A Plea For Action

NAMIBIAN politics has been dominated for 15 years by a massive Swapo majority in every legislative body of the country.

Although the party has not developed any strategy in this regard, it has followed a casual policy of national reconciliation since Independence. This has, however, not translated into significant national unity – on the contrary: it merely served to confirm that Namibia is de facto a one-party dominant state.Instead of developing a credible strategy towards national unity, Swapo has pursued an agenda that consistently fails to differentiate between national unity and political conformity.The lack of a discernible strategy nourishes the virus of political uniformity, which will not only stand in the way of national reconciliation, but also threaten the very intention of achieving a national identity.It is an incontrovertible fact that political authority is controlled in effect by the members of the majority tribe.This alone gives rise to the tendency to divide the nation, rather than to unite it.National unity ought not to remain a hollow phrase.It ought to be filled with life and meaning.Political leadership should accept that it means that all the different ethnic, economic and political groups and all levels of the population support the principle that common responsibilities and loyalties are essential for the economic and political development and that they underpin national peace and harmony.Such a shared national vision remains to be developed by a continuing discourse across the entire spectrum of parties and groups.Unfortunately Namibian society is fraught with tension and latent conflict.Reconciliation is thus vital not only to neutralise existing conflicts but also to thwart potential of conflicts in future.But time is running out on us to bring about reconciliation and national unity.This paper is thus essentially a plea addressed at all concerned individuals and instances of the Namibian society to motivate them to secure peace and harmony for all Namibians with increased commitment.Since the end of the colonial period during the previous century and more recently, after the end of the Cold War by 1990 the nature of conflict had changed all over the world.Nowadays there are fewer quarrels between two or more individual states or groups of states, but rather increasingly conflicts over power and dominance within states, most of which are rooted in historical reasons.Ethnic, religious and territorial controversy, often the consequence of past atrocities and blunders, resurface from generation to generation.There are numerous examples of such internal conflicts.Both African and European history is fraught with bloodshed repeated periodically over centuries.The genocides of Rwanda-Burundi, Liberia, Somalia and the Darfur insurrection, the religious conflicts in the former USSR, Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland, the Basques problem in Spain and the quarrels triggered directly by colonial boundaries in Africa and on the Indian subcontinent, are but a few examples.These conflicts prove that in the pursuit of peace, reconciliation is nothing unusual.It remains not only an obligation but also a never-ending process, also in the case of our country.Internal conflicts frequently result in instability of the state in the wake of the breakdown of governance and civil society.Precedent also proves that the elimination of the root causes of conflict does not mean that reconciliation has been achieved or that peace has been restored permanently.Reconciliation entails more than the elimination of tension, more than the end of conflict.Reconciliation is also about eliminating the causes of future conflicts.More important, it must be appreciated that processes of reconciliation and nation building are inclusive and interdependent, i.e.the elimination of all areas of potential conflict (whether generated by current or historical race relations or instigated by tribal intolerance) is the unconditional requirement for national unity.Without reconciliation, national unity cannot be achieved.Indeed, reconciliation is essential for national unity.This has recently demonstrated by the disintegration of the state previously known as Yugoslavia, which has imploded in the wake of long standing internal conflicts between ethno-religious groups.In other words, reconciliation must take care of the divisions along racial, religious and tribal divides, a difficult task because the obligations and intolerance embedded in history will not disappear automatically.Collective memory will see to that, because it is easier to sustain the anger created by injustice and the rage caused by suppression, than it is to forgive or forget it.Summing up, national unity demands a collective effort aimed at reconciliation over a long period of time.It is a difficult and slow process.Lederach points out “that it usually takes just as long to get out of a conflict as it takes to get into one.So for conflicts that have been going on for decades or centuries, reconciliation cannot take place in weeks or months–perhaps not even in a few years.It will take many years, perhaps decades or centuries, to fully recover.Yet progress can be made, and even incremental steps can have tremendously beneficial effects”.Time obviously does