The State Of The Nation State Sixteen Years On

THE notion and concept of nation-state is one which has gone through an intellectual contest and metamorphosis.

Conforming to dominant contemporary philosophy, modern states take the shape and form of a nation, without necessarily responding to the original definition given during the 18th century, that of a uniform cultural and linguistic entity. As such, nation states whose ethnic composition is mixed have become the norm rather than the exception, and their cohesion has become threatened by at times marginalised communities who demand greater representation in the economic and social life of the state.In some cases they insist on more autonomy or in worst-case scenarios, even secession.Namibia as a “verspaetete nation” (late nation) as German historians and political scientists would suggest, has adopted since Independence in its response to that threat, the policy of national reconciliation which otherwise as a soft policy, comes to life in political speeches as a lucid reminder about the importance of “one Namibia, one nation.”Yet, it is always easy to applaud leaders once they shout “one Namibia, one nation”, but intellectually it is dishonest.As a consequence, one does not need to be a boffin of political science or sociology to realise that our nation state project is not on the anticipated trajectory.We need to stop believing that everything is solved when we call each other ‘comrade’ or when we hear the policy of national reconciliation being mentioned in political speeches.The argument being made here is that there is no consistent effort on the part of our political leaders and our communities at building a stronger and more cohesive Namibian society.For the sake of empirical clarity, the debate about the nation state in Namibia can be deconstructed from two points of view; First, the state, that is to say its institutions and how the question of the nation state is dealt with theoretically from a republican point of view.Secondly, a dimension which is of course not without consequence in as far as the state expresses itself on that question, is Swapo, a party whose hegemony in our nation-building project permeates all aspects of our socio-economic and political life.Linked to this discussion is the fact that state collapse or the success of our nation state project cannot be examined if we evacuate Swapo and its internal dynamics from that process.At a more general level, societies, and political parties, or in short, systems, collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions.These contradictions could be a result of internal process or they could be induced by external forces.But then, our analysis of the post-colonial state in Africa would tell us that hegemonic political formations failed in so many instances, not only to avoid their own collapse, but ultimately state collapse, in part due to their handling of the nation state project.So, when decomposing the problematic of the nation state in the Namibian context, the weight of the ruling party in that process would not escape any sober analysis.In order to analyse Swapo’s contribution in the construction of the nation state, we draw from Ferdinand Toennies, the outstanding German sociologist and “kulturphilosoph” (cultural philosopher), who makes in his seminal book published in 1887 ‘Gemeinschaft und Gesselschaft’ a worthy distinction between gemeinschaft (community) and gesselschaft (society).For Toennies, human beings are born in a community, that is to say, the closed biological community of parents and by extension family.However, the community transforms itself naturally and chronologically into society.Thus society, according to Toennies, is an inevitable feature of modern industrialised society.Drawing from Toennies, the question that Swapo should pose is whether it is promoting Namibian communities or a society? The work of Toennies generates interest because what we see in Namibia today is a state that is not doing much to promote a society because of the mediation of various ethnic groups with the republic.The work of the celebrated French philosopher Michel Foucault, borrowing possibly from Toennies, is also enlightening when he argued that “il faut defendre la societe” (we need to defend society).For Toennies, the opposition between society and community is based on the fact that the social tissue cannot be summarised on the basis of contractual interactions between individuals.In communities, individuals are at home and they are protected.In the Namibian context, communities could be equated with the notion of ethnicity as invented in the social sciences in the United Kingdom and the United States.For conceptual clarity, when one speaks of communities here, one is essentially referring to ethnic communities.In the British and American traditions, it is accepted practice for various ethnic groups to mediate with the state on issues affecting these respective communities.Opposed to this vision of the state is the French national tradition with a conception of democracy based on a direct link between the citizen and the state, without the mediation of a group.In its pure version, our policy of national reconciliation seeks to unite Namibians without ethnic mediation.In that instance, it is in its purpose not far from the French republican tradition.More