The Way Forward on Lubango Dungeons

IN MY doctoral dissertation, I argued along the line of viewing the Lubango dungeons from the macro and micro-reconciliation approach, which is an individual and societal-based perspective.

Today, however, in this piece, I want to deviate slightly and take a different angle. The dissertation neglected to properly address the mezzo level, which is the third layer to reconciliation.

The Swapo party as group operates at the mezzo level. The macro and micro-reconciliation requires that a solution to the detainee issue be located at the national and individual level.

The macro-level approach focuses on the needs of the society as a whole, and it concerns the development of the social order. Therefore, at the macro level, our reconciliation is constructed, broadly, as political reconciliation, economic reconciliation and racial reconciliation.

Political reconciliation aims at the integration of former political combatants; building a foundation for a culture of tolerance; human rights; and good governance through democratic political institutions.

The general or blank amnesty issued by Louis Pienaar (the then administrator general of SWA/Namibia, and the South African representative at the time of the implementation of UN Resolution 435) falls at this macro level of our reconciliation.

In other words, the blank amnesty does not stop individuals or groups to talk about and address past conflicts at the micro or mezzo level. If the Swapo party, as a group, wants to address past grievances within the party itself, such as the detainee issue, it is free to do so. This is because the detainee issue is an inner-party issue that can only be solved by the party at the party level.

However, here at the macro level, the Swapo party must not be asked to apologise for whatever atrocities committed in the past. Unless both sides – Swapo and the colonial forces – must be made to account.

The race/ethnicity goal of our reconciliation aims to bridge and heal the racial and ethnic divide created by years of divisive colonial policies, and the war of national liberation. The government is required to come up with mechanisms to bridge past divides and promote racial/ethnic reconciliation.

The economic goal of our reconciliation aims to address past inequalities as a means of levelling the economic playing field. The government is also required to purposefully address past economic imbalances.

The psychological (healing) and socio-cultural reconciliation are not the stuff of our macro reconciliation.

The micro level reconciliation, on the other hand, focuses on the needs of the individual, and it concerns the relationships among individuals in terms of how they interact, view and interpret issues pertaining to reconciliation. As Namibians, we experienced colonialism and the liberation struggle differently as individuals and as a group.

Therefore, how individuals respond to conflict, including whether to reconcile or forgive, is a personal choice that cannot be legislated or forced by any authority or blank amnesty. Forgiveness and reconciliation are personal acts.

Mezzo politics focuses on the group, such as party, ethnic group, racial group, local community, LGBT, and locate the solution to conflict at a group level. It is at this level that we should locate the solution towards the detainee issue, not at the macro level.

I completely agree that both sides should apologise, but what do we mean with both sides? The detainees should not be made to apologise on behalf of the colonial forces – apartheid South Africa, Koevoet or SWATF.

The atrocities committed by South Africa cannot be apportioned to the detainees, who largely were Swapo members and cadres. Nor should detainees be asked to represent or apologise on behalf of the colonial forces.

In other words, the detainee issue is an issue between the victims/former detainees vs the Swapo party, their party; unless we are concluding that all 4 000 were spies.

There is no doubt that South Africa sent spies. But we cannot also rule out human mistakes in how the party responded. That acknowledgement could be a common ground for both – the party and detainees – to meet each other halfway in the interest of finding closure.

Thus, I posit that the detainee issue be separated from the macro aspect of our reconciliation, and be addressed at the mezzo level, which is the party level. I personally believe that the party has the ability to acknowledge its own mistakes, and equally that the detainees also have the ability to understand the complexities involved, and that they can forgive the party or find closure, knowing that the party has acknowledged its mistakes.

Let me end with a disclaimer that the apology or the acknowledgement of mistakes that I am calling for is not at the macro level, but at the party level. The macro level of our reconciliation is a different ball game, and would therefore require a different approach.

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.