountable to the people, like in Botswana's dikgotla? 
9. Did the role of Sobas change under colonial rule, as Mahmood Mamdani (1996) suggested for South Africa? Mamdani refers to chiefs as local despots, who were empowered by the colonizers and given powers they never had before. 

Overall, provide more background on the constitution and the historical role of Sobas. I suggest to then focus more directly on the democratic potential of Sobas and how their roles have changed over time - before colonization, during colonial rule, and since then.

Author Response

1. This issue is corrected in chapter 1.1. Regarding the “money” we consider this irrelevant to the topic and prefer to not tackle this.

2. Agreed, for this reason the proposed model is placed in the communes (and municipalities).

3. This issue is better explained now

4. This as issue of understanding the role o Sobas, in some communes where the is State is not present, Sobas embody such “job”, as they represent the state and its institution – this is explained along the text.

5. In fact there is often a conflicting situation and an overlap of power. Examples are added along the text.

6. This issue is the ambivalence that exists in Angola, our attention is devoted to understanding how these (ancestral) traditional power can be better integrated in a modern and democratic state.

7. This issue is now better explained in the lines 103 ff

8. We have no knowledge about Botswana's dikgotla, so any comparison would be too speculative.

9. More information is added to lines 362ff

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While this is a very interesting topic, and holding a potential of an important contribution, this paper holds many issues, impact its overall merit. 

While this issue is important and could yield beneficial important contribution for financial importance, this is somewhat built as a review article, and not as research study.

For example; 

The authors addresses this issue by delving into the literature, but neglected any coherence or systematic understanding of the review given. There is no logical explanation not for the case description or the literature presented. 

Again, as a review paper, this manuscript could be, to my humble opinion, a perfect fit, but currently it is still far from being recognized as Research paper. 

I would suggest the authors in  their further work to include; 

1. A systematic review of the literature (e.g., Prisma scheme etc.)
2. A very detailed and thorough description of the case study, using figuers and data from the case study itself, and by explaining their chain of thought step by step.

Author Response

Thanks for the recommendations. However, this paper is not based on an extensive review of literature, or case study. We found very few pieces of literature that relates the Sobas to territory and planning - mostly tackle their role from a legal or sociological view. This info is added in lines 570ff. 

For this it would be a different research approach – how ever more details on both issues are provided along the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking into account the recommendation. Please find the additional explanation of the remarks that were considered unclear:

1. To the remark 7 (“Supplementary Materials and Data Availability Statement look like a template”). This meant the authors should change the instructions to fulfill some obligatory parts of the paper due to their particular situation. So that it cannot be written as “We encourage all authors of articles published in MDPI journals to share their research data. In this section, please provide details regarding where data supporting reported results can be found, including links to publicly archived datasets analyzed or generated 601 during the study. Where no new data were created, or where data is unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions, a statement is still required. Suggested Data Availability Statements are available in section “MDPI Research Data Policies” at https://www.mdpi.com/ethics”. This is a publisher's text, not the authors'. The authors have to give their particular text here regarding whether the data was included in the paper, or can be given upon reasonable request, or in any other appropriate sense.
2. To the remark 10. (“The authors highlight the strategic options to overcome obstacles (such as developing public participation or upgrading Sobas' public management and administration skills). However, it is unclear how ready these parties are for modern changes. Also, it would be interesting to investigate the connection between more educated Sobas with better managerial competencies and/or actively involved local community and the development of this particular territory (economic, cultural, social, transparent). In the future, such progress could lead to real decentralization of power with elected community leaders (not chosen by the President of Angola)”. The authors propose to “Strengthen the legal status of traditional leader” and “Identity clear and defined limits of the competences of traditional leaders in planning and development contexts”. To perform any leadership tasks, it is crucial to have managerial and communicative skills, as well as any other skills required by the specific position. So that to “Establish mechanisms for territorial co-management” to fulfil the requirement of modernity, education and training can become a future task for decentralization. Even the kings have rarely ignored education and have tried to do their best to have a good level of knowledge and understanding, taking into account the general level of education in the country. Perhaps public administration improvement can be gained in the format of a consultative meeting with the Sobas for sharing experience.
3. To the remark 11. (“To make recommendations closer to the decision support system format, please consider giving more detail about the ways to achieve the identified tasks. What exactly can be done in the context of a particular goal?”). The reason for inviting several reviewers is not to receive the same recommendation but to get professional feedback from different points of view to improve the high quality of the obtained results and their presentation. So, this answer can be considered disrespectful towards any particular reviewer. The point of this remark is to give enough explanation of the proposed activities. For instance, the authors give the approach “Promote active participation of communities in the design of urban policies and agendas” without any further detail on how it can be done (What are the channels (ways) for such promotion? Which the authors consider more efficient?). Giving more information can increase the interest in the paper (also from public authorities, who can implement it in real-life activities and use or cite the results of the paper in policy documents).

Author Response

1). We thank the reviewer for explaining this issue. In deed, this issue was supposed to be discussed with the editor of the journal. This is solved now.

2, 3). We thank the reviewer, but as exposed in the introduction this research has to cope with some limitations, in particular due to recent efforts Angola's towards a more participative democracy. Therefore we can not deliver concrete solutions as these have to be first put place and analysed. The research needs are further explained in lines 538 ff.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I ma happy with the revisions and the final version.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer for his/her efforts in supporting the development of this paper!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As I mentioned before, there are two optional venues for this manuscript:
1) To be modified as systematic review 
2) To be re-framed as a case report. 
The authors added several references, which enriched the overall communication of the paper, but it still more of a policy report/case report than an original article. 

Author Response

We would like to leave the decision if it is an article or a case report for the editor.

Thanks to the review for his/her efforts!

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments remain unchanged. 

This manuscript should resubmitted as a case study or a review paper. 

Author Response

Thanks to all reviewers for their efforts and help for improving our paper. We ask the editor to take the decision if its an article or a case study report.

The final version is provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf