Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Swapo's Version of History in Namibia

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 19

Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

SWAPO’S VERSION OF HISTORY IN NAMIBIA

Pavel MIŠKAŘÍK
University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava
J. Herdu 2, Trnava, 917 01, Slovakia
p.miskarik@gmail.com

This study aims to explain how the history of Namibia is shaped by the South West Africa
People’s Organization (SWAPO), the political party which has led the fight for Namibia’s
independence for several decades and remains in power up to the present. This political party
represented the most effective way for an oppressed people to express their unwillingness to live
under the repressive conditions of the apartheid regime of South Africa. The ideas of ultimate
liberation from all kinds of oppression and the empowerment of all people were rooted in
SWAPO’s constitution. However, during the years of armed struggle and exile, the party itself
punished very harshly its own members and controlled all aspects of the life of its subjects. There
are several recorded accounts of the abuse of power by SWAPO’s elites and even rape cases.
Unlike in South Africa, SWAPO instead of national reconciliation decided to forget those events
and highlighted the atrocities committed by their enemies. In fact, SWAPO is attempting to create
its own version of history, glorifying its role in national liberation. An independence memorial
museum, Heroes’ Acre or a biography of Sam Nujoma are tokens of this practice. In this study, I
compare some of the official versions of history with external sources covering the stories which
the government is trying so desperately to silence. These practices may be called negative
historical revisionism or historical negativism and, to a certain degree, they affect the identity of
Namibians.

Keywords: historical revisionism, historical negationism, national history, Namibia, SWAPO,


history, politics, reconciliation, national identity, liberation struggle

Introduction

The main goal of the article is to describe the way in which official
representatives of independent Namibia are trying to shape national history. The
country gained its independence only in 1991 as a result of international
negotiations and a lengthy armed struggle for liberation. SWAPO was the
political party which led the fight for independence. It won the elections and it
has remained in power ever since. The country is democratic and public support

149
Asian and African Studies, Volume 28, Number 2, 2019

for SWAPO has been increasing since independence. The party gained its
legacy as the leading force in the liberation war. It is probably the narrative
about the liberation struggle which helps the party to preserve its support, even
though it does not manage to fulfil the goals outlined in its’ constitution. There
are many acute problems which the country is facing. There are persistent
reports of abuses of power by the party dating back as far as the 1960s and on-
going up until the present. The party has decided to deny all of these
accusations and act as an authoritarian party in some cases. The goal of the
article is not to discredit SWAPO’s contribution to the liberation of the country.
However, some of the practices of the party can be interpreted as negative
historical revisionism or even historical denial. Due to those practices some of
historians writing about Namibian history are following SWAPO’s version of
account, while others are open to question the practices of the party or their
version of historical events of the liberation struggle and their role in it. Because
of this, discrepancy in attempt to describe certain events can be found in most of
the books focused on history of Namibia. For that purpose, the first section
seeks to provide the reader with a non-aligned brief introduction to Namibia’s
history. The second section is devoted to the theory of historical negationism. In
the third section, which is followed by a conclusion, I describe specific
examples of the discrepancy between the official version of history and other
sources.

A Brief Introduction to the History of Namibia

Before the arrival of the first European settlers, the territory of Namibia was
home to several ethnic groups such as the Herero, Nama, Himba, Owambo,
Kavango, Damara, San, etc 1... From the 19th century onwards, the presence of
settlers of European origin became substantial. On 5 September 1884, Germany
incorporated the territory into its empire as a colony. The territory was named
German South West Africa (Deutsch-Südwestafrika). 2 During this period,
Germany tried to influence the outcome of Herero-Nama wars because they
wanted to weaken both of those influential and large ethnic groups. Another
means of gaining influence for Germans in the territory was unfair trade deals
with locals. After the outbreak of a rinderpest epidemic in 1896, the situation of

1
For a detailed account of ethnology and early history of these tribes, see VEDDER, H.
South-West Africa in Early Times.
2
For a detailed account of events during the colonial period see FIRST, R. South-West
Africa.

150
Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

the largest ethnic group on the territory, the Herero, became even worse.
Because they mostly relied on their cattle as a means of subsistence, they were
forced to sell their land to Germans and they lost their self-sufficiency. This
situation led to an uprising by the Herero, during which they killed all German
adult males they found. As a result of these events, the German emperor,
William II, sent General Lothar von Throta with reinforcements to South-West
Africa. In August 1904, they managed to surround a large group of
approximately 8,000 Herero, including woman and children, on Waterberg
plateau. Most of the Herero were killed in the battle, the rest died as a result of
dehydration after retreating into the Kalahari Desert. In October 1904, Lothar
von Trotha issued a Vernichtungsbefehl (extermination order), which ordered
the killing of any Herero on German territory. The Nama, the second largest
ethnic group on the territory also decided to resist German rule, and they carried
out several guerrilla attacks on German posts. This resistance did not have any
significant results and led to mass arrests of the Nama people. Members of
Nama and Herero ethnic groups were jailed in camps at Shark Island, which are
considered to be the first concentration camps in history. The results of German
policy in South-West Africa affected the ethnic composition of territory.
According to a population census from 1911, only 9,800 Namas, out of 20,000,
survived the genocide and only 15,000 Hereros, out of 80,000.
In February 1915, the armed forces of South Africa, Great Britain’s ally,
entered the territory of South-West Africa. German forces surrendered in July
of the same year. In June 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed. In its article
119, the territory of South-West Africa was officially assigned to the
administration of Allied forces by the League of Nations. They entrusted South
Africa with the administration of the territory. South Africa had a type C
mandate: it was expected to have full administrative and legislative control over
the territory until the people of the country were ready to take this responsibility
upon themselves. 3
After World War II, the League of Nations was transformed into the United
Nations, which was still responsible for the administration of South-West
Africa. Shortly after WW II, the prime minister of South Africa Jan Christiaan
Smuts wanted to officially incorporate the territory into his country as the fifth
province of South Africa. In 1945 – 46, he even ordered a referendum in the
country. Hosea Kutako, the chief of the Herero, openly opposed this attempt
and with the help of Michael Scott he sent an official complaint to the UN. In
December 1946, the UN rejected South Africa’s request to incorporate the