prosaically, the Namibian state at Independence, borrowing from Emile Durkheim, the idea of a newly created republic, ontologically just, was to guarantee equality of opportunity for all citizens.Evidently, such lofty notions were drawn and informed in the newly created state from our collective experiences during colonialism and later apartheid.However, the question that lies at the centre of nation state in Namibia today is whether there is a political consensus and will to defend society.It remains the case in our intentions because practice tells a different story.Behind formal speech and a policy of national reconciliation that ignores these cultural differences or ethnicity in general when it comes to guaranteeing opportunities, our state has invented modes of mediation with ethnic groups and tribal leaders.It is no longer uncommon for tribal leaders, chiefs, kings and queens to approach those in power in demand for a stake in both the political and economic life of the country.In principle, there is nothing absurd with these tribal leaders mediating with the President or the Prime Minister for greater representation in state structures or development in their communities.But, this in itself is a flagrant reminder of the failure of our policy of national reconciliation.The policy of national reconciliation is played out as a strong suit at public rallies, but in our bureaucracies, our political offices, our communities and our political parties it is played out in essence as a weak suit.In many cases, ethnic groups or sub-ethnic groups are instrumentalised by Namibian politicians, both in the ruling party Swapo and with those who claim to provide an alternative.Essentially, they have all in one way or another contributed to the identity fragmentation we are witnessing today.Therefore, the problem of a national identity is posed.In our case, the nation state exists only as a product of political unification of the territory by a central administration.So, even if the state tried to decompose colonialism state at Independence, it used colonial structures to construct its centre and in many ways perpetuated the very same system it sought to destroy.As a consequence the republic has continued to be segmented in groups founded on ethnic identity.So, the whole idea of a society becomes questionable since we remain attached and rooted to our respective ethnic communities when dealing with matters of state.It is the norm, rather than the exception, for a top leader or a minister to appoint members of his tribe as personal assistants, secretaries etc.Equally so, it is common for a CEO of a parastatal to provide jobs and contracts to members of his ethnic group.A sitting president would be seen to have failed his tribe if he doesn’t appoint members of his community to strategic positions in state institutions and elsewhere.Supposedly, these are acts of bravery since you have not betrayed your “people”.The point being illuminated here is that our political leaders are not defending society for they instead, by design or by fault, choose to promote their communities.As such in some state and private institutions we are witnessing the emergence of an ethnic division of labour.As opposed to state institutions becoming melting pots, there is an ethnic division of labour with each community trying to negotiate a niche for itself based on the head of that institution or those who can appoint and fire.Nations are social and political constructs.Therefore, it would go a long way for our nation-building project if as a matter of policy chief regional officers would serve in regions other than those from which they originate.It does make sense to insist on a Pienaar serving in the Omaheke region as a chief regional officer.Yes, it does contribute to the consolidation of our nation state.However, it is nonsensical if the same Pienaar or a Gontes is unable to serve in Oshana, Ohangwena or Omusati as such.Essentially, what this tells us is that the contract signed between individuals and the state is not of an equal nature as Durkheim would prefer, since there is an inherent ethnic twist to that transaction.Therefore, it is no longer uncommon to hear about political leaders, ministers who “betrayed” their ethnic communities for they didn’t appoint en masse in their offices members of their tribes.And worse, leaders are seen by these ethnic nationalist as having constituencies within their political parties based on their tribes and this has become the only way in which they can negotiate top leadership of their political parties and ultimately the country.What this means is that many in our country have come to internalise that is socially correct to do things in this morally wrong way.As such, a trip to some of our rural communities or Southport in the United Kingdom brings a visitor into contact with a pool of ‘desperados’ who in their own ways feel alienated, marginalised, de-nationalised and a desperate sub-class and at some point possibly ready for hire at a small price.The fear of this de-nationalised youth or class and their desperation expresses itself in terse ethnic language and it is no longer uncommon to hear that the government does not serve my interests as per definition of my ethnic group.At some point as was the case of Houphouet Boigny’s Cote d’Ivoire, we might assist to some kind