not absolve the Namibian Government from its responsibilities, neither Civil Society, nor the traditional leadership or the Churches in the country (with one or two notable exceptions) from redoubling their efforts in this regard.Recognising that reconciliation is a never-ending process confirms the notion that it demands never-ending attention, patience and hard work.In this regard, the objectives of reconciliation and national unity are concurrent and identical.In a multi-racial community such as Namibia, which constitutionally acknowledges diversity, national unity can be achieved also through bringing the truth about everybody’s past to light – as it affects every group in the country, especially bearing in mind that the attitude of the government has as yet failed to produce anything close to the desired results.In South Africa this has been attempted through a “committee that investigates crimes and promotes reconciliation”…as well as a sensitive affirmative action programme.In Namibia, nothing of the sort has happened.The attempts to bring about reconciliation on the basis of “a policy of forgive and forget” and by applying an affirmative action plan the flies in the face of fairness, have over the past 15 years of Namibian independence not met with much success.Efforts to advance national unity on the basis of what has been called “economic reconciliation” have not been overly successful.Quite the opposite can be concluded from the reports of stagnating poverty.Forgiveness for both foreign-induced (historical) conflict and internal (traditional) intertribal strife (the divisions along racial and tribal divides) will remain meaningless unless followed by action.To mention but one example: Until such time that the much publicised apology by the Minister of Development Cooperation of the Republic of Germany, Hon.Heide-Marie Wieczorek-Zeul, at Okakarara is underpinned by some visible action, the odds for forgiveness for the German colonial transgressions (especially those against the Herero) will remain remote.Her plea for forgiveness will continue to hang about as an empty phrase.In this regard, it is also unlikely that forgiveness can be bought with cash.Therefore, although time and money may heal many wounds, the current demands by a minority of Namibians for reparations – which are unfortunately contaminated by undertones of coercion and tribalism – cannot contribute to reconciliation – on the contrary they rather bode ill for both – forgiveness and national unity.Perhaps of greater significance in the medium to long term is the probability that unless the current seemingly lopsided political domination by the Owambo people – as reflected by current voting patterns as a consequence of the demographic majority- is adjusted to a more equitable situation, intertribal discomfort is likely to increase.* It is an unquestionable principle that the support of reconciliation and the promotion of national unity may not be adversarial.That would be counterproductive.All people and institutions who are involved in the process should accordingly develop strategies that assist and underpin government endeavours insofar as they exist.The opposite is also true, of course.They ought to seek as far as possible the co-operation of government institutions and politicians, in the hope that they do not receive a cold shoulder.In other words, reconciliation can be achieved only on the basis of broad support by all concerned.Attempts to “go it alone” by either Civil Society or Government are unlikely to meet with success.* The formulation by the Government of a clear strategy with broad public support to promote national reconciliation and nation building would be a good beginning.In this context it must be understood that an examination of the past activities of all factions will strengthen rather than weaken any of those involved.This applies specifically to the majority party.If it is so that the apology by Min.Wieczorek-Zeul is welcomed as an act of atonement, then this obviously applies also to any other apology that might result from a soul-searching investigation of the past.The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has formalised a process of apology and forgiveness.Although differences of opinion concerning its effectiveness have been expressed, as many as 20 other such commissions have been created in other countries which experienced intense domestic strife since the Commission was created in 1995, in other words, at least some countries appear to have benefited from similar processes.Perhaps Namibia could also benefit from a like exercise.At the very least the outcome of such an exercise will have a stabilising and reassuring effect on the nation.It will be worth the risk.