3
For a detailed account of the mandate see KEULDER, Ch. State, Society and
Democracy, a Reader in Namibian Politics, p. 53–54.

151
Asian and African Studies, Volume 28, Number 2, 2019

territory. From 1948, after the success of the radical National Party in South
Africa, apartheid laws were officially applied on the territory. However, racial
discrimination was a part of everyday life for most of the Namibians even
before the introduction of those laws. This move made the situation official.
Laws such as the Group Areas Act (1950), the Industrial Conciliation
Ordinance (1952), the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1953), the
Population Registration Act (1953), the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act
(1953) or the Bantu Education Act (1953) 4 were introduced in South-West
Africa. The enforcement of those laws was not as strict as in South Africa. This
was probably because in the territory of South West Africa political opposition
to the regime was marginal, or non-existent, in contrast with the rurally more
developed South Africa. The first political opposition of Namibians was formed
in the barbershop at 35 Somerset Road, Cape Town in 1957. 5 It was the
Owamboland People’s Congress (OPC) and supposed to represent the demand
of Owambo migrant workers. After several months internal tensions grew in
this organization, as a result of which it fragmented. In the following years, two
important political organizations emerged from the OPC: the South-West Africa
National Union (SWANU) and South-West Africa People’s Organization
(SWAPO). However, neither of these parties was allowed to participate in the
country’s election in 1949. The election was reserved only for the white
population. The election was won by the South-West Africa – National Party
(SWA-NP), which strengthened the enforcement of apartheid laws and
encouraged even more settlers of European origin to enter the territory.
When in 1959 South Africa’s officials tried to relocate the coloured
population from the center of Windhoek into the township of Katutura, public
discontent grew into an open protest. During the demonstration, police opened
fire on protestors. Several protestors were injured and some killed. In 1960,
SWAPO officially published the constitution of the party, in which the main
goals were the establishment of an independent government and equality for all
of its citizens. In 1963, SWAPO joined an alliance with SWANU which took
the name of the South-West Africa Liberation Front (SWALF). The alliance
was short-lived. Afterwards, SWAPO came up with a plan to organize armed
resistance against South Africa. The military wing of the party was named the
People’s Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN). The Organization of African
Union (OAU) recognized SWAPO as the official representative of Namibia

4
For more information about racial laws see WALLACE, M. A History of Namibia
from the Beginning to 1990, p. 250–251.
5
DOBELL, L. SWAPO’s Struggle for Namibia, 1960 – 1991: War by Other Means,
p. 28.

152
Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

because of its willingness to take up arms against South Africa. SWAPO, in this
period of its history, also gained the support of the Herero Chief’s Council and
the Damara Tribal Executive Committee.
In 1953, the Permanent Committee of South-West Africa was created by
resolution 749A of the UN. Its main goal was to supervise compliance with the
official mandate of South Africa over the territory. In 1960, the committee
wanted to send a commissioner to investigate how South Africa was
administering the entrusted territory, but South Africa rejected the entry of the
UN’s commissioner. In 1960, Liberia and Ethiopia filed a case against South
Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in which they accused South
Africa of illegal action on the territory of Namibia. In 1966, the ICJ came to a
verdict in which it stated that Ethiopia and Liberia did not have the right to file
the case. In the same year, the UN General Assembly decided to end the
mandate of South Africa over the territory in Resolution 2145/1966. They
decided to set up the United Nations Council for South-West Africa, which was
legally responsible for administering Namibia until independence, but South
Africa’s occupation did not allow it to fulfil its goal.
Because of growing tension in the UN and political opposition in the
country, South Africa decided to enforce the so-called Ondendaal plan over the
territory. The long-term intention of this plan was to divide the country into
twelve separate territories, which were to be given to specific ethnic groups.
The homelands would be theoretically independent and the rest of the territory
would be incorporated into South Africa.
SWAPO’s first exile camp was established in 1964 at Kongwa in Tanzania. 6
Roughly one hundred of SWAPO supporters lived there. In 1965, other
liberation movements, such as OUA, MPLA (People’s Movement for the
Liberation of Angola), and ZAPU (Zimbabwe African People’s Union), created
camps in the same area. SWAPO received international support mostly from the
USSR and China. Egypt, Algeria, Ghana, and North Korea also helped the
organization, mostly with the training of personnel.
In the early 60s, the general public in Namibia did not have any information
about SWAPO’s military ambitions. Some of them decided to go into exile
because they wanted to gain a better education. However, when they arrived at
SWAPO’s headquarters in Dar es Salaam, those who did not meet the
requirements for study were transferred to Kongwa, where they were trained to
participate in combat. This resulted in the discontent of some inhabitants of the
camp. In 1965, Silas Shikongo complained about the situation in a letter to Sam

6
WILLIAMS, Ch. National Liberation in Postcolonial Southern Africa – A Historical
Ethnography of SWAPO’s Exile Camps, p. 4.