of degradation of this ethnic division of labour and opportunities.And once inimical identities are hardened as a result of intense ethnic rivalry and exclusion, it may not matter whether the strategic competition was triggered by a mere social construction.It is this constant danger that our society should guard against in its governance of the public.It is of consequence if Ben Ulenga, the leader of an opposition party defines his party as non-ethnic because normally definitions are by their very nature vis-a-vis a significant “other”.Equally, it should be a matter of debate, not only within Swapo, but Namibia as a whole if Jessaya Nyamu, a former senior Swapo politician speaks dramatically at length about the “Omusati greyhounds” within Swapo.Are these notions of tribalism and ethnicity invented, imagined or are they real and do they threaten the cohesion of the party and by extension, state survival? These are vital questions that deserve a robust discussion about society.Without doubt, there have been interesting efforts at a political level at creating a Namibian identity.Undoubtedly, the social and political signification of citizenship is essential and equally the historical foundation of the nation is one but of many solutions.But the angst of daily life nourishes an imagined and reinvented history.Bestowing the title of Founding Father of the Namibian Nation on former President Sam Nujoma immediately comes to mind as an attempt at providing some historical foundation to the nation state and perhaps more importantly creating a Namibian identity through the founding President.Yet, what remains problematic is the timing of that honour, perhaps not of Nujoma’s fault but those who bestowed such a title on a deserving Nujoma, yet a politician involved in the small tactical kitchen of political parties.And the unintended consequence of such actions is some kind of a self-indulging legitimacy without building a national consensus around such issues.Therefore, a question deserving an adequate answer and one that should have been asked then is that of knowing how possible it is for a new nation and our identity to be expressed through the founding President whilst he remains in the cut-throat battles not only within Swapo as its head but also Namibian politics? The point deserving emphasis here is that the state and its symbolism will not by its definition lead to the edification of a nation as is hoped in the Namibian context.Efforts at nation building and creating a Namibian identity should go beyond bestowing titles on political leaders to celebrating the arts, sports or normal human interactions and locating our debate in a larger context.To illustrate this point, a new consensus could emerge if there is a dialogue of civilisations, ethnic groups through a much more national account of our history.Swapo as the ruling party should promote a new national consensus around Omugulu-gwombashe without neglecting and excluding in its heroic narrative as is the case primary resistance in Namibia’s liberation history, be it the battle of Hamakari or in general the genocide of 1904 or any other defining battle.The social and political signification of August 26 could develop new national meaning if we move away from the current dominant and atomised message of Swapo’s heroic narrative and what has generally degenerated into a day where each ethnic group celebrates its heroes.In addition, it is essential to promote exchanges at all levels, be it schools, officials between various regions in order to promote cultural understanding and tolerance.Political leaders, business leaders should be made aware that office is not a means to reward our ethnic groups, but to defend and to reward society at large.But because a culture of denial and indifference has penetrated all levels of our state, we refuse to discuss issues that affect our future.Such failure cannot only be attributed to ethnic entrepreneurs or Swapo as a hegemonic formation, but also political and intellectual leaders who choose not to defend society at platforms available to them.Out of choice and not condition, we perpetuate as Achille Mbembe, the Sorbonne University educated African historian writes on the paradigm of the African as a victimised subject: “D’apres ce paradigme, l’imagination identitaire se deploie selon une logique de soupcon, de la denonciation de l’autre et de tout ce qui est different” (According to this paradigm, identities are constructed on the basis of a logic of suspicion, denouncing the other and all that is different).Admittedly, what Mbembe is saying is that our victimisation of the “insignificant other” negate social cohesion and mutually beneficial human solidarity.To conclude, the assertion of our speaker Theo-Ben Gurirab, is extremely instructive when he responded bluntly in response to a question from a journalist about his candidacy in 2004 in the run-up to the Swapo presidential nomination that “every Namibian should dream of becoming president of the country.”Such an assertion appears caricatured and ambiguous, but with reference to this article, our attention should be drawn to another pertinent question: Are we constructing that Namibia today? * Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari holds a BA (Politics and Sociology) from UNAM and an MA in International Studies