* Effective control of corruption will make a major contribution towards reconciliation because it will benefit the poor with a concomitant reduction of the tendency towards radicalisation.As a rule, corruption predominantly occurs amongst members of the more affluent class.Among the very poor, it is unlikely to reach the proportions of fraud and embezzlement that have lately been at the order of the day in Namibia.In the event that budget over spending and unauthorised expenditure perpetrated by the public service – mostly the result of political decisions – would formally be classified as corruption, a huge step will have been taken on the road to good governance, with ultimate benefits for the poor.In any event, funds may under no circumstances be wasted without severe reprimand, because corruption and poor governance confines the poor inescapably to poverty, with ultimately grave consequences.Their disappointed expectations are likely to cause growing discontent and aggression.Seen in this light corruption is a threat to reconciliation.The Namibian Churches and Non-Governmental Organisations are playing a crucial role in bringing about reconciliation, maintaining civil society and building peace.Therefore, the interventions of the NGOs directly affect the course of actual and potential conflicts, and that their work in relief and development affects not only the social and economic well-being of their target groups, but also the larger political situation.The NGO’s play an important part in preventing marginalisation and radicalisation.For example women, who have often been overlooked in peace processes, have recently played a major role in re-establishing communication and economic ties between groups in Namibia.They have been making and are continuing to make a considerable contribution towards promoting peace and reducing poverty in many spheres and should be recognised for their achievements.Without a clearly defined strategy and the formulation of principles of policy based upon broad popular support of nationwide goodwill, the objective of national unity is difficult to accomplish.The common desire to reconcile is a key component in any such strategy since it is indispensable towards achieving consensus about the ultimate objective and agreeing stable and enduring (albeit not always equitable or permanent) compromises on divisive issues.It is accordingly suggested that the declared objective of ‘One Namibia – One Nation’ can only be achieved if the majority of past traumas has been overcome successfully, or, at the very least, subjected to intense scrutiny.All wrongs of the past will have to be addressed, the suffering of apartheid exploitation and suppression, the trauma of the Herero and Nama uprisings, the distress which still troubles the ‘Breaking the Wall of Silence’, current political domination on the one hand and passivity on the other, the distress suffered by most ethnic groups, the latent conflict nurtured by the insecurity in regard to the land issue, the reduction of poverty and ameliorating the increasing income gap between the rich and the growing number of the poor, and, last but most certainly not least – the improvement of good governance.When these problems are seriously addressed – if not resolved – then it will become clear that reconciliation knows no losers.Whereas it will prove pointless to attempt a predetermined time frame for a process which is more than likely never-ending, it will be negligent not to make a more serious attempt at pursuing reconciliation and national unity than has been the case to date, albeit that the ultimate objective may prove to be rather elusive.* The author is a former Member of Parliament and Member of the Constitutional Committee of the Constituent Assembly of Namibia , Member of the Action for Democratic Change.Footnotes: Kingsley da Silva writes in a paper entitled ‘Ethnicity and Nationalism’: “State building or state maintenance in a post-colonial context becomes a self-defeating exercise unless ethnic identity ceases to be the only true nationalism”.The title of the book is ‘Between Development and Destruction’ edited by de Goor, Rupesinghe Sciarone.*W.Pfaff: ‘The Wrath of Nations’ (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1993).”The past lies in strata of human experience, never totally forgotten, even when deeply buried in a society’s consciousness, but too often still raw at the surface ….”*Kingsley M da Silva: ‘Between Development and Destruction’ (St.Martin Press, New York, 1996) “Ethnic identities often carry with them memories of historical enmities with very deep roots.Tensions and hostilities arise from attempts at a redress of historical grievances, sometimes going back several centuries into the past” *Prof.Dr.John Paul Lederach, Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame.*Louis Kriesberg: ‘Intercommunal Reconciliation’.He suggests that “strategies for reconciliation are often initiated, encouraged and even ordered by high ranking leaders within one or more of the adversarial groups, but sometimes also by high-ranking persons who are not members of the antagonistic sides” According to Kriesberg “no single condition or policy can be effective alone, rather various combinations are needed to achieve and sustain reconciliation” * Kingsley M da Silva: ‘Between Development and Destruction’ (St.Martin Press, New York, 1996): “The politicization of ethnicity has a historical dimension and looking for the roots of a problem is not a mere academic exercise, nor does it only strengthen the hands of recalcitrant activist groups and unscrupulous politicians anxious to exploit an issue for their own political ends.In that search lies the beginning of a process of understanding (emphasis by the author) about why the encounter between ethnicity an nationalism is as likely to erupt in violence as it is to stabilize