153
Asian and African Studies, Volume 28, Number 2, 2019

Nujoma, but he was subsequently arrested and jailed for six months. Afterward,
fifty inhabitants of the camp fled to Kenya, where they applied for scholarships.
According to some sources, SWAPO began the armed struggle for
independence with the infiltration of their soldiers into the territory of Namibia
in 1964. Until 26 August 1966 there were no direct or indirect clashes between
PLAN and South African troops. During the first clash, a small group of poorly
armed PLAN soldiers fought against military helicopters and professional
soldiers of South Africa. Apart from heavy casualty on PLAN’s side, this action
was followed by the accelerated approval of the Terrorist Act, which was used
during a trial against thirty-five SWAPO members arrested in Namibia shortly
after the first fight. Those convicts were imprisoned in Robben Island prison.
Deteriorating conditions in the country resulted in increases in the signs of
public dissatisfaction with the apartheid regime. On 13 December 1971, more
than 13,500 employees began a general strike. The main reason for the strike
was the unequal position of “coloured” workers in the labour market. With the
help of the Ministry of Bantu Affairs the strike ended within a few weeks but
the promises made during the negotiations remained unfulfilled. In the 70s and
80s, several other strikes occurred.
On 12 December 1973, SWAPO was recognized by the UN as the only
official representative of the people of Namibia by resolution 3111. When
Angola achieved its independence in 1974, SWAPO decided to move most of
its camps to Angola. This move made it easier for people from Namibia to go
into exile, and together with severe repression this powered the move of
approximately 4,000 to 6,000 Namibians. Many exiles were politically active
even before their emigration, mostly as SWAPO Youth League (SYL)
members. Because of this large influx to SWAPO exile camps, the party had to
face many difficulties in providing sufficient supplies to the camps, as well as
managing the population of the camps. The shortage of basic commodities
made for unfair practices in the redistribution of goods by the commanders of
camps. I will describe some of those practices in the following sections.
After the arrival in exile, most of the SYL members were sent to Mehemba
camp. They were dissatisfied with the situation in the camps. They send a
complaint to SWAPO headquarters in Lusaka, in which they demanded a
democratic party congress and military training for themselves. Most of the
camp inhabitants agreed with these demands and even higher-ranking officers
of SWAPO signed the letter. Afterward, the camp inhabitants were transferred
to Old Farm camp close to Lusaka. SWAPO accused them of spying for South
Africa and on 21 April 1976 the Zambian army surrounded the camp and
arrested 27 SWAPO SYL members. They were imprisoned in Moboroma camp.
The rest of the camp’s inhabitants were disarmed and transferred to Central
Base camp, where they were held with no weapons and restrictions on their

154
Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

movements. They were imprisoned for 3 years and were released as a result of
growing international pressure on the organization. Everybody who was
accused of spying for South Africa was consequently interrogated by SWAPO
Security. The interrogations became a means in the hands of SWAPO of dealing
with dissension in the camps. The accusations of abuse of power emerged
during the period of the liberation struggle. However, there was a lack of direct
evidence and nobody was willing or able to carry out a serious investigation
into those events.
Some of the accusations made by the SYL members related to the practice
by which SWAPO seniors used their role in the redistribution of goods among
the camp’ inhabitants, to gain “popularity” among young women. According to
the book by Martha Akawa some of the camp’s commanders had as many as 18
children. 7 Most of the children were removed from their mothers when they
reached the age of two and were raised in a community nursery. For this reason,
the children were not perceived as illegitimate children, but they were
considered to be children of SWAPO.
In 1976, the UN began negotiations about the first free elections in South-
West Africa. For the first time the UN officially used the term Namibia for the
territory. As a result of negotiations, the UN came up with resolution 385,
which was rejected by South Africa. South Africa came up with its own version
called resolution 435/1978. The main difference between the two was the fact
that South Africa intended to keep control over the country even during the
transition period and elections, and the UN’ authorities would only provide for
overseeing the elections. On 1 September 1977, South Africa also officially
annexed Walwis Bay, the city which was the only deep-water port of Namibia.
On 4 May 1978, the forces of the South Africa Defence Force (SADF)
launched operation Reindeer. During this operation, the attack on Cassinga
camp was launched. There were no more than a hundred soldiers in the camp
during the attack. More than 600 Namibians were killed, mostly women and
children. During operation Reindeer, an attack on Chetequera camp was also
carried out. In Chetequera, the military presence was more significant. 200
prisoners were taken during this operation and were imprisoned in Hardap
prison until 1984. South Africa in a media release used pictures from
Chetequera to justify its actions because more soldiers and military equipment
were stationed in this camp. SWAPO claimed that Cassinga was a refugee camp
and consequently demanded international aid for its refugees. Countries in the
Eastern bloc, SWAPO’s traditional supporters, decided to take care of some of

7
For more information about the environment of the camps see AKAWA, M. The
Gender Politics of the Namibian Liberation Struggle.

