Tracking the blunders of the Swapo Government (Part 1)
LAZARUS KAIRABEB WRITES:
Recent political awakening in the south has left some people wondering what may have led to such almost radical change of mind.
My observation is that the features that made up the content and informed the reasons for change happened at the cusp of a time preceding an all too clear radical, socially driven change from one systemic order to a quite different one, but still side-by-side with the old. The thrust of the movement of the Nama folks was very deliberate, and perhaps in others, inadvertent.
Throughout the history the Nama people were exposed to situations of 'dignity takings', a condition defined by Prof. Bernadette Atuahene as the confiscation of property, resulting in dehumanization of the dispossessed as well as deprivation of their dignity. She introduced 'dignity restoration' as a means to reverse this situation, based on restorative justice principles. Dignity restoration seeks not merely to compensate for the legal harm, but also to address the personal respect and social harm, thereby restoring to those dispossessed their humanity.
Prof. Atuahene tracks these two concepts by examining the processes of land dispossession and land expropriation in South Africa during colonialism and apartheid and its devastating impact on black individuals and communities. She then explores the steps taken by the post-apartheid democratic government to 'make whole' those who have suffered from the theft of their land, beyond the formal legal process of reparations.
Namibia's history resembles that of South Africa profoundly in many ways. There are slight differences in timelines, shaping factors, and the severity of applications.
To the credit of the post-apartheid South Africa, their constitution provides for restitution of property or equitable redress to a person or community dispossessed of property as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices. Namibia on the other hand has opted for what was presented as a conciliatory approach, predicated upon a framework of willing-seller-willing buyer and resettlement.
Of particular importance are the factors that contributed to the unhappiness of dispossessed communities. As is widely reflected in almost all review outcomes, the process records little to no progress for affected communities in so far as their unique circumstances are concerned. No priority, and no sensitivity is demonstrated in the apportionment of land and the special needs of historically affected communities.
The absence of a concerted and or sustained effort by government to redistribute land, and address historical inequitable forms of land ownership between indigenous groups, marked the decade of 2000 to 2010 as one of disheartening and outspoken unhappiness. Yet, the political leaders of the southern communities were at the time captured and immersed in the political concept of joint leadership of the ruling party, defined to mean 'tow the line' or otherwise take your jacket and go.
The unfortunate result was that there was no space or place for opinions going against the mainstream view.
This rather self-destructive concept of the Executive, ignored the dangers of exposing their political centers to movements that could use the apparent insensitivity as a rallying point to mobilise political support, as was seen in the outcome of recent elections. The blatant inability of the ruling party grassroot cadres to read the signs and analyse these leanings, has sent shockwaves through the ruling party.
GENOCIDE NEGOTIATIONS
Here again the hardnosed attitude of the ruling party prevailed.
Notwithstanding the good advice received from different centers, President Dr. Gottfried Hage Geingob went on to parade, in total disregard to widely held views of self-representation, a condensed structure of envoys appointed from the two governments and a so-called political technical committee aimed to back up the two main negotiators. It is in this subservient committee that the president wanted to throw together traditional leaders with other technical people. The shortcomings of such attitudinal immaturity were pointed out from the onset by the traditional leaders that it will not generate the required results.
Ruling party members are trying to mend their mistakes by rummaging all over the place to conjure up support from traditional communities and their leaders for the endorsement of a failed process and outcome. Sitting ministers and deputy ministers are shamelessly used during official working days and hours, to campaign for this regaining of trust.
These Parliamentarians are literally begging people not to abandon an 'opportunity' which may end up in wrong hands.
In this country, there are many examples of how important judicial pronouncements are being undermined by the Executive's inability or unwillingness to enforce potentially important court orders.
For that you can check on verdicts against Home Affairs and many other attempts which one can clearly attest to as illegitimate dealings like the recent suspension of Parliamentarians of the Landless People's Movement.
People in this country have valid reasons to question the handling of any matter under care of our government because you should be wary of corruption or alienation or outright usurpation.
A case in point is the genocide committed against the Ovaherero and the Nama people of this country and those that have suffered collateral damage at the hands of the German imperial machinery. Although these horrific deeds were committed 117 years ago, transgenerational traumatic residue still exist today if one considers the immensity of the effects on the material, physical, and mental conditions of the descendants of the affected communities.
Literature used by Atuahene identifies in certain instances a larger strategy to further subjugate certain groups within the polity by denying their humanity or their capacity to reason. This is dignity taking, and it occurs when a state directly or indirectly destroys property or confiscates property rights from owners or occupiers. The intentional or unintentional outcome is dehumanisation or infantilisation.
These are circumstances that the Nama, the Ovaherero and others went through.
