Yes, assuming you were either talking about the king himself or his parliamentary representative (the traditional prime minister) neither have a term limit. The previous king served from 1948-2021 and the current traditional prime minister has held his position since 1954. The two five year terms that you mentioned in one of your other comments applies to our elected president.

The point I'm trying to make is that you were being misleading. You mentioned the advocacy for their tribesman as a comparison to the British monarchy (hence formalised constitutional monarchy). The ~R60 million budget is given for maintainance of the Zulu royal institution, there is no formal obligation to the Zulu people. As is more a convention of South African politics as whole and not just the Zulu monarchy, there is corruption present and normal Zulu communities don't benefit from the political budget outside of perhaps cultural celebrations which evidently only the elite partake in in any case. I.e the obligation is removed because we don't have a formal monarchy system, the country is purely a presidential republic.

What you wrote about the advocacy, the inheritance and the terms were all misleading.

You can be as sassy as you want, but unless you want to re-word what you have written, the things you have written are objectively misinformation. My intention here is completely objective and the South African kingdoms (especially the modern renditions of them) have been well documented from many sources ranging from local records, university records even so far as international collections like Wikipedia. Again as I said (and I could use your sass about comprehension here), the monarch has influence due to the assets it inherits, not because it is formed under a system such as a constitutional monarchy. In fact, a formal monarchy system wouldn't be reasonable in South Africa due to the fact that currently 7 different monarchies are recognised. The Zulu kingdom currently holds the spoken majority of the population.

But the user getting upvotes is actively spreading misinformation. We learn about this stuff in the South African high school syllabus and the things she is saying is nearly the opposite of reality.

This isn't really true though, the Zulu monarch has no political power or defined function outside of having asset influence over the government because the monarch inherits around 3 million hectares of land and around R60 million worth of budgeting. None of those assets are obligated to generate income for the country and there is no formal system garunteeing something akin to a sovereign grant / civil list. We learned about this in South African high school.

You mentioned the British monarchy but that's a bad example because it does actually have a moderational function under a constitutional monarchy and the Westminster System. The British monarchy is known to generate around £1-2bn for the country per year while only costing each civilian around £1-3 per year.

Edit: sorry I've just seen some of your other replies and you seem to be actively spreading misinformation.

Why did you say the role is not inherited? It is, it is only complicated (and there is a current divide about Misuzulu Zulu) because the Zulu king has multiple wives and many offspring. The role will pass to a familial descendant.

You also say that the Zulu king reigns for two five year terms, this is also false (the South African president serves for that period) the Zulu king doesn't have limits to his reign. The previous king reigned from 1968-2021