Real Change Is Preferable To Symbolism
By: D. Aluteni KatuturaTHE election of a non-Oshiwambo president for Namibia would be of symbolic significance. This is important in countering the Oshiwambo chauvinism prevalent in the government (especially the police service) and in the right wing of Swapo.
This is undoubtedly the strongest form of tribalism in the country. It is also true that this tribalism is partly based on the idea that only the Oshiwambos sacrificed and fought for the (national) liberation of the country. Perhaps the time has come to deconstruct this idea.
However, do we need symbolism only or do we need real change? Would it make a huge difference if Hage Geingob is president of the country? Would it for instance bring down the tragic unemployment rate? Would it eradicate poverty and inequality? Of course not.
The election of a non-Oshiwambo president would be of mere symbolic importance. It is probably more crucial to get to the source of tribalism in the country, i.e. the poverty in the rural areas and the powers of the tribal authorities. The revolutionary leader Thomas Sankara took away the powers of the tribal leaders as a way of countering tribalism.
Namibia is now harvesting the bitter fruit of never having had a program of action against tribalism and racism. What we had so far has been superficial window-dressing. National reconciliation seems to have been more about hiding the atrocities committed at Lubango and the economic compromises made at the negotiations.
The debate about a non-Oshiwambo president reminds me somewhat of the election of US president Barack Obama. The election of Obama was a great victory on a symbolic level for the fight against racism. However, it is obvious by now that American imperialism is alive and well under his leadership. Obama’s election as president was an attempt to give credibility to a capitalist system in crisis.
The very same argument applies to Nelson Mandela and Sam Nujoma.
Mandela is a remarkable person, but the fact is that South Africa was on the verge of an anti-capitalist revolution in the mid-eighties which he had to help prevent. This was the primary reason for the political negotiations with the ANC and Swapo. It was in the mid-eighties that the secret contacts between the apartheid regime and the ANC started. (One could only wonder if there were also secret contacts with Swapo.) The ANC had little political influence in South Africa from 1964-83, but Mandela negotiated – without a mandate – completely alone in prison for a whole three years with the apartheid regime. The cult of personality perpetuated by the western media was meant to ensure that the ANC was regarded as the leader of the anti-apartheid struggle and to hide the tremendous economic compromises to come at the formal negotiations.
The same applies to Namibia. With the uprising in South Africa’s townships and the financial drain of the war in southern Angola, the apartheid regime had to find an exit strategy from colonized Namibia. The collapse of the Soviet Union presented them with the historic opportunity. Despite political propaganda, Swapo did not score a single military victory against the apartheid army in almost three decades of armed struggle. Nujoma’s party played a minor role at the battle for Cuito Cuanavale – which ended in a stalemate. Swapo seemed to have excelled at fighting against Unita, their erstwhile comrades in arms.
It also cannot be refuted that Swapo was guilty of devouring their members, especially radical comrades. The recent admission by former Swapo stalwarts that Andreas Shipanga was set up, speaks volumes. This is why there is no left wing in Swapo and why its political base is tribal in nature. Swapo compromised itself in 1974 already when the Kaunda-Vorster détente led to the beginning of the systematic destruction of the radical cadre. With regard to the negotiations at Cuito Cuanavale, as long as Swapo was willing to agree to the protection of private property, the apartheid regime would allow Nujoma to be the president of the country. Swapo brought us limited liberation. So, it is fundamental change that we need instead of symbolism.
The debate about a non-Oshiwambo president hides a much deeper issue, namely, what kind of political party should be leading the country. Namibia has very many centre-right parties (Swapo, RDP, COD, etc.), but it should be clear that these political formations have not been and would not be able to address unemployment, poverty, inequality, etc. Their economic policies are all within the right-wing framework.
What this country needs is a genuine and unifying left-wing formation to address the fundamental questions of the Namibian working class. Only such a party could bring about a different developmental model. Indeed, it would not matter what tribe or ethnic group the president of a working class party was born into! The issue is really about fundamental change.
What is required in Namibia is the symbolic suicide of the tribe, in order for the most important majority – the working class – to emerge. Let us not only discuss tribalism in the basements, but everywhere in the country.