Recent political awakening in the south has left some people wondering what may have led to such almost radical change of mind.
My observation is that the features that made up the content and informed the reasons for change happened at the cusp of a time preceding an all too clear radical, socially driven change from one systemic order to a quite different one, but still side-by-side with the old. The thrust of the movement of the Nama folks was very deliberate, and perhaps in others, inadvertent.
Throughout the history the Nama people were exposed to situations of 'dignity takings', a condition defined by Prof. Bernadette Atuahene as the confiscation of property, resulting in dehumanization of the dispossessed as well as deprivation of their dignity. She introduced 'dignity restoration' as a means to reverse this situation, based on restorative justice principles. Dignity restoration seeks not merely to compensate for the legal harm, but also to address the personal respect and social harm, thereby restoring to those dispossessed their humanity.
Prof. Atuahene tracks these two concepts by examining the processes of land dispossession and land expropriation in South Africa during colonialism and apartheid and its devastating impact on black individuals and communities. She then explores the steps taken by the post-apartheid democratic government to 'make whole' those who have suffered from the theft of their land, beyond the formal legal process of reparations.
Namibia's history resembles that of South Africa profoundly in many ways. There are slight differences in timelines, shaping factors, and the severity of applications.
To the credit of the post-apartheid South Africa, their constitution provides for restitution of property or equitable redress to a person or community dispossessed of property as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices. Namibia on the other hand has opted for what was presented as a conciliatory approach, predicated upon a framework of willing-seller-willing buyer and resettlement.
Of particular importance are the factors that contributed to the unhappiness of dispossessed communities. As is widely reflected in almost all review outcomes, the process records little to no progress for affected communities in so far as their unique circumstances are concerned. No priority, and no sensitivity is demonstrated in the apportionment of land and the special needs of historically affected communities.
The absence of a concerted and or sustained effort by government to redistribute land, and address historical inequitable forms of land ownership between indigenous groups, marked the decade of 2000 to 2010 as one of disheartening and outspoken unhappiness. Yet, the political leaders of the southern communities were at the time captured and immersed in the political concept of joint leadership of the ruling party, defined to mean 'tow the line' or otherwise take your jacket and go.
The unfortunate result was that there was no space or place for opinions going against the mainstream view.
This rather self-destructive concept of the Executive, ignored the dangers of exposing their political centers to movements that could use the apparent insensitivity as a rallying point to mobilise political support, as was seen in the outcome of recent elections. The blatant inability of the ruling party grassroot cadres to read the signs and analyse these leanings, has sent shockwaves through the ruling party.
GENOCIDE NEGOTIATIONS
Here again the hardnosed attitude of the ruling party prevailed.
Notwithstanding the good advice received from different centers, President Dr. Gottfried Hage Geingob went on to parade, in total disregard to widely held views of self-representation, a condensed structure of envoys appointed from the two governments and a so-called political technical committee aimed to back up the two main negotiators. It is in this subservient committee that the president wanted to throw together traditional leaders with other technical people. The shortcomings of such attitudinal immaturity were pointed out from the onset by the traditional leaders that it will not generate the required results.
Ruling party members are trying to mend their mistakes by rummaging all over the place to conjure up support from traditional communities and their leaders for the endorsement of a failed process and outcome. Sitting ministers and deputy ministers are shamelessly used during official working days and hours, to campaign for this regaining of trust.
These Parliamentarians are literally begging people not to abandon an 'opportunity' which may end up in wrong hands.
In this country, there are many examples of how important judicial pronouncements are being undermined by the Executive's inability or unwillingness to enforce potentially important court orders.
For that you can check on verdicts against Home Affairs and many other attempts which one can clearly attest to as illegitimate dealings like the recent suspension of Parliamentarians of the Landless People's Movement.
People in this country have valid reasons to question the handling of any matter under care of our government because you should be wary of corruption or alienation or outright usurpation.
A case in point is the genocide committed against the Ovaherero and the Nama people of this country and those that have suffered collateral damage at the hands of the German imperial machinery. Although these horrific deeds were committed 117 years ago, transgenerational traumatic residue still exist today if one considers the immensity of the effects on the material, physical, and mental conditions of the descendants of the affected communities.
Literature used by Atuahene identifies in certain instances a larger strategy to further subjugate certain groups within the polity by denying their humanity or their capacity to reason. This is dignity taking, and it occurs when a state directly or indirectly destroys property or confiscates property rights from owners or occupiers. The intentional or unintentional outcome is dehumanisation or infantilisation.
These are circumstances that the Nama, the Ovaherero and others went through.
Kommentaar
Republikein
Geen kommentaar is op hierdie artikel gelaat nie