from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.He also holds an MPhil in International Relations from the University of Paris-Pantheon Sorbonne, France, where he is a doctoral student in Political Science.As such, nation states whose ethnic composition is mixed have become the norm rather than the exception, and their cohesion has become threatened by at times marginalised communities who demand greater representation in the economic and social life of the state.In some cases they insist on more autonomy or in worst-case scenarios, even secession.Namibia as a “verspaetete nation” (late nation) as German historians and political scientists would suggest, has adopted since Independence in its response to that threat, the policy of national reconciliation which otherwise as a soft policy, comes to life in political speeches as a lucid reminder about the importance of “one Namibia, one nation.”Yet, it is always easy to applaud leaders once they shout “one Namibia, one nation”, but intellectually it is dishonest.As a consequence, one does not need to be a boffin of political science or sociology to realise that our nation state project is not on the anticipated trajectory.We need to stop believing that everything is solved when we call each other ‘comrade’ or when we hear the policy of national reconciliation being mentioned in political speeches.The argument being made here is that there is no consistent effort on the part of our political leaders and our communities at building a stronger and more cohesive Namibian society.For the sake of empirical clarity, the debate about the nation state in Namibia can be deconstructed from two points of view; First, the state, that is to say its institutions and how the question of the nation state is dealt with theoretically from a republican point of view.Secondly, a dimension which is of course not without consequence in as far as the state expresses itself on that question, is Swapo, a party whose hegemony in our nation-building project permeates all aspects of our socio-economic and political life.Linked to this discussion is the fact that state collapse or the success of our nation state project cannot be examined if we evacuate Swapo and its internal dynamics from that process.At a more general level, societies, and political parties, or in short, systems, collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions.These contradictions could be a result of internal process or they could be induced by external forces.But then, our analysis of the post-colonial state in Africa would tell us that hegemonic political formations failed in so many instances, not only to avoid their own collapse, but ultimately state collapse, in part due to their handling of the nation state project.So, when decomposing the problematic of the nation state in the Namibian context, the weight of the ruling party in that process would not escape any sober analysis.In order to analyse Swapo’s contribution in the construction of the nation state, we draw from Ferdinand Toennies, the outstanding German sociologist and “kulturphilosoph” (cultural philosopher), who makes in his seminal book published in 1887 ‘Gemeinschaft und Gesselschaft’ a worthy distinction between gemeinschaft (community) and gesselschaft (society).For Toennies, human beings are born in a community, that is to say, the closed biological community of parents and by extension family.However, the community transforms itself naturally and chronologically into society.Thus society, according to Toennies, is an inevitable feature of modern industrialised society.Drawing from Toennies, the question that Swapo should pose is whether it is promoting Namibian communities or a society? The work of Toennies generates interest because what we see in Namibia today is a state that is not doing much to promote a society because of the mediation of various ethnic groups with the republic.The work of the celebrated French philosopher Michel Foucault, borrowing possibly from Toennies, is also enlightening when he argued that “il faut defendre la societe” (we need to defend society).For Toennies, the opposition between society and community is based on the fact that the social tissue cannot be summarised on the basis of contractual interactions between individuals.In communities, individuals are at home and they are protected.In the Namibian context, communities could be equated with the notion of ethnicity as invented in the social sciences in the United Kingdom and the United States.For conceptual clarity, when one speaks of communities here, one is essentially referring to ethnic communities.In the British and American traditions, it is accepted practice for various ethnic groups to mediate with the state on issues affecting these respective communities.Opposed to this vision of the state is the French national tradition with a conception of democracy based on a direct link between the citizen and the state, without the mediation of a group.In its pure version, our policy of national reconciliation seeks to unite Namibians without ethnic mediation.In that instance, it is in its purpose not far from the French republican tradition.More prosaically, the Namibian state at Independence, borrowing from Emile Durkheim, the idea of a newly created republic, ontologically just, was to guarantee equality of opportunity for all