Who is fit for Heroes’ Acre?

THE death of Bishop James Kauluma recently resuscitated our old debate around what constitutes a hero and what we should do for them.More specifically, the burial of the bishop raised, through the comments of the late Bishop’s brother Peter Kauluma, the interesting conundrums that we face as a country when it comes to a fitting funeral for a hero.

But the more probing question that Peter posed centred around what it took for an individual in this country to deserve a state funeral and consequently the Heroes’ Acre as a final resting place. Essentially, through that question (in fact it was more of a protestation) Peter Kauluma wanted to tell us that his late brother deserved a state funeral and the Heroes’ Acre as the late Bishop’s final resting place.Oddly, perhaps something that we have to come to terms with, unless we visit State House, President Pohamba didn’t offer any meaningful response to the Headman.The concerns of Peter Kauluma have a taker here and more so after having read about the contributions of Bishop Kauluma, alias ‘Elyenge’ (the chain) to our freedom and our post-independence life.In that sense, I am convinced that the late Bishop did fit our definition of a hero in many more ways than one.The more I think about the comments of the Headman, new queries also crop up about how we should think about celebrating our heroes.Somehow, it makes one realise that Independence perverted how we look at ourselves and the roles we played individually and collectively during the liberation struggle.In fact, Independence did mean for many handsome rewards and a sense of entitlement to the opportunities and the resources offered by the new state.As a matter of fact, our Government did offer these by way of well-paying public sector jobs or business opportunities to many who contributed to the liberation struggle, notably those within the ruling party Swapo.And I agree that it was important to do these things.But I think that we have now moved to some kind of perversion when it comes to celebrating leaders, mostly our political leaders.It is this kind of perversion that has made us to create amongst many other exaggerations the title of ‘Founding Father of the Namibian Nation’ for the founding president as if history itself would not be a better judge of this man.In fact, the comments by Headman Kauluma crystallise our excessive obsession with not only the material satisfaction of those we consider our heroes, but also the symbolism thereof.Of course, in death, just like the Headman, I would not mind seeing my brother being buried at the Heroes’ Acre because it epitomises the ultimate celebration of a hero in our context, politically speaking that is.And evidently, there is also the social status that goes with having a brother, sister or close family member being buried at the Heroes’ Acre.However, at some point we must realise that we can’t bury everybody there who in one way or another contributed to the liberation struggle.Similarly, the expectation should not be created to bereaved families that contributions to the struggle at certain levels automatically guarantee a place at the Heroes Acre.I argue this way because the moment we take that direction, the whole notion of the Heroes’ Acre loses the only value it has, the symbolic.I am not arguing this way out of lesser conviction that the late bishop didn’t deserve a state funeral.Even if I was not entirely convinced, I must concede that the late bishop did get a funeral that from a symbolic point of view highlighted his importance and prominence during the liberation struggle and after Independence.It is not always that a head of state, his prime minister and many other prominent political and business personalities attend a funeral.Yet, I believe that the question by Kauluma is more probing on one count: it essentially illustrates policy failure and draws our attention to the fact that there seem to be no clear criteria for a state burial at the Heroes’ Acre.If Headman Kauluma, like many of us, were not in the dark about these criteria, such questions would not have been posed.On that basis, the issue here would not be one of knowing why my brother didn’t get a state funeral, but rather why based on an agreed consensus he didn’t go to the Heroes’ Acre.So, if we had more clarity as citizens as to why a decision was taken not to bury the late Bishop Kauluma at the Heroes Acre, somehow we would be better equipped to possibly agree or disagree with the Headman’s protestations.At present, such a decision is arbitrary and depends on the mood of the President and how he sees a late individual on the day.And for this reason alone Government must articulate a clear framework as to who would deserve a state funeral and under exceptional circumstances, burial at the Heroes’ Acre.What I am forcefully recommending here is that selected individuals as is the case can be accorded a state funeral, but the burial place could be at a place of the family’s choice.We then bury outstanding individuals post-humously at the Heroes’ Acre (like the French do with the Panthéon in Paris) and under exceptional circumstances in our case, a few select individuals at the time of their death.