a political situation disturbed by people’s efforts, nationalities and nations – to seek a congruence between ethnicity and national identity”This has, however, not translated into significant national unity – on the contrary: it merely served to confirm that Namibia is de facto a one-party dominant state.Instead of developing a credible strategy towards national unity, Swapo has pursued an agenda that consistently fails to differentiate between national unity and political conformity.The lack of a discernible strategy nourishes the virus of political uniformity, which will not only stand in the way of national reconciliation, but also threaten the very intention of achieving a national identity.It is an incontrovertible fact that political authority is controlled in effect by the members of the majority tribe.This alone gives rise to the tendency to divide the nation, rather than to unite it.National unity ought not to remain a hollow phrase.It ought to be filled with life and meaning.Political leadership should accept that it means that all the different ethnic, economic and political groups and all levels of the population support the principle that common responsibilities and loyalties are essential for the economic and political development and that they underpin national peace and harmony.Such a shared national vision remains to be developed by a continuing discourse across the entire spectrum of parties and groups.Unfortunately Namibian society is fraught with tension and latent conflict.Reconciliation is thus vital not only to neutralise existing conflicts but also to thwart potential of conflicts in future.But time is running out on us to bring about reconciliation and national unity.This paper is thus essentially a plea addressed at all concerned individuals and instances of the Namibian society to motivate them to secure peace and harmony for all Namibians with increased commitment.Since the end of the colonial period during the previous century and more recently, after the end of the Cold War by 1990 the nature of conflict had changed all over the world.Nowadays there are fewer quarrels between two or more individual states or groups of states, but rather increasingly conflicts over power and dominance within states, most of which are rooted in historical reasons.Ethnic, religious and territorial controversy, often the consequence of past atrocities and blunders, resurface from generation to generation.There are numerous examples of such internal conflicts.Both African and European history is fraught with bloodshed repeated periodically over centuries.The genocides of Rwanda-Burundi, Liberia, Somalia and the Darfur insurrection, the religious conflicts in the former USSR, Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland, the Basques problem in Spain and the quarrels triggered directly by colonial boundaries in Africa and on the Indian subcontinent, are but a few examples.These conflicts prove that in the pursuit of peace, reconciliation is nothing unusual.It remains not only an obligation but also a never-ending process, also in the case of our country.Internal conflicts frequently result in instability of the state in the wake of the breakdown of governance and civil society.Precedent also proves that the elimination of the root causes of conflict does not mean that reconciliation has been achieved or that peace has been restored permanently.Reconciliation entails more than the elimination of tension, more than the end of conflict.Reconciliation is also about eliminating the causes of future conflicts.More important, it must be appreciated that processes of reconciliation and nation building are inclusive and interdependent, i.e.the elimination of all areas of potential conflict (whether generated by current or historical race relations or instigated by tribal intolerance) is the unconditional requirement for national unity.Without reconciliation, national unity cannot be achieved.Indeed, reconciliation is essential for national unity.This has recently demonstrated by the disintegration of the state previously known as Yugoslavia, which has imploded in the wake of long standing internal conflicts between ethno-religious groups.In other words, reconciliation must take care of the divisions along racial, religious and tribal divides, a difficult task because the obligations and intolerance embedded in history will not disappear automatically.Collective memory will see to that, because it is easier to sustain the anger created by injustice and the rage caused by suppression, than it is to forgive or forget it.Summing up, national unity demands a collective effort aimed at reconciliation over a long period of time.It is a difficult and slow process.Lederach points out “that it usually takes just as long to get out of a conflict as it takes to get into one.So for conflicts that have been going on for decades or centuries, reconciliation cannot take place in weeks or months–perhaps not even in a few years.It will take many years, perhaps decades or centuries, to fully recover.Yet progress can be made, and even incremental steps can have tremendously beneficial effects”.Time obviously does not absolve the Namibian Government from its responsibilities, neither Civil Society, nor the traditional leadership or the Churches in the