citizens.Evidently, such lofty notions were drawn and informed in the newly created state from our collective experiences during colonialism and later apartheid.However, the question that lies at the centre of nation state in Namibia today is whether there is a political consensus and will to defend society.It remains the case in our intentions because practice tells a different story.Behind formal speech and a policy of national reconciliation that ignores these cultural differences or ethnicity in general when it comes to guaranteeing opportunities, our state has invented modes of mediation with ethnic groups and tribal leaders.It is no longer uncommon for tribal leaders, chiefs, kings and queens to approach those in power in demand for a stake in both the political and economic life of the country.In principle, there is nothing absurd with these tribal leaders mediating with the President or the Prime Minister for greater representation in state structures or development in their communities.But, this in itself is a flagrant reminder of the failure of our policy of national reconciliation.The policy of national reconciliation is played out as a strong suit at public rallies, but in our bureaucracies, our political offices, our communities and our political parties it is played out in essence as a weak suit.In many cases, ethnic groups or sub-ethnic groups are instrumentalised by Namibian politicians, both in the ruling party Swapo and with those who claim to provide an alternative.Essentially, they have all in one way or another contributed to the identity fragmentation we are witnessing today.Therefore, the problem of a national identity is posed.In our case, the nation state exists only as a product of political unification of the territory by a central administration.So, even if the state tried to decompose colonialism state at Independence, it used colonial structures to construct its centre and in many ways perpetuated the very same system it sought to destroy.As a consequence the republic has continued to be segmented in groups founded on ethnic identity.So, the whole idea of a society becomes questionable since we remain attached and rooted to our respective ethnic communities when dealing with matters of state.It is the norm, rather than the exception, for a top leader or a minister to appoint members of his tribe as personal assistants, secretaries etc.Equally so, it is common for a CEO of a parastatal to provide jobs and contracts to members of his ethnic group.A sitting president would be seen to have failed his tribe if he doesn’t appoint members of his community to strategic positions in state institutions and elsewhere.Supposedly, these are acts of bravery since you have not betrayed your “people”.The point being illuminated here is that our political leaders are not defending society for they instead, by design or by fault, choose to promote their communities.As such in some state and private institutions we are witnessing the emergence of an ethnic division of labour.As opposed to state institutions becoming melting pots, there is an ethnic division of labour with each community trying to negotiate a niche for itself based on the head of that institution or those who can appoint and fire.Nations are social and political constructs.Therefore, it would go a long way for our nation-building project if as a matter of policy chief regional officers would serve in regions other than those from which they originate.It does make sense to insist on a Pienaar serving in the Omaheke region as a chief regional officer.Yes, it does contribute to the consolidation of our nation state.However, it is nonsensical if the same Pienaar or a Gontes is unable to serve in Oshana, Ohangwena or Omusati as such.Essentially, what this tells us is that the contract signed between individuals and the state is not of an equal nature as Durkheim would prefer, since there is an inherent ethnic twist to that transaction.Therefore, it is no longer uncommon to hear about political leaders, ministers who “betrayed” their ethnic communities for they didn’t appoint en masse in their offices members of their tribes.And worse, leaders are seen by these ethnic nationalist as having constituencies within their political parties based on their tribes and this has become the only way in which they can negotiate top leadership of their political parties and ultimately the country.What this means is that many in our country have come to internalise that is socially correct to do things in this morally wrong way.As such, a trip to some of our rural communities or Southport in the United Kingdom brings a visitor into contact with a pool of ‘desperados’ who in their own ways feel alienated, marginalised, de-nationalised and a desperate sub-class and at some point possibly ready for hire at a small price.The fear of this de-nationalised youth or class and their desperation expresses itself in terse ethnic language and it is no longer uncommon to hear that the government does not serve my interests as per definition of my ethnic group.At some point as was the case of Houphouet Boigny’s Cote d’Ivoire, we might assist to some kind of degradation of this ethnic division of labour and opportunities.And once inimical identities are hardened as a result of intense ethnic rivalry and exclusion, it may not matter whether the strategic