Yours Truly Ideologically-Fifth Installment: Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro
Yours Truly Ideologically is submitting that a radical socio-economic transformation of the colonial capitalist economic system was never envisioned and envisaged for Namibia by the various political principals and formations.
Because for such an socio-economic transformation to be taking place, it must have been accompanied by a socialist-oriented socio-economic reconstruction programme of a post-colonial Namibia, informed by a Marxist-Leninist ideology. There can and could never be any other route. Which in Namibian is completely absent, without even any semblance of ideological soul-searching. To say the least, most of the Namibian political parties, have been grossly bankrupt ideologically to be trusted with a radical socio-economic transformation of the current neo-colonial capitalist economic system. While the founding mothers and fathers of the Namibian constitution are priding themselves in how good it is, a chorus that the world has also joined, this is only in terms of its democratic tenets and principles. But can the Namibian Constitution be relied upon to provide a framework and facilitate a platform to steer the country towards a radical socio-economic transformation of the neo-colonial capitalist economic system?
Certainly it cannot! Not because the Constitution forbids this, as is often pretended and blamed on Article 16, which has entrenched property rights. But because of the lack of political will and ideological clarity and disposition. Not as long as the very same document we pride ourselves in as good, is willfully the very safety valve against any radical socio-economic transformation of the neo-colonial capitalist economic system inherited at independence.
In essence the express purpose of the so-called 1982 Constitutional Principles imposed by the then Gang of Five (UK, USA, Canada, France and West Germany) as a pre-condition for the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 435.
The founders of the Namibian Constitution are proud to have condemned the country to a mixed economic system – whatever this means. But in practice Namibia is a purely capitalist country. Meaning, as capitalist as she is, she is not and has as yet not been destined, now or near future, nor distant future for that matter, for the Second Phase of the African (Namibian) Revolution.
Simply because consideration and concentration during the liberation war, was given to flag independence. Without due consideration to post-colonial reconstruction. If there was any pretentious intent at any post-liberation reconstruction, this was never in terms of a complete overhaul and overthrow of the colonial socio-economic system. But to merely replace the colonial state paraphernalia as Dr Goabamang Kenneth Koma, an African revolutionary and ideologue par excellence, would have it, with an indigenous bureaucracy to continue to man and entrench the same exploitative socio-economic system. A proxy bureaucracy, controlled by the invisible hand due to ideological blindness on the part of the local petty bourgeoisie. All this not actually in the name of the democratic revolution per se as it would behooves the national political bourgeoisie, but to purportedly enhance democracy in the former colony, for the perpetuation of the exploitative capitalist economic system in the country in which they now graci
ously partake and benefit from.
Neo-colonialism, as much as many African nation states would not wish to admit, is very much a political reality in all African polities, Namibia included. The ill disposition to a radical transformation certainly must be a factor of what Dr. Koma describes as the ingredients of the African Revolution, which was driven by a loose alliance of various socio-economic, and even cultural-politico forces, with no common ideology, safe for the common commitment to the independence of the motherland/fatherland.
Given the absence a common ideology, especially, an overarching ideology well-disposed towards a radical transformation of society, it is inconceivable that these eclectic social-economic and cultural-politico classes in Namibia, would perceive of a post-colonial radical transformation. Not while some of these classes jealously protect their perceived advantaged and privileged positions in society, whether such positions are real or imagined, and transient and short-lived, with the real revolution catching up with the opportunists ad apologetics for the status quo as history would dictate.
“The main interest of the national bourgeoisie in the liberation movement is the realisation of liberal democratic rights and liberties, which, if achieved, would give the national bourgeoisie the ability to realise their class objectives; that is, the building of a capitalist society,” writes Dr Koma.
“When the different liberation movements succeeded in regaining the independence of their countries, and thus realised both state sovereignty and self-determination, the petty bourgeoisie, which provided the leadership of the liberation movements, provided the leadership in the civil service as well as the leadership in the political arena and gradually in commerce and industry,” Dr Koma enlightens further.
This situation painted by Dr Koma may not be a copycat of the post-colonial socio-economic and political system in Namibia. But the similarities are striking and instructive on close scrutiny and analyses. In fact the similarities may be overwhelming than the divergences. In fact the similarities are more the rule than an exception. “The bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the section of the petty bourgeoisie which provided the political leadership of the political mass organisations, used their political power to gain access to finance and credits so that gradually this section began to play some part, though admittedly a subordinate and dependent part and role in commerce and industry,” opines Dr Koma.