Rural Under-Development and the Politics of Urban Expansion in Namibia

AS WITH most post-colonial African states, Namibia has not escaped the challenge of rural-urban migration and the growth of urban centres across the country’s 14 political regions.

In the grammar of the technocratic and political elite, “development” appears to be synonymous with high-rise buildings, shopping centres, modern housing and other structures that mimic a modern western city.

This ideological and policy disposition has led to enacting and amending legal instruments that encroach on rural land for the purpose of extending the existing boundaries of towns.

The compensation policy that governs relocation is inadequate – it does not comprehensively account for losses suffered by those who must make way for “development”.

Through a stroke of a pen or an announcement at a political rally, several rural areas have been turned into “towns” overnight.

The proclamation of rural areas into urban centres does not follow any meaningful growth that warrants a transition.

Rather, it has been more about changing jurisdictions over land.

As a result, rural livelihoods are decimated while economic dependency is deepened.

‘PAUPERISATION’

We argue here that the conceptualisation of development by the elite is unfavourable to the interests of communities that are relocated and then poorly compensated by local government officials.

Beyond livelihoods, rural folks tend to lose land that is of cultural and historical value.

It was reported recently in this newspaper that Ondangwa villagers are now expected to pay “rent” for their village homes.

Although this was received with ridicule, it is no surprise to those who pay attention to the politics of urban expansion in Namibia. The Ondangwa Town Council offered an explanation, which is a debate for another day.

What is clear is that urban expansion in Namibia has been accompanied by the pauperisation of rural people.

Omahangu fields, cattle kraals, chicken coops and other features of rural livelihoods have become casualties of a linear and twisted understanding of development.

In the Global South, where most urban population growth now takes place, urban expansion occurs in a haphazard, unplanned manner, making cities less productive, hardly resilient and unsustainable, argues Shlomo Angel (2023). 

We argue that development should, by its nature, be context-specific and a catalytic force that improves existing livelihoods.

THEATRES OF CONSUMPTION

The advent of fast-food outlets and shopping malls in previously rural areas is invariably greeted with fanfare.

Those who used to live off the land are gradually displaced to the margins of the new “towns”.

In no time, the displaced become a reserve army of unemployed while a few get absorbed into low-paying and precarious jobs offered by the newly inaugurated theatres of consumption.

An illusion of “development” is created: rural areas that now host various retailers boast about how they’ve made progress.

Alas, producers are turned into mere consumers and slaves of an exploitative capitalist system.

Sakketa (2020) maintains that “while some authors see urbanisation as strongly benefiting rural areas through increased demand for agricultural goods and services, others highlight negative effects such as loss of livelihoods emanating from displacements and the conversion of agricultural land”.

Urban expansion in Namibia has not been accompanied by increased demand for local agricultural goods.

Most supermarkets source their produce from South Africa, citing quality and standards. This leaves a good number of local producers without markets for their agricultural produce.

We should nonetheless recognise that urban expansion in Namibia has not necessarily resulted in a complete disappearance of the hinterland.
Several proclaimed towns still exhibit elements of rurality. For instance, a number of local authorities impound domestic animals such as goats, pigs and cattle and the owners are expected to collect them at a fee.

In most cases, these animals once lived and grazed in areas where shopping centres have been built.

PAINFUL PARADOX

So, who exactly is an obstacle to ‘development’?

Either way, this dual existence always privileges the urban way of life as the incremental proclamation of towns puts pressure on rural land.

If this trend continues unabated, more Namibians will become poorer and dependent while food insecurity intensifies.
What do we propose?

In the first instance, we must revisit what development means to most Namibians.

Isn’t it a paradox if government tries to curb rural-urban migration while aggressively advocating for expanding towns at the expense of rural communities? 

It appears that the prevalent understanding of development is twisted and decontextualised.

Once we appreciate that development is context-specific and that proclaiming towns does not necessarily denote progress, we must harness the potential of rural livelihoods and build on rural strengths.

Investing in rural development will also help arrest what has become unsustainable rural-urban migration.

• – Ellison Tjirera is a sociologist; Rui Tyitende is a political scientist.

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.