competition was triggered by a mere social construction.It is this constant danger that our society should guard against in its governance of the public.It is of consequence if Ben Ulenga, the leader of an opposition party defines his party as non-ethnic because normally definitions are by their very nature vis-a-vis a significant “other”.Equally, it should be a matter of debate, not only within Swapo, but Namibia as a whole if Jessaya Nyamu, a former senior Swapo politician speaks dramatically at length about the “Omusati greyhounds” within Swapo.Are these notions of tribalism and ethnicity invented, imagined or are they real and do they threaten the cohesion of the party and by extension, state survival? These are vital questions that deserve a robust discussion about society.Without doubt, there have been interesting efforts at a political level at creating a Namibian identity.Undoubtedly, the social and political signification of citizenship is essential and equally the historical foundation of the nation is one but of many solutions.But the angst of daily life nourishes an imagined and reinvented history.Bestowing the title of Founding Father of the Namibian Nation on former President Sam Nujoma immediately comes to mind as an attempt at providing some historical foundation to the nation state and perhaps more importantly creating a Namibian identity through the founding President.Yet, what remains problematic is the timing of that honour, perhaps not of Nujoma’s fault but those who bestowed such a title on a deserving Nujoma, yet a politician involved in the small tactical kitchen of political parties.And the unintended consequence of such actions is some kind of a self-indulging legitimacy without building a national consensus around such issues.Therefore, a question deserving an adequate answer and one that should have been asked then is that of knowing how possible it is for a new nation and our identity to be expressed through the founding President whilst he remains in the cut-throat battles not only within Swapo as its head but also Namibian politics? The point deserving emphasis here is that the state and its symbolism will not by its definition lead to the edification of a nation as is hoped in the Namibian context.Efforts at nation building and creating a Namibian identity should go beyond bestowing titles on political leaders to celebrating the arts, sports or normal human interactions and locating our debate in a larger context.To illustrate this point, a new consensus could emerge if there is a dialogue of civilisations, ethnic groups through a much more national account of our history.Swapo as the ruling party should promote a new national consensus around Omugulu-gwombashe without neglecting and excluding in its heroic narrative as is the case primary resistance in Namibia’s liberation history, be it the battle of Hamakari or in general the genocide of 1904 or any other defining battle.The social and political signification of August 26 could develop new national meaning if we move away from the current dominant and atomised message of Swapo’s heroic narrative and what has generally degenerated into a day where each ethnic group celebrates its heroes.In addition, it is essential to promote exchanges at all levels, be it schools, officials between various regions in order to promote cultural understanding and tolerance.Political leaders, business leaders should be made aware that office is not a means to reward our ethnic groups, but to defend and to reward society at large.But because a culture of denial and indifference has penetrated all levels of our state, we refuse to discuss issues that affect our future.Such failure cannot only be attributed to ethnic entrepreneurs or Swapo as a hegemonic formation, but also political and intellectual leaders who choose not to defend society at platforms available to them.Out of choice and not condition, we perpetuate as Achille Mbembe, the Sorbonne University educated African historian writes on the paradigm of the African as a victimised subject: “D’apres ce paradigme, l’imagination identitaire se deploie selon une logique de soupcon, de la denonciation de l’autre et de tout ce qui est different” (According to this paradigm, identities are constructed on the basis of a logic of suspicion, denouncing the other and all that is different).Admittedly, what Mbembe is saying is that our victimisation of the “insignificant other” negate social cohesion and mutually beneficial human solidarity.To conclude, the assertion of our speaker Theo-Ben Gurirab, is extremely instructive when he responded bluntly in response to a question from a journalist about his candidacy in 2004 in the run-up to the Swapo presidential nomination that “every Namibian should dream of becoming president of the country.”Such an assertion appears caricatured and ambiguous, but with reference to this article, our attention should be drawn to another pertinent question: Are we constructing that Namibia today? * Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari holds a BA (Politics and Sociology) from UNAM and an MA in International Studies from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.He also holds an MPhil in International Relations from the University of Paris-Pantheon Sorbonne, France, where he is a doctoral student in Political Science.