155
Asian and African Studies, Volume 28, Number 2, 2019

SWAPO’s refugees, mainly infants. Those children were expected to gain a


better education in comparison with children stationed in exile camps and
children in Namibia. On 12 September 1979 8, the German Democratic Republic
(GDR) accepted a resolution concerning acceptation of those child refugees.
GDR accepted 427 children between 1979 and 1989. 9 Czechoslovakia in a
resolution from October 1985 10 accepted 56 Namibian children on 14
November 1985. 11
In 1978 an election to the Constitutional Assembly of Namibia took place,
but SWAPO boycotted it. The election did not take place in the most densely
populated region of Namibia – Ovamboland. This was because most of the

8
Maßnahmeplan zur Verwirklichung des Beschlusses des Sekretariats des ZK der SED
vom 12.9.1979 über die Errichtung eines Kinderheimes für namibische Vorschulkinde
DR2/12321a.
9
For more information about Namibian children in the GDR, see KENNA, C. The
“GDR-Children” of Namibia: Homecomers in an Unknown Country; KRAUSE, J. Das
DDR-Namibia-Solidaritätsprojekt “Schule der Freundschaft”: Möglichkeiten und
Grenzen interkultureller Erziehung; NIEKREZEN, Y., ARMBRUSTER, Ch., WITTE,
M. A Problematic Sense of Belonging, a Media Analysis of the “GDR Children of
Namibia”. In Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 2014, Vol. 15, pp.
95–123; OWENS, J. Namibia’s “GDR Kids”: Multiple Displacement, Identity and
Assimilation in a Post-Apartheid State. In The Journal of International Children’s
Literature, 1999, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 24 ̶ 29; OWENS, J. Blood Ties and Tongue Ties:
The Role of Children in Shifting the Boundaries of Namibia’s German-Speaking
Community. In The Journal of History of Childhood and Youth, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.
232–249; SCHMITT, C., KLEIN-ZIMMER, K., WITTE, M. Growing Up
Transnationally between SWAPO and GDR – a Biographical Ethnographic Study on
Namibian Refugee Children. In Transnational Social Review, 2014, Vol. 3, pp. 28–33;
SCHMITT, C., WITTE M., POLAT, S. International Solidarity in the GDR and
Transnationality: an Analysis of Primary School Materials from Namibian Child
Refugees. In Transnational Social Review – A Social Work Journal, 2014, Vol. 4, Nos
2/3, pp. 242 ̶ 258; SCHMITT, C., WITTE, M. You Are Special: Othering in
Biographies of GDR Children from Namibia. In Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2018, Vol.
41, No. 7, pp. 1352–1369.
10
National archive Prague, NA, A ÚV KSČ, f.02/1. P142/85, k inf.3, č.9746/23, from
30 October 1985.
11
For more information about this group, see: MACHALÍK, T. Czechoslovakia on the
Battlefront of the Cold War, the Angolan Civil War and the “Namibian Czechs”. In
Viva Africa 2007. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on African Studies,
2007, pp. 205–220; MACHALÍK, T. SWAPO Children in Czechoslovakia from the
Past to the Present. In Viva Africa 2008. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on African Studies, 2008, pp. 280–293.

156
Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

traditional SWAPO supporters, Ovambos, lived in this region. The Democratic


Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) supported by South Africa won the elections. During
the DTA’s administration, some of the apartheid laws were abandoned and
others relaxed. It was a result of growing international tension and also political
tendencies inside South Africa itself. In 1979, the DTA passed, for instance, the
Abolition of Racial Discrimination Act. However, the implementation of these
reforms was not followed up in reality.
From 1974 onwards, recruitment of soldiers of Namibian origins was made
possible. In the 80s, the number of Namibians enlisted into South African forces
grew rapidly. Some of them formed the notoriously cruel Koevet unit, which
operated mostly in the north of Namibia and took action against PLAN,
SWAPO supporters, and Namibian civilians. Most of the Koevoet members
were of San origin, an ethnic group which was traditionally marginalized with
low social status.
The most important battle in the liberation struggle of Namibia was fought
by PLAN members alongside the Angolan MPLA and Cuban troops against
South Africa and UNITA. The battle of Cuito Cuanavele took place in August
1985, and after several days of fighting, it ended in a stalemate. This battle was
not only part of the Angolan civil war but also of the Cold War itself. UNITA
was supported mostly by western powers and their direct ally was South Africa.
On the other side, there was the MPLA representing the interests of countries of
the Eastern Bloc and directly supported by Cuban soldiers and SWAPO. After
more than a decade of costly warfare and the result of Cuito Cuanavele, neither
side were willing to continue with the war and negotiations began.
In 1976, the so-called Western Contact Group (WCG) was created to
negotiate the conditions of Namibia’s independence. Great Britain, Germany,
France, USA, and Canada were members of the WCG. In the 80s, the WCG
formulated a requirement: Cuban troops had to withdraw from Angola. Official
negotiations concerning the independence of Namibia began in May 1988.
South Africa, Cuba, and Angola decided to accept resolution 435. As a result of
this agreement, SWAPO was no longer considered to be an official
representative of Namibia. They were not invited to any subsequent negotiation.
On the 1 February 1989, the country officially entered the transition period and
on 1 April SWAPO and South Africa agreed to a ceasefire. One of the
conditions of those negotiations was the demilitarization of PLAN and SWATF.
SWAPO sent its PLAN soldiers to the territory of Namibia, where they intended
to hand their weapons over to the UN. However, because SWAPO was
excluded from the negotiations and had not consulted about their move with
others, SWATF considered the presence of armed PLAN soldiers as a threat and
opened fire. Approximately 250 soldiers were killed on both sides. Fortunately,
this event did not have any impact on peace negotiation and the first free

