A challenge to political hegemony (Part 2)

LAZARUS KAIRABEB WRITES:

National unity can be a reality; but at present it is not quite a reality. Like in the words of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, “How this reality of tribalism can be adapted to the unreality of national unity to make it a reality” is a problem, which we all are grappling with.

The contemporary notion suggests that a nation is a community in which its people share common memories and institutions and imagine themselves as members of the same community. My perception and that of many contemporary writers, of a nation is in the context of a human population occupying a historic territory and sharing common myths and memories, a public culture, common laws and customs for all members as determinant factors.

Aderemi Sulaiman Ajala, a Nigerian writer once wrote, “A nation is a named and self-defined community whose members cultivate common myths, memories, symbols and values, possess and disseminate a distinctive public culture, reside in and identify with a historic homeland, and create and disseminate common laws and shared customs.”

These definitions suggest a distinction between state and nation. While the two are closely related, certainly they are not the same.

A state has sovereignty with clearly defined power and authority over a given area and population. A nation, on the other hand, has to do with a set of people who see themselves as connected over both time and space, imagining themselves as sharing a kind of collective identity.

Structural commonalities, thus, of the newly superimposed state machinery over these populations does not necessarily imply that the groups with their systems and networks have been purged into extinction. The reality is they all become nationalist only to the extent that there is no direct challenge on what is perceived to be “my identity”.

Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, further argues: “Every human being is a member of one particular tribe. Within that tribe, customs and traditions are established to guide, direct and control the beliefs, attitudes, and habits of its individual members. Failure to comply with the collective will be tantamount to an act of disloyalty which may be punishable with severe penalties. Obedience to the tribe is thus inculcated in the tribes-folk from childhood. From our studies in history we learn that many tribes which came into contact with each other had discovered a way of living conterminously. In some cases, they preserved their identity. In other cases, they amalgamated to produce an offspring, which evolved into a new prototype. No matter what may be the nature of the development of these tribes, the aim has been always to create a society where there is a reign of law and order.”



MORE POWERFUL THAN RELIGION

This subject is crucial because, while the minority groups are being pushed to the edges of marginalization, tribalism will remain undiminished, because it is founded upon intense mental state of common identity that leads people to feel connected – and the associated affinity makes it even more powerful than religion in this country.

The definition of tribalism in Namibia is not yet clear, we only frequently hear verbal outburst from the President, lambasting tribalism as a looming threat. Common men and women on the other hand, ordinarily consider this to be a normal way of life, which in every other sense offer them common identity and protection against the otherwise perceived marginalization, discrimination, and lagging behind.

Lambasting tribalism without offering answers to the lopsided nature of the single resource unit competition, which benefits some groups or individuals more than others, a perception supported by all available indicators, is not making any inroads into the thought patterns of these communities.

The President must learn to understand that the conversation about ethnicity and tribalism has never been debated publicly in this country, let alone understood in all its manifestations. And it surely need to be elevated to become the mainstream talk of the national discourse to determine what people oppose or support and why.

Ethnic diversity is supposed to be a source of national pride and ­development, yet it is been turned into a threat – without clarity to its causes.

The reigning leadership of the SWAPO party must know that we were all optimistic about the future of this country at the time of the first land conference in 1991 even though we knew that the compromised position on land was driven by two distinctly different stimuli of which the SWAPO party had a justifiable concern, which logically generated a concession from all parties that were participating in the land question debate that: first, there shall be political commitment toward hitherto disadvantaged populations; and secondly, the SWAPO party will provide intelligent management for the transformation process to ensure efficient and effective take-off of programs.

These two promises were regarded essential to the success of the process by not only the leadership but also by all other concerned participants.

WHAT DO WE HAVE TODAY?

Political commitment – no to some, yes to some.

Intelligent management – under prevailing circumstances, I am not in agreement that there was anything outside the ordinary.

My conclusion is: let us not shy away, but let us not pretend all-knowing, because past years have proof that there is no real authority over these matters, no monopoly of knowledge, therefore, let us go wide, because the party political representative system is not doing us any favours, it is only good for political hegemony.

Let us therefore invent something else, something that can meet the requirement for “political commitment and intelligent management of change processes”. Or else, let us agree that change is imminent and there shall come forces to lead the change process. And let us do away with falsehoods as the basis of our decisions and allow reason, logic and truth to lead all processes of our development.