A moralized politics and “truth claims” of ‘saints vs. sinners & victims vs. monsters’
By Paul T. Shipale

Mr Libolly Haufiku, RDP’s Secretary for International Relations and Director General of Administration, wrote an article under the heading ‘Is Omusati Clique real or imagined?’ The question is; how substantially correct are his views? I am on record for arguing that unlike a constructivist, a critical analyst does not only want us to detect bias without telling us of the nature and effect of the bias but will encourage us to find out, who gains what, who losses what when facts are added up and whose version of the story has not been told.

Indeed, for a constructivist knowledge is constructed when we assign meaning to data and present this data in some context to make sense of facts. Predictably, information takes a backseat to processing of information. Facts are essentially researched and filtered through someone else’s vision or ideology who might allow a particular view to sift through. Critical thinking on its part involves more than conceptual clarity. It involves imagination and insight requiring a sharpened eye to distinguish what is from what ought to be. It also allows to recognize unexamined philosophical concepts and to question assumptions that are being made with regard to their meaning.

Mr. Haufiku wants us to draw conclusions from what he termed ‘dominance of Omusati clique in the SWAPO Party, at local and regional government, in government and the SOEs structures’. Judging from his ‘findings’ one can conclude that out of the 84 members of the central committee, only 21 hail from Omusati region, out of 21 members of the SWAPO political bureau only 7 hail from Omusati region, out of 23 ministers only 7 are from Omusati, out of 44 SOEs’ chiefs only 12 are from Omusati region and out of 20 ambassadors only 5 hail from Omusati region. This clearly shows that they are not the majority in all the structures he mentioned despite allegations to the contrary! Or else how do 7 represent the majority out of 21 and 23 or 12 out of 44 and even 5 out of 20? I am baffled to say the least! Mr. Haufiku conveniently forgot to mention that ‘Despite talks of shaming “…those who tried to characterise the RDP as a Kwanyama party”, members from one ethnic group are seen at the following numbers on the RDP’s list;

1,6,7,13,14,15,18,21,23,24,25,26,32,33,34,36,37,42,43,45,47,50,52,53,57,58,59,60,64,65,68,70,71 and 72!

That is 35 in total or more than half of the list! What is more, the whole ‘secretariat’ is made up of people from the same group!’ I once wrote. Why then look at the speck in some one else’s eyes and not see the log in his own eyes? Is that a matter of deux poids, deux mesures?

Nevertheless, I agree with him when he quoted the constitution of the SWAPO party which, under its Article III subsection B (4) condemns “the retrogressive tendencies of tribalism, ethnicity, nepotism, racism, chauvinism, regionalism, personality cult etc” wrote the author. True; we can’t condemn these tendencies yet advocate for a ‘Ndonga President’, apparently since the ‘westerners and easterners had their turn’, or for a ‘non Oshiwambo President’. We must be consistent and appoint only those who can do the job, irrespective of their tribal, racial, regional, and ethnic or gender origin.

As a panafricanist, I don’t believe in tribalism and ethnicity no matter which quarter they come from, besides I am a product of Omusati, Oshikoto and Ohangwena regions and had clearly articulated my views on the above cited evils including when I once wrote about a vision I had way back in 97, in actual fact, ten years before RDP was formed, when I saw the Founding President holding a flag as a banner marching in front followed by the two ex PMs and a sea of people waving the SWAPO party’s flags and on their left hand side, a platoon of marching camouflaged soldiers saluting Mr. Hidipo Hamutenya while the current PM was in the middle of the two camps or groups on top of a house without a roof saying “ let go of those things ( referring to the two groups’ dichotomy, I presume) and let’s build”.

Mr Haufiku then quoted one of the senior party leaders saying “unless members return to the right ideology, we are going to destroy this party. We are caught in a situation where we don’t have a political vision anymore” but Mr. Haufiku conveniently forgot to mention that Oom Kosie Pretorius of MAG also quoted the same paper when someone stated that “in SWAPO ideology, there was no tribe or colour and people were elected on merit for what they do...That is not SWAPO tradition, not at all… These things are just coming and that is what going to destroy SWAPO from within”. Some senior leaders were also once quoted by the same paper saying “this all started during the liberation struggle, when former SWAPO secretary for defence Peter Nanyemba died and one ethnic group took over the military and started discriminating against minority groups”.

Mr. Haufiku is claiming to have conducted what he terms ‘a research’ and once again I also wrote that ‘To understand the world it is also necessary to collect evidence- to carry out research. Research methods are usually divided into ‘quantitative’ methods- most notably the survey and the statistical analysis of secondary source data- and ‘ethnographic’ or ‘qualitative’ methods, most notably participant observation, in-depth interviewing and the qualitative analysis of secondary source of data which he seems to have done. However, Harding (1987b) has suggested the need to distinguish between methods, methodologies and epistemologies. Methods are techniques of gathering evidence. Methodologies are theories of how research should proceed. Epistemologies define what counts as an adequate theory and how research findings can be judged and this is where he dismally failed to back his soit dissant ‘findings’ with renown methodologies and epistemologies.