157
Asian and African Studies, Volume 28, Number 2, 2019

elections in the country took place from 7 to 11 November 1989. SWAPO


decided to bring most of their supporters out of exile. There were as many as
42,736 of them. SWAPO won the elections with 57.3% of the vote, and in
Ovamboland alone they gained 92% support. Because SWAPO did not gain
two-thirds of the vote necessary for a constitutional majority, the opposition
parties participated in the process of constitution-making as well. The DTA was
the most influential opposition party with 28.6% of the vote in the first election.
The country was officially declared independent on 21 March 1990; Sam
Nujoma became its first president.
After independence, SWAPO transformed its rhetoric from the socialist-
oriented movement into a democratic political party. The country has one of the
most democratic and liberal constitutions in the world. SWAPO managed to
alter the constitution, shortly before the second term of Sam Nujoma ended,
which allowed him to run for the presidency for the third time. Political support
for SWAPO reached two-thirds of the majority in the second election and they
managed to hold on to public support. The main goals of the party remained
unfulfilled because most of the people of Namibia lived under the poverty line
and they did not have the same opportunities as the others. General
empowerment of the people did not happen and some ethnic groups are victims
of marginalization and indirect oppression. For instance, suppression of political
opposition in the Caprivi region may be given as an example. 12

Methodology

The information contained in the article was collected during long-term field
research which was carried out in Namibia and the Czech Republic between
2017 and 2018. The main aim of this research was to collect materials necessary
for biographies focused on the specific group of Namibians who were raised in
Czechoslovakia in the period 1985 ̶ 1991. The combination of a biographical,
historical and ethnographic approach was used in the research. Several different
research techniques were utilized in the research, such as biographical and semi-
structured interviews, analysis of archival material, media reports, personal
documents, and photography or participant observations or focus groups. I have
recorded 35 interviews, most of them with group members, caregivers, the
director of a boarding school, Czech adoptive families and Czech and Namibian

12
For more detailed information about this case and several others, see MELBER, H.
Understanding Namibia – The Trials of Independence.

158
Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

government representatives. In this article, most of the information comes from


media reports, biographical interviews and secondary literature.

Theoretical Approach

Memory and history are powerful actors, which shape individual identity and
reality in a very surrogate way. Maurice Halbwachs 13 was probably the first
scholar who systematically studied memory as a social phenomenon. In his
works, he describes the ways in which all information is subjected to collective
framing. Memories which are accepted by the broader society in which
individuals live, become part of the so-called collective memory. The
participation in the reproduction of this information is in a certain way an
indicator of individual identity. In his works, Halbachs understands any
memory about the past as being socially constructed. For that reason, he
believed that the collective memory is in a certain sense contrary to history
because the main goal of history is to produce accurate and objective
information whereas the collective memory adjusts events in favour of certain
groups. Jan Assmann 14 in his work follows up Halbwachs’s ideas and describes
in detail the way in which individual memory is transferred into the collective
one in the example of early civilizations and the way in which some historical
accounts and concepts of history itself are made.
Despite some of the claims made by Halbwachs and Assmann, I believe that
most of the time scientific historiography tends to describe historical events as
objectively as possible. It is only some so-called historiographers who try to
manipulate historical events to try to enforce their versions of historical events,
in order to gain their own goals. This tendency was named “négationnisme” –
negationism by the French historian Henry Rousso in his book The Vichy
Syndrome. 15 Negationism is sometimes mistakenly linked to legitimate
historical revisionism, but unlike revisionism, it uses illegitimate means to
distort history for specific purposes. Rousso labels the Holocaust denial a
typical example of historical negationism. The most common techniques for
historical negationism are the use of false documents as legitimate sources,
quoting out of historical context, the mistranslation of texts, manipulation of
statistics, falsifying information, obscuring the truth, trivialization,
relativization, inventing clever but implausible reasons for distrusting certain

13
HALBWACHS, M. Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire.
14
ASSMANN, J. Cultural Memory and Early Civilisations.
15
ROUSSO, H. The Vichy Syndrome: History and Memory in France since 1914.