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in Political Science at the University of Paris Panthéon Sorbonne, France.Essentially, through that question (in fact it was more of a protestation) Peter Kauluma wanted to tell us that his late brother deserved a state funeral and the Heroes’ Acre as the late Bishop’s final resting place.Oddly, perhaps something that we have to come to terms with, unless we visit State House, President Pohamba didn’t offer any meaningful response to the Headman.The concerns of Peter Kauluma have a taker here and more so after having read about the contributions of Bishop Kauluma, alias ‘Elyenge’ (the chain) to our freedom and our post-independence life.In that sense, I am convinced that the late Bishop did fit our definition of a hero in many more ways than one.The more I think about the comments of the Headman, new queries also crop up about how we should think about celebrating our heroes.Somehow, it makes one realise that Independence perverted how we look at ourselves and the roles we played individually and collectively during the liberation struggle.In fact, Independence did mean for many handsome rewards and a sense of entitlement to the opportunities and the resources offered by the new state.As a matter of fact, our Government did offer these by way of well-paying public sector jobs or business opportunities to many who contributed to the liberation struggle, notably those within the ruling party Swapo.And I agree that it was important to do these things. But I think that we have now moved to some kind of perversion when it comes to celebrating leaders, mostly our political leaders.It is this kind of perversion that has made us to create amongst many other exaggerations the title of ‘Founding Father of the Namibian Nation’ for the founding president as if history itself would not be a better judge of this man.In fact, the comments by Headman Kauluma crystallise our excessive obsession with not only the material satisfaction of those we consider our heroes, but also the symbolism thereof.Of course, in death, just like the Headman, I would not mind seeing my brother being buried at the Heroes’ Acre because it epitomises the ultimate celebration of a hero in our context, politically speaking that is.And evidently, there is also the social status that goes with having a brother, sister or close family member being buried at the Heroes’ Acre.However, at some point we must realise that we can’t bury everybody there who in one way or another contributed to the liberation struggle.Similarly, the expectation should not be created to bereaved families that contributions to the struggle at certain levels automatically guarantee a place at the Heroes Acre.I argue this way because the moment we take that direction, the whole notion of the Heroes’ Acre loses the only value it has, the symbolic.I am not arguing this way out of lesser conviction
that the late bishop didn’t deserve a state funeral.Even if I was not entirely convinced, I must concede that the late bishop did get a funeral that from a symbolic point of view highlighted his importance and prominence during the liberation struggle and after Independence.It is not always that a head of state, his prime minister and many other prominent political and business personalities attend a funeral.Yet, I believe that the question by Kauluma is more probing on one count: it essentially illustrates policy failure and draws our attention to the fact that there seem to be no clear criteria for a state burial at the Heroes’ Acre.If Headman Kauluma, like many of us, were not in the dark about these criteria, such questions would not have been posed.On that basis, the issue here would not be one of knowing why my brother didn’t get a state funeral, but rather why based on an agreed consensus he didn’t go to the Heroes’ Acre.So, if we had more clarity as citizens as to why a decision was taken not to bury the late Bishop Kauluma at the Heroes Acre, somehow we would be better equipped to possibly agree or disagree with the Headman’s protestations.At present, such a decision is arbitrary and depends on the mood of the President and how he sees a late individual on the day.And for this reason alone Government must articulate a clear framework as to who would deserve a state funeral and under exceptional circumstances, burial at the Heroes’ Acre.What I am forcefully recommending here is that selected individuals as is the case can be accorded a state funeral, but the burial place could be at a place of the family’s choice.We then bury outstanding individuals post-humously at the Heroes’ Acre (like the French do with the Panthéon in Paris) and under exceptional circumstances in our case, a few select individuals at the time of their death. * Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in Political Science at the University of Paris Panthéon Sorbonne, France.