Detribalising demarcation of regions, constituencies

Article 104 of the Constitution empowers the President of the Republic of Namibia, with the approval of the National Assembly, to appoint the Boundaries Delimitation and Demarcation Commission to delimit and demarcate the boundaries of Namibia, subject to Article 1(4). However, the mandate given to the Commission is very clear that these measures should not be done on a discriminatory and ethnic basis.

This year around, the President of the Republic appointed the fifth Commission to relook the population of Namibia, and see whether there is a need to form other regions and constituencies.

For 34 years into nationhood and independence, Namibia as a nation has been struggling with the legacy of Bantustans and apartheid.

These scourges are ‘refusing to die', despite

the constitutional provision to do away with such ills. Sounds and scars of regionalism and ethnicity are there for everybody to hear and see.

Many Namibians are still clinging to their regions of birth, including some politicians who have never ventured into other regions, despite being in Parliament for decades. The reason for all these failures to incorporate everybody in the national streamlining is the incapacity of the political system to change things for the benefit of the people.

During the previous delimitation commissions, efforts were made to effect changes to the existing regions and constituencies, but in some cases the masses' voices were simply ignored.

The name changes of some regions, towns and villages were done against the will of the majority of the people.

For example, to claim that some places carried colonial names is a real fact, but to change those names for change's sake did not make sense, as many Namibians are still carrying colonial names. But if colonial names carry historical atrocities like Von Trotha, changeshouldbeinevitable. But unfortunately, such names are still seen on our streets, despite manifesting the sad memories of torture.

Toeffectchangesinsome regions and constituencies might be a tough exercise, as other groups are keeping to themselves and do not want to leave the areas in which they live.

Then there is an issue in which some regional councils are intruding into other areas of jurisdictions of other councils to grab land for their selfish use, instead of developing the residents in those areas. The case of the Western Caprivi is a case in point and has been hotly debated and discussed by its residents and neighbouring regions.

Its political and historical neighbour, the Kavango East region, has been in the forefront in this campaign.

It will be remembered that the boundary of the Caprivi in 1992 during the first delimitation was fixed some 50km west of Andara. As colonialistic as the Anglo-German (Heligoland) Treaty of 1890 was, the boundary of the Caprivi was a straight line running from the northern extremity of Sipanana (Thipanana) Island on the Kavango River to the centre of the Katima Rapids on the Zambezi River. From the onset, the term Western Caprivi implies that the region is part of the whole former Caprivi, and therefore should be treated likewise. Yet, in February 2013, the then governor of Kavango, the late Marius Nekaro, made media statements to the effect that the intention was to extend the territorial jurisdiction of the Kavango region east-wards to Kwando (Mashi) River.

The main reason for moving the Kavango to Kwando River without thorough consultations with the Boundaries Delimitation and Demarcation Commission was to divide the Kavango region into two so that the people of Kavango should receive a fair share of the distribution of the national resources.

But unfair distribution of resources for personal, regional or tribal gratification of course has been the hallmark of Namibian's independence.

The revelations of the Kavango regional council have since aroused great fears among the people of the Zambezi as they believe that the State land allocated to them is being encroached and unfairly grabbed away from them. Since the billboard that appears to state that the boundary between the Kavango and the Caprivi regions was removed from Mukuvi and Andara, respectively, and placed at Chetto, the people of the Zambezi have continued to demonstrate their resentment through the phone-in programme of the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation and letters to the media of their total condemnation of such efforts to grab their land unilaterally and forcefully.

Historically, all facts demonstrate that the Caprivi territory stretches from Impalila in the East to Andara (Kavango River) in the West. But some nationalists may reason and argue that this boundary arrangement was colonial and therefore irrelevant and illegal in an independent Namibia. Notwithstanding, boundaries are sensitive matters that require very considerate attention and mutual respect of opinions of all concerned in their adjustments and rearrangement.

Any proposal that hints at encroaching on another region's territory merits serious consideration, and the mutual consent of all the concerned parties and regions should be solicited.

Anything short of such an arrangement may be viewed with suspicion and is tantamount to undue provocation by the affected community.

Finally, the demarcation of regions in the name of nationalism has been marred by scapegoating, manipulation and misconception by benefitting the powerful elite, yet in many cases,

the poor who need land most are usually thrown into the periphery of landlessness which finally renders itself into a situation of despair and hopelessness.