159
Asian and African Studies, Volume 28, Number 2, 2019

historical records etc. Historical negationism is used to gain ideological and


political influence. Because history is an inseparable part of any national
identity, the negative revision of history can create a specific ideological
identity. In that case, if some negations or negative revisions of history are
promoted by national elites, for instance by a change of curriculum in the
school system, those ideas became accepted by the general public very quickly.
By means of historical negationism transferring of war guilt, denial of abuses of
power or providing an illusion of victory are made possible. Holocaust denial,
Confederate revisionism, Japanese war crime negationism, Serbia war crime
negationism, Armenian genocide denial, denial of Soviet crimes, China’s denial
of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, or the manufacturing of Macedonian
history are the most notorious examples of such practices. Apart from the
political goals of certain groups, some people may use historical negationism as
a medium for achieving personal fame. The consequences of historical
negationism vary and in some cases they may even have a positive impact on
certain communities. The ultimate goal for any historian or scholar in general,
must be the pursuit of objective truth, even if such a thing as an objective
history is utopian, especially if we take into account specific schools of thought
which occurred after 1960s such as deconstructionism or postmodernism. I
agree with them to the extent that there are several different interpretations of
historical accounts. Nevertheless, I also believe that it is very important to point
out obvious historical manipulations.

Questionable Interpretations of Historical Events in Namibia

After the successful struggle for the country’s independence, SWAPO changed
from being a liberation movement into political party and it managed to gain a
great deal of support among the general public. In this section, I describe how
SWAPO deliberately influences the way in which the history of the country’s
liberation struggle and other historical events are presented.
I begin with the example of the Independence Memorial Museum, which
was inaugurated on 21 March 2014. It dominates the country’s capital and it
presents historical events prior countries independence. The stunning
installations in the museum probably captivate most visitors and their main aim
is to glorify the armed struggle for independence. An exhibition devoted to the
period before colonial domination is also located in the museum. A large
inscription is located in this section and it states: “Pre-colonial society, peaceful
co-existence”. As a matter of fact, this section did not have as many artifacts as
the others and there is also very little accompanying text. The phrase has an
obvious purpose in this exhibition: to create an image in the eyes of potential

160
Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

visitors that before the arrival of settlers of European origin, a community on


the territory lived in peace. In fact at least seven different ethnic groups were
living on the territory and arrived in it at different periods in time. For instance,
some, as a result of so-called Bantu expansion, show clearly that there were at
least some conflicts in the area. As a piece of clear evidence against the
museum’s claim, I will use the written record of the Herero-Nama wars, which
occurred even before the arrival of European settlers. Ruth Benedict describes
those events in her historical account of the country. For example, she quotes
Chief Witboii’s (Nama) letter to the Chief of the Herero, which he begins: “The
Herero people and we fought many battles against one another...” 16
Another example of how SWAPO influences discourse about historical
events is reports about the Cassinga massacre, which I briefly mentioned in the
short introduction to the history of Namibia. Just after the tragedy happened
both sides reported on the event in a completely different manner. South Africa,
especially South African television, showed pictures from the Chetequera, camp
with a significant military presence and which was located 200 km from
Cassinga. They were using those pictures with artillery and armoured vehicles
when they were referring to Cassinga and they claimed that both were military
bases. On the other hand, SWAPO in all of its statements claimed that Cassinga
was purely a refugee camp. SWAPO’s version of the story was broadly
accepted by the international media. As a result of those events SWAPO’s
international support even increased. Most scholars agreed on the fact, that there
were no more than one hundred soldiers present in the camp during the attack.
Because it is difficult to make clear distinctions between the refugee and the
military camp, most scholars decided to use a different term for these specific
types of camps: liberation movement camps. Christian A. Williams describes
the most important difference between a refugee camp and liberation movement
camp as:

One feature that does define liberation movement camps as a whole and
distinguishes them from most refugee camps is the role of the liberation
movement in governing them. Whereas refugee camps are usually
administered directly by a host nation and/or transnational human agency,
Southern Africa’s liberation movement camps were governed directly by
exiles affiliated with a liberation movement, often with little oversight
from host and donors. 17

16
FIRST, R. South-West Africa, p. 32.
17
WILLIAMS, Ch. National Liberation in Postcolonial Southern Africa – A Historical
Ethnography of SWAPO’s Exile Camps, p. 21.

161
Asian and African Studies, Volume 28, Number 2, 2019

Not only was SWAPO in direct control of its camps, but also soldiers were
present in every SWAPO camp all the time. Despite the fact that the number of
soldiers in the camp was sometimes insignificant, Cassinga was not a refugee
camp, but a liberation movement camp. Nevertheless, the attack on the camp
was a huge tragedy and my intention is not to justify it.
The most notorious claims against SWAPO are probably accusations of
abuse of power by high-ranking SWAPO officials. Most of these cases are
directly related to the so-called “spy crisis” or “detainee crisis”. According to
SWAPO’s official version, the party and its camps were infiltrated by South
Africa’s agents, who were sending information about the activities of the
organization abroad. Anyone suspected of espionage was imprisoned without
any trial or any direct evidence. Persons criticizing SWAPO were accused of
spying as well. There are countless testimonies about the process of
interrogation, during which suspects were repeatedly beaten, suspended from
the ceiling and sometimes even raped. 18 Prisoners often had to dig holes into the
ground, which were afterwards used as cells. They suffered from malnutrition
and they did not have any medical treatment. Most of the camp’s inhabitants
were of Ovambo origin and people from other ethnic groups were sometimes
accused of spying simply on the basis of using a different language. As a result,
distrust and suspicion spread throughout the camps. 19 Several organizations
were founded in order to address these problems, some of them by ex-detainees,
others by their relatives or activists in Namibia, for example a Parents
Committee, the Political Consultative Council for Ex-detainees or Breaking the
Wall of Silence. SWAPO decided to deny all of these accusations and it stated
that if anything happened it happened in the name of liberation. In addition to
these statements, most of the time it also mentions maltreatment by South
Africa of SWAPO detainees or the general public. The autobiography of a
former president of the country and leader of liberation struggle Sam Nujoma
Where Others Wavered 20 was published in 2011. Some might expect that it
would elucidate some of the more questionable events in SWAPO’s history.
Unfortunately, there are very few mentions of the most striking crises. For
instance, Nujoma only briefly mentioned the so-called “spy crisis” and he

