Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro
Yours Truly Ideologically could not but take a keen and deep interest as well as be intrigued by the opinion piece of Rodney Cloete in the Namibian Sun of last Wednesday, 21 January, 2026 titled: Beyond East and West: What Namibia gets wrong about great power competition.
Admittedly for Yours Truly, it is not only a good read but a good write for that. Its essence being the endeavour entreating Namibia to wake up to the challenges of today in a practical and unideological, if not an ideological, way, believing the days of ideology, those of hardline Western and Eastern dogmatism, are long gone.
Thereby, imploring Namibia to shed whatever “little” and/or last ideological inclination for that matter, she may still have, particularly the Swapo Party of Namibia, thus approaching whatever issues purely in a pragmatic way. As crazy and unpragmatic, if not non-pragmatic, the geopolitical sphere seems to be in this age.
Believing matters are no longer informed and defined by ideology but by the pure interests of countries. As if these countries’ interests are not instructed by their pertaining economic systems, especially how their quest for their material being and the satisfaction and fulfilment thereof do and may inform their outlook socio-economically. Hence and accordingly, defining and forming the structuring of societies and the world order, if you wish.
What may have occurred in yesteryear and thus just been perceived as mere West and East ideological schisms cannot and was not simple ideological dogmatism. Informed, dictated and driven by how Eastern and Western nations, respectively, as they pertained then, were structured towards whatever end. With the East adopting and basing its socio-economic structuring of its societies, which came to be known as socialist and/or communist, and the other capitalist. No, it was deeper than that.
Based on the materialist conception of history. Underlying what came to be the opposing systems of capitalism and socialism. Socialism emerging and challenging the notions underlying capitalism. With an analysis exposing the evils of capitalism and its underpinning classes of the haves and have-nots. Preceded earlier by feudalism, as driven then by feudal landlords as the leading agents of the means of production, dominated society to their exclusive greed.
Thus, socialism fundamentally emerged as an antidote and an antithesis to the latter-day capitalist mode of production. The strongest pillar is individual motivation and drive for aggrandisement and the use in the process of other forces of production, workers, amongst them, but ultimately their alienation from the end results of production. Personal fulfilment is central to it.
While in socialism and/or communism, the consideration was supposedly the social need and not individual cravings and/or wants. Underpinning both systems indeed were the scramble and appropriation of peoples’ resources by individuals for personal avarice.
However, one may wish to look at it; to this day of Cloetes’ presumed pragmatism and national interest, the scramble is very much about natural resources. A truism he himself is aware of, as he points out in his treatise. “Here is the truth that our political discourse rarely acknowledges. China wants our resources, Russia wants our influence [for its own sake?], the United States wants our minerals, India wants our markets [equally, the question begs, for whose sake?], and the Gulf states want our oil.
The bottom line, however one may think any country wants from Namibia, are resources. Which indeed anyone of them would get not so much on Namibia’s terms and conditions but on their own as may be defined by the respective interests of their nations. And their people. Not so much that of the ordinary people from many of the metropoles but by their respective elites, political, economic and otherwise. Interests which ultimately are defined by none other but their ideological inclination and disposition.
This is exactly where and why ideology cannot be dismissed at all. Whether any national endeavour, and/or competition as it may, is so much indeed in the national interest, how for that matter this national interest is defined and what it actually is, or is practically and essentially the interest of the elite?
Yours Truly cannot agree more or less with Cloete that indeed past allegiances (ideological and otherwise), especially of the Swapo party of Namibia cannot today define Namibia’s engagements and positioning in international affairs and order based on past allegiances. But can this at the same time not risk it engaging in international affairs like a headless chicken without any historical context, and thus without any direction cognisant of the materialist conception of history?
From colonialism, initially by German one, and subsequently colonial occupation by Apartheid South Africa. Both of which were stages of Capitalism. There’s no denying the socio-economic ills that the country has been experiencing since independence and continues to are a legacy of colonial capitalism. These ills have by no means since independence lessen or subsided. On the contrary they have deepened if not entrenched.
Not so much because successive Swapo-led administrations have been any less pragmatic. But overly lenient, ideologically, to the extent that it can easily be accused of having sold over to capitalism. Has this in any way been for better or worse. Either way for who? This is while Swapo and its government have been seemingly ideological.
The Swapo government has presumably been pragmatic, for the lack of a better term, with regard to the quest for restorative justice by descendants of the survivors of the genocide of the Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama by Imperial Germany. But the government’s endeavours on this matter resulting in dreaded Joint Declaration (JD), cannot be defined and seen as pragmatism but sheer betrayal of a justice cause for reparations. Since this matter may sooner or later serve in Parliament, if it ever shall appearing a done deal it is, it would be instructive to have Cloete’s interpretation vis-à-vis his espoused pragmatism regarding the JD. As it does not require a rocket scientist to see and realise that the government is hell bent on implementing it without ever reverting with it to Parliament, let alone letting go of it. Notwithstanding that it does not come any little close to the best interests of affected communities who have categorically rejected it. “What does it mean to be pragmatic in foreign policy?,” Cloete asks in his treatise and answering at the same time. Meaning evaluating every relationship, every deal, every partnership and [every Joint Declaration (JD) based on what it delivers for Namibia [for descendants in the case of the JD rather an ideology rather than a historical sentiment.”
Needs one say more regarding the Namibian government and her collusion with the German government pertaining to the just cause of the descendants for restorative justice?
Yours Truly is also not convinced that the latest happenings on the geopolitical scene are to learn anything from, that the era of ideology is long gone.
This is to say that society as a substructure is not determined by any other superstructure, which in the materialist conception of history is the economy. By this notion and the continued scramble for resources and ideology, ultimately, the materialist conception of history cannot be over and is much the dictum.