country (with one or two notable exceptions) from redoubling their efforts in this regard.Recognising that reconciliation is a never-ending process confirms the notion that it demands never-ending attention, patience and hard work.In this regard, the objectives of reconciliation and national unity are concurrent and identical.In a multi-racial community such as Namibia, which constitutionally acknowledges diversity, national unity can be achieved also through bringing the truth about everybody’s past to light – as it affects every group in the country, especially bearing in mind that the attitude of the government has as yet failed to produce anything close to the desired results.In South Africa this has been attempted through a “committee that investigates crimes and promotes reconciliation”…as well as a sensitive affirmative action programme.In Namibia, nothing of the sort has happened.The attempts to bring about reconciliation on the basis of “a policy of forgive and forget” and by applying an affirmative action plan the flies in the face of fairness, have over the past 15 years of Namibian independence not met with much success.Efforts to advance national unity on the basis of what has been called “economic reconciliation” have not been overly successful.Quite the opposite can be concluded from the reports of stagnating poverty.Forgiveness for both foreign-induced (historical) conflict and internal (traditional) intertribal strife (the divisions along racial and tribal divides) will remain meaningless unless followed by action.To mention but one example: Until such time that the much publicised apology by the Minister of Development Cooperation of the Republic of Germany, Hon.Heide-Marie Wieczorek-Zeul, at Okakarara is underpinned by some visible action, the odds for forgiveness for the German colonial transgressions (especially those against the Herero) will remain remote.Her plea for forgiveness will continue to hang about as an empty phrase.In this regard, it is also unlikely that forgiveness can be bought with cash.Therefore, although time and money may heal many wounds, the current demands by a minority of Namibians for reparations – which are unfortunately contaminated by undertones of coercion and tribalism – cannot contribute to reconciliation – on the contrary they rather bode ill for both – forgiveness and national unity.Perhaps of greater significance in the medium to long term is the probability that unless the current seemingly lopsided political domination by the Owambo people – as reflected by current voting patterns as a consequence of the demographic majority- is adjusted to a more equitable situation, intertribal discomfort is likely to increase.* It is an unquestionable principle that the support of reconciliation and the promotion of national unity may not be adversarial.That would be counterproductive.All people and institutions who are involved in the process should accordingly develop strategies that assist and underpin government endeavours insofar as they exist.The opposite is also true, of course.They ought to seek as far as possible the co-operation of government institutions and politicians, in the hope that they do not receive a cold shoulder.In other words, reconciliation can be achieved only on the basis of broad support by all concerned.Attempts to “go it alone” by either Civil Society or Government are unlikely to meet with success.* The formulation by the Government of a clear strategy with broad public support to promote national reconciliation and nation building would be a good beginning.In this context it must be understood that an examination of the past activities of all factions will strengthen rather than weaken any of those involved.This applies specifically to the majority party.If it is so that the apology by Min.Wieczorek-Zeul is welcomed as an act of atonement, then this obviously applies also to any other apology that might result from a soul-searching investigation of the past.The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has formalised a process of apology and forgiveness.Although differences of opinion concerning its effectiveness have been expressed, as many as 20 other such commissions have been created in other countries which experienced intense domestic strife since the Commission was created in 1995, in other words, at least some countries appear to have benefited from similar processes.Perhaps Namibia could also benefit from a like exercise.At the very least the outcome of such an exercise will have a stabilising and reassuring effect on the nation.It will be worth the risk.