18
For instance Cecilia Nafeda claimed in 1983 that she was raped in the camp and she
even gave birth to the child, which was conceived during the rape.
19
For more detailed information see WILLIAMS, Ch. National Liberation in
Postcolonial Southern Africa – A Historical Ethnography of SWAPO’s Exile Camps;
LEYS, C., SAUL, J. Liberation without Democracy? The SWAPO Crisis of 1976. In
Journal of Southern African Studies, 1994, Vol. 20, No.1.
20
NUJOMA, S. Where Others Wavered.

162
Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

claimed that the people accused of spying were simply excluded from the party.
He justifies it with the argument that there were only a few hundred of them.
There is no mention of Nujoma’s involvement in SWANU, the party which
later became the main rival of SWAPO. What is more surprising is that even
after the twelve years have passed since the struggle ended, he still demonizes
Boers in his book and labels them as “racist whites”. Nujoma exaggerated the
role of PLAN and their military activities in the war of liberation and there is no
evidence at all for some of his claims. He claims that PLAN fighters were
permanently present in all parts of Namibia fighting South Africa. In his book,
he also states that the armed struggle was a crucial factor in gaining
independence. He also justified all detentions of people in the camp by simply
stating:

If we are accused of ill-treating detainees, this was very little in compared


to the killing, cruel torture and brutal treatment the apartheid South
African regime inflicted on our people over so many years. 21

Nujoma does not provide readers with any insight into the reasons why he
decided to act in such and such a way in such and such a situation. He does not
mention how some political issues were addressed in the party and he never
says whether he had any doubts about the course of the struggle. Frequently he
describes the situations which he did not even witness but only heard about. His
book is neither an autobiography nor an accurate historical account of events. In
my opinion, it can be labelled as political propaganda, in which he blames
anyone who opposed SWAPO and labels them as traitors, puppets or spies. In
his book, he also states that the struggle continues, although he did not directly
mention against whom. According to some public statements he made, for
example, one on 6 December 1996 some might suspect that the enemies of
independent Namibia might be homosexuals. In his speech, he recommended
that all foreign gays and lesbians should be deported or excluded from the
country. In his public statements, he also warns all inhabitants of Namibia
against neo-liberal and neo-colonial influence.

Conclusion

I have given several different instances of how SWAPO or Sam Nujoma


influence the interpretation of history. In some cases, for example, labelling

21
NUJOMA, S. Where Others Wavered, p. 357.

163
Asian and African Studies, Volume 28, Number 2, 2019

Cassinga as a refugee camp, the consequences of those practices are not very
serious. However, if we examine the events of the “spy and detainee crisis” we
can see that in his representation of history Sam Nujoma is using techniques of
historical negationism. He deliberately trivializes and relativizes the importance
of those events. What is worse he tries to shift the blame onto others when he
points to the crimes committed by the apartheid regime. It looks as if the party
will never confess to its share of guilt in the war crimes committed during the
liberation struggle. It is obvious that the party is trying to shift all the blame
onto the apartheid regime and by doing so it may, as a result, endanger all
people of European origin living in the country. Because the stories of
individuals who suffered at the hands of SWAPO are constantly ignored, the
victims may suffer even more for instance from PTSD. Colin Leys and John
Saul describe the “spy crisis” as:

…at the centre stage (of the crisis) one finds the demand springing
directly from the movements rank-and-file, for the realization of more
democratic procedures and for a far greater measure both of leadership
accountability and of membership participation with SWAPO. It was a
demand that the SWAPO leadership was, in the end, most loath to
countenance, much less to meet. 22

The effort to manufacture the identity of SWAPO supporters as liberators of


the country is evident if we think about the intentions of historical negationism
in the Namibian context. Persons who were in the leadership of SWAPO are
now depicted as national heroes and nobody can question their decisions. The
title given to ex-president Sam Nujoma of “founding father”, may serve as an
example.
Respondents have an ambivalent attitude towards SWAPO and their
relationship with it. While some overtly express support for the party, others
who were displaced try to remove SWAPO and its role in their lives from their
narrative. Respondents stated: “We are SWAPO’s kids, we were raised by
SWAPO.” 23 or “We are also freedom fighters, we were in camps and our role
was to grow up and, if the situation required, to fight for independence. But we
gained independence before we grew up.” 24 However, others do not express
their affiliation with the party so openly because, in this sense, they feel

22
LEYS, C., SAUL, J. Liberation without Democracy? The SWAPO Crisis of 1976. In
Journal of Southern African Studies, 1994, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 124.
23
Response of the respondent: N. P. Walwis Bay, January 2018.
24
Response of the respondent: J. D. Oshakati, May 2017.

