Political Perspective

I’M NOT SURE if Government knows it, but the whole question of war veterans can probably cause as much upset and angst as the detainee issue – the latter being one they are avoiding at all costs.

At the end of the day, the new Veterans Bill, as one of our reporters put it quite aptly, could open a Pandora’s Box as people have to prove their ‘struggle credentials’ to the Veterans Board. AFFIRMATIVE action is, in the eyes of many, a skewed principle, especially given that a person’s current standing, and no matter how affluent they are, is not taken into account.One cannot help but wonder why this too won’t be brought into the issue of who the real ‘veterans’ are.Apparently veterans eligible for assistance are only those who are currently unemployed or who receive a prescribed minimal amount.While I would agree with this conditionality, I can’t help wonder why the same principle wasn’t applied to ‘affirmative action’.For example, if an individual has made substantial money since Independence, or who earns well through current employment in Government or elsewhere, why should they be beneficiaries of redistribution of land, for example? Because if much of the land had gone to people who really needed it perhaps we wouldn’t be saddled with the whole ‘veterans’ issue right now.Eventually perhaps, Government could reach clarity on former fighters, meaning those who bore arms in the struggle (on the side of the liberators in all probability, and not on the side of former apartheid forces).But how are they going to reach any kind of verdict on those who claim to have fought the struggle on other fronts? For example if they were illegally jailed or detained for their beliefs; if they gave succour to Plan fighters in their homesteads and paid the price; if they are orphans of people who went into exile; if they were detained in exile; if family members were beaten or killed in the cause of the struggle? Veterans and their dependents are expected to register with the Ministry of Veterans’ Affairs (and this is an exceptionally broad category of people which includes widows or widowers of veterans, biological or stepchildren, adopted or even posthumous children born after the death of the veteran in question!) but just about everyone in Namibia could probably find some way of qualifying for assistance.Once one has defined (or tried to define) ‘veteran’, we then have to define the ‘liberation struggle’, and this too is a hornet’s nest for in the Bill it is described as: “…the political, diplomatic, military or underground struggle waged against colonialism, racism, and apartheid waged in Namibia and other countries …”Again, not only thousands, but many more, will qualify.The saving grace with this Bill, the way I see it, is that only the needy can qualify.But it is still open to exploitation, of course, by some who falsely claim to be have-nots.Let us hypothetically sketch the scenario of a former Swapo detainee who is unemployed.Does he or she or their dependents qualify for assistance? I think the question needs to be answered before the application process starts, or we really risk opening a can of worms! But I still believe the whole process could have been simplified down to former fighters, proven combatants, ONLY.With the Bill as it is, the fights for acknowledgement of ‘struggle credentials’ will continue for the next decade, and probably after all the real soldiers have died.Most wars compensate the soldiers, and not (sometimes unfortunately, but in many ways, inevitably) those who made contributions in other ways.Come to think of it, even with all the wide-open criteria requested, the one thing that the Veterans Bill doesn’t ask for, is a Swapo membership card!AFFIRMATIVE action is, in the eyes of many, a skewed principle, especially given that a person’s current standing, and no matter how affluent they are, is not taken into account.One cannot help but wonder why this too won’t be brought into the issue of who the real ‘veterans’ are.Apparently veterans eligible for assistance are only those who are currently unemployed or who receive a prescribed minimal amount.While I would agree with this conditionality, I can’t help wonder why the same principle wasn’t applied to ‘affirmative action’.For example, if an individual has made substantial money since Independence, or who earns well through current employment in Government or elsewhere, why should they be beneficiaries of redistribution of land, for example? Because if much of the land had gone to people who really needed it perhaps we wouldn’t be saddled with the whole ‘veterans’ issue right now.Eventually perhaps, Government could reach clarity on former fighters, meaning those who bore arms in the struggle (on the side of the liberators in all probability, and not on the side of former apartheid forces).But how are they going to reach any kind of verdict on those who claim to have fought the struggle on other fronts? For example if they were illegally jailed or detained for their beliefs; if they gave succour to Plan fighters in their homesteads and paid the price; if they are orphans of people who went into exile; if they were detained in exile; if family members were beaten or killed in the cause of the struggle? Veterans and their dependents are expected to register with the Ministry of Veterans’ Affairs (and this is an exceptionally broad category of people which includes widows or widowers of veterans, biological or stepchildren, adopted or even posthumous children born after the death of the veteran in question!) but just about everyone in Namibia could probably find some way of qualifying for assistance.Once one has defined (or tried to define) ‘veteran’, we then have to define the ‘liberation struggle’, and this too is a hornet’s nest for in the Bill it is described as: “…the political, diplomatic, military or underground struggle waged against colonialism, racism, and apartheid waged in Namibia and other countries …”Again, not only thousands, but many more, will qualify.The saving grace with this Bill, the way I see it, is that only the needy can qualify.But it is still open to exploitation, of course, by some who falsely claim to be have-nots.Let us hypothetically sketch the scenario of a former Swapo detainee who is unemployed.Does he or she or their dependents qualify for assistance? I think the question needs to be answered before the application process starts, or we really risk opening a can of worms! But I still believe the whole process could have been simplified down to former fighters, proven combatants, ONLY.With the Bill as it is, the fights for acknowledgement of ‘struggle credentials’ will continue for the next decade, and probably after all the real soldiers have died.Most wars compensate the soldiers, and not (sometimes unfortunately, but in many ways, inevitably) those who made contributions in other ways.Come to think of it, even with all the wide-open criteria requested, the one thing that the Veterans Bill doesn’t ask for, is a Swapo membership card!