Mr. Haufiku himself says that he is not sure whether those appointed went through a normal process of recruitment or not and so I am afraid; Mr. Haufiku didn’t conclusively demonstrate to us how others are discriminated by way of his statistical findings except to show us his own fears and perceptions rooted in tribal undertones.

On the issue of “Namibians shying away from… debate”, I once stated that Post modernist epistemology totally rejects Foundationalism: the attempt to provide a firm foundation of a neutral world of ‘facts’ independent of theory. Instead, this epistemology is concerned with explaining the ‘discourse’ as a conceptual framework where arguments are taking place and the conceptual sieve which passes some ideas as ‘well formed’ and rejects others as incoherent ( Foucault,1969, p. 38). Arguments happen within discourses which determine the way in which the debate must be held in order for it to make acceptable sense: they determine the rules of truth- what you have to do to win an argument- and, more importantly, the objects of analysis (what you may argue about, what there is about what may not be thought, in a given context, and thus what it makes sense to do and what makes no sense (Foucault, 1980, p.5).

On the other side, some theories underpin and justify the exploitation of one group by another, while claiming to be ‘factual’; they in fact serve as an ideological justification for the subordinate position of others. By ‘ideology’ we mean a pattern of ideas (common-sense knowledge) - both factual and evaluative- which purports to explain and legitimate the social structure of a society and which serves to justify social actions which are in accordance with that pattern of ideas.

However, the knowledge provided by an ideology is partial or selective and sometimes provides contradictory descriptions and explanations of the social world. Ideology in this context, then, is a set of common-sense beliefs, practical knowledge, including a number of determinisms used as arguments to justify situations, and ‘myths and stereotypes’ are but some of those.

Myths understood as well established beliefs and accepted as facts, range from gender, racial, tribal, ethnic myths which often appear in the form of stereotypes which are generally accepted as true. Ex: MYTH; Northerners are hardworking, STEREOTYPE; some groups sought for employment on the expense of others, SOCIAL EFFECT; increased status for some people on the expense of others. REALITY; Intelligence and the virtues of hard work are not ethno genetic but are learnt. LOGIC AND CONTEXT; there are no genetic connections between site, strength and intelligence.

We then allow this to creep into our political speeches, articles and political rally slogans with a variety of possible social functions which can be either beneficial or destructive and hurtful, especially if they are meant to attack others in a language of protest where those who feel oppressed by real or perceived and imagined dominants categories, mount a guerilla action for alternative meaning of resistance consciousness, presenting “truth claims” in convoluted arcane language intended to intimidate the uninitiated with exhortations and protests of saints vs. sinners, innocents vs. monsters, for or against this, pro or contra that, in a moralized politics that create innocence, while the truth is that power depends upon the denial of power.

The point here is neither to justify separation and division nor to endorse standpoints but rather to argue that separation is a simultaneous refusal. The word commonly used in these debates is diversity, that takes into account the existence of different needs and interests, but the word itself doesn’t register the fact that advocating for “diversity” contributes to divisiveness since diversity disrupts homogeneities and sacrifice “excellence”.

On the other hand, In essence, ignoring differences encourage and provides the necessary ammunition and conceptual basis for an essentialism that denies the basis for difference. Each group will claim a fixed, transcendent identity establishing itself and denying the differences and interconnections of others. These others, whether they are ethnic language groups or not, adopt a language of protection conceptualized in terms of victimization, which in turn leads to identity politics of minorities and gives rise to a moralizing dogmatism.

The point is; despite the fashionable nostalgia for pockets of differences holding onto blindingly narrow ideals polarizing the debate, we need to build bridges in our discourse. Mr. Haufiku, with all due respect, is polarizing the debate and even if his pronouncements gave rise to highly contested observations, they are quite serious in their philosophical as well as practical implications about group and national identity.

Yet, I conclude that the polemical anti-this and contra that thrust of rhetoric is absurdly out of place and the framing of the debate in moralist “truth claims” is shallow, misinformed, and intellectually shoddy. The mentality of the accuser of the brethrens is for those who have fallen from grace and are full of anger, resentment and revenge. It is my humble belief that we should not allow our differences to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings. We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs, and give its fundamental ingredients, reason and moral capacity, our first allegiance. Let us make all Namibians part of our community of dialogue and concern, base our political deliberations on that interlocking commonality, and build this nation.