164
Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

betrayed. They had to return suddenly to Namibia in 1991 before they had
finished their studies and did not have any special preparation for conditions in
Namibia and the party did not provide any specific assistance after their arrival.
Williams describes this phenomenon as:

Inhabitants of liberation movement camps not only fled political violence


in their country of origin but also joined an organization leading a
liberation war. As a result, they often intended themselves as freedom
fighters irrespective of whether they had trained as guerrillas, or intended
to take up arms, to liberate their nation. 25

In this sense, it is obvious that some of the former SWAPO exiles sometimes
use the identity of former “freedom fighters” and in some cases they may
intentionally exploit this identity to gain government recognition and support.
I have to admit that so far Namibian politicians have respected basic
democratic principles, even if in their public speeches they say the opposite
sometimes. The limits of this article did not allow me to analyze some decisions
in recent Namibian history, which may be construed as very questionable, such
as the third term of President Sam Nujoma, which was in contravention of the
constitution or the arrest and lengthy imprisonment without trial of Caprivi
separatists. The situation in the country is so far stable, though there are many
serious problems such as extreme poverty, HIV, corruption, etc. It is hard to
predict how the party will resolve these pressing issues and how the new
generation of politicians will reproduce the myth about national liberation.

REFERENCIES

AKAWA, Martha. The Gender Politics of the Namibian Liberation Struggle.


Basel: Basler Afrika Bibliographien, 2014.
ASSMANN, Jan. Cultural Memory and Early Civilisations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011.
DOBELL, Lauren. SWAPO’s Struggle for Namibia, 1960 – 1991: War by Other
Means. Basel: P. Schlettwein Publishing Switzerland, 1998.
FIRST, Ruth. South-West Africa. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963.
HALBWACHS, Maurice. Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Paris: Libraire
Félix Alcan, 1925.

25
WILLIAMS, Ch. National Liberation in Postcolonial Southern Africa – A Historical
Ethnography of SWAPO’s Exile Camps, p. 21.

165
Asian and African Studies, Volume 28, Number 2, 2019

KENNA, Constance. The “GDR-Children” of Namibia: Homecomers in an


Unknown Country. Windhoek: Klaus Heg Verlag, 1999.
KEULDER Christiaan. State, Society and Democracy, a Reader in Namibian
Politics. Windhoek: John Meinerth Printing, 2010.
KRAUSE, Jürgen. Das DDR-Namibia-Solidaritätsprojekt “Schule der
Freundschaft”: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen interkultureller Erziehung.
Oldenburg: BIS Verlag, 2009.
LEYS, Colin, SAUL, John S. Liberation without Democracy? The SWAPO
Crisis of 1976. In Journal of Southern African Studies, 1994, Vol. 20, No. 1,
pp. 123 ̶ 147.
MACHALÍK, Tomáš. Czechoslovakia on the Battlefront of the Cold War, the
Angolan Civil War and the “Namibian Czechs”. In Viva Africa 2007.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on African Studies, pp.
205–220.
MACHALÍK, Tomáš. SWAPO Children in Czechoslovakia from the Past to the
Present. In Viva Africa 2008. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on African Studies, pp. 280–293.
MELBER, Henning. Understanding Namibia – The Trials of Independence.
London: Horst and Company, 2014.
NIEKREZEN, Yvonne, ARMBRUSTER, Christian, WITTE, Mattias. A
Problematic Sense of Belonging, a Media Analysis of the “GDR Children of
Namibia”. In Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 2014,
Vol. 15, pp. 95–123.
NUJOMA, Sam. Where Others Wavered. London: Panaf, 2011.
OWENS, Jason. Namibia’s “GDR Kids”: Multiple Displacement, Identity and
Assimilation in a Post-Apartheid State. In The Journal of International
Children’s Literature, 1999, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 24 ̶ 29.
OWENS, Jason. Blood Ties and Tongue Ties: The Role of Children in Shifting
the Boundaries of Namibia’s German-Speaking Community. In The Journal
of History of Childhood and Youth, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 232–249.
ROUSSO, Henry. The Vichy Syndrome: History and Memory in France since
1914. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
SCHMITT, Caroline, KLEIN-ZIMMER, Kathrin, WITTE, Mattias. Growing
Up Transnationally between SWAPO and GDR – a Biographical
Ethnographic Study on Namibian Refugee Children. In Transnational Social
Review, 2014, Vol. 3, pp. 28–33.
SCHMITT, Caroline, WITTE Matthias, POLAT, Serpil. International Solidarity
in the GDR and Transnationality: an Analysis of Primary School Materials
from Namibian Child Refugees. In Transnational Social Review – A Social
Work Journal, 2014, Vol. 4, Nos. 2/3, pp. 242 ̶ 258.

166
Swapo’s Version of History in Namibia

SCHMITT, Caroline, WITTE, Matthias. You Are Special: Othering in


Biographies of GDR Children from Namibia. In Ethnic and Racial Studies,
2018, Vol. 41, No. 7, pp. 1352–1369.
VEDDER, Heinrich. South-West Africa in Early Times. London: Oxford
University Press, 1966.
WALLACE, Marion. A History of Namibia from the Beginning to 1990. New
York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
WILLIAMS, Christian A. National Liberation in Postcolonial Southern Africa
– A Historical Ethnography of SWAPO’s Exile Camps. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2015.

167

You might also like