* Effective control of corruption will make a major contribution towards reconciliation because it will benefit the poor with a concomitant reduction of the tendency towards radicalisation.As a rule, corruption predominantly occurs amongst members of the more affluent class.Among the very poor, it is unlikely to reach the proportions of fraud and embezzlement that have lately been at the order of the day in Namibia.In the event that budget over spending and unauthorised expenditure perpetrated by the public service – mostly the result of political decisions – would formally be classified as corruption, a huge step will have been taken on the road to good governance, with ultimate benefits for the poor.In any event, funds may under no circumstances be wasted without severe reprimand, because corruption and poor governance confines the poor inescapably to poverty, with ultimately grave consequences.Their disappointed expectations are likely to cause growing discontent and aggression.Seen in this light corruption is a threat to reconciliation.The Namibian Churches and Non-Governmental Organisations are playing a crucial role in bringing about reconciliation, maintaining civil society and building peace.Therefore, the interventions of the NGOs directly affect the course of actual and potential conflicts, and that their work in relief and development affects not only the social and economic well-being of their target groups, but also the larger political situation.The NGO’s play an important part in preventing marginalisation and radicalisation.For example women, who have often been overlooked in peace processes, have recently played a major role in re-establishing communication and economic ties between groups in Namibia.They have been making and are continuing to make a considerable contribution towards promoting peace and reducing poverty in many spheres and should be recognised for their achievements.Without a clearly defined strategy and the formulation of principles of policy based upon broad popular support of nationwide goodwill, the objective of national unity is difficult to accomplish.The common desire to reconcile is a key component in any such strategy since it is indispensable towards achieving consensus about the ultimate objective and agreeing stable and enduring (albeit not always equitable or permanent) compromises on divisive issues.It is accordingly suggested that the declared objective of ‘One Namibia – One Nation’ can only be achieved if the majority of past traumas has been overcome successfully, or, at the very least, subjected to intense scrutiny.All wrongs of the past will have to be addressed, the suffering of apartheid exploitation and suppression, the trauma of the Herero and Nama uprisings, the distress which still troubles the ‘Breaking the Wall of Silence’, current political domination on the one hand and passivity on the other, the distress suffered by most ethnic groups, the latent conflict nurtured by the insecurity in regard to the land issue, the reduction of poverty and ameliorating the increasing income gap between the rich and the growing number of the poor, and, last but most certainly not least – the improvement of good governance.When these problems are seriously addressed – if not resolved – then it will become clear that reconciliation knows no losers.Whereas it will prove pointless to attempt a predetermined time frame for a process which is more than likely never-ending, it will be negligent not to make a more serious attempt at pursuing reconciliation and national unity than has been the case to date, albeit that the ultimate objective may prove to be rather elusive.* The author is a former Member of Parliament and Member of the Constitutional Committee of the Constituent Assembly of Namibia , Member of the Action for Democratic Change.Footnotes: Kingsley da Silva writes in a paper entitled ‘Ethnicity and Nationalism’: “State building or state maintenance in a post-colonial context becomes a self-defeating exercise unless ethnic identity ceases to be the only true nationalism”.The title of the book is ‘Between Development and Destruction’ edited by de Goor, Rupesinghe Sciarone.*W.Pfaff: ‘The Wrath of Nations’ (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1993).”The past lies in strata of human experience, never totally forgotten, even when deeply buried in a society’s consciousness, but too often still raw at the surface ….”*Kingsley M da Silva: ‘Between Development and Destruction’ (St.Martin Press, New York, 1996) “Ethnic identities often carry with them memories of historical enmities with very deep roots.Tensions and hostilities arise from attempts at a redress of historical grievances, sometimes going back several centuries into the past” *Prof.Dr.John Paul Lederach, Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame.*Louis Kriesberg: ‘Intercommunal Reconciliation’.He suggests that “strategies for reconciliation are often initiated, encouraged and even ordered by high ranking leaders within one or more of the adversarial groups, but sometimes also by high-ranking persons who are not members of the antagonistic sides” According to Kriesberg “no single condition or policy can be effective alone, rather various combinations are needed to achieve and sustain reconciliation” * Kingsley M da Silva: ‘Between Development and Destruction’ (St.Martin Press, New York, 1996): “The politicization of ethnicity has a historical dimension and looking for the roots of a problem is not a mere academic exercise, nor does it only strengthen the hands of recalcitrant activist groups and unscrupulous politicians anxious to exploit an issue for their own political ends.In that search lies the beginning of a process of understanding (emphasis by the author) about why the encounter between ethnicity an nationalism is as likely to erupt in violence as it is to stabilize a political situation disturbed by people’s efforts, nationalities and nations – to seek a congruence between ethnicity and national identity”