ONE of my intellectual mentors, Professor James H. Cone, the Charles Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology at the Union Theological Seminary in New York addressed a Jewish audience in one of the American states after which he was confronted with a question about his Faith in Jesus and how he knew this was fundamental. The Professor replied rather simplistically, “My mother told me so.” This answer was so profoundly convincing to the Jewish audience which as a result of their rabbinic teaching internalized the rule that a child cannot be Jewish unless the mother is a Jew.
When Barack Obama announced on 10 February 2007 that he was going to run for President of the United States, the audience rolled their eyes at the audacity of this most unlikely candidate. In the minds of everybody, including Obama himself, his rise to be the most powerful man in the world was highly improbable considering his race, his un-aristocratic family pedigree, his unusual name with a middle Hussein, his age, his lack of heroic credentials and above all the fact that his father was not an American citizen but a mere scholarship-holder from Kenya and who abandoned him at age 2 for that matter. He immediately acknowledged that he knew that he was somewhat presumptuous with this announcement. What made his candidacy real are the foundational rules upon which the American political system is predicate, captured in the following precept: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all people are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’
This template of what it takes to be an American worthy of all rights and obligations made it possible for even the un-repented races in America to accept that Obama, by virtue of being born equal to any American, qualified to contest to go to the White House. This is the same template that the Civil Rights Leader Martin Luther King Jr. evoked on 28 August 1963 in his “I have a Dream” speech and the night before he was assassinated on 3 April 1968 in his, “I have been to the Mountaintop’ speech in a manner that white America had to hear him as he was punctuating the already existing American dream that was in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776. All that they did was to ask for the respect of the rules.
Nelson Mandela won the admiration of the world principally because of the rule that he enunciated when he was on trial in the court in Pretoria just before he was sentenced to life plus five years in his famous declaration: “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I cherish the ideal of a free and democratic society in which all people live in peace and harmony and have equal opportunity. It is an ideal that I wish to live for and to achieve. But if needs be it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.’
In history the two most stable organizations, the Roman Catholic Church and the military owe their stability and predictability to very clear rules. All religions, starting with the ancient Hindu faith, are propelled by rules, regulations and precepts that guide all members and help mitigate conflicts and contradictions in society. The Torah, the transcript of God’s laws by which Moses was instructed to inform the nation of Israel what their God was saying through the Commandments, through Jesus’s numerous replies that it was prophesied so, Prophet Muhammad instructing that God gave the order, and the Hindu traditions of order and civility and non-violence through the manner and precepts. One of the most fundamental organizations in society, namely marriage, is where most married men are more afraid of their wives than the Government because the rules are understood by everybody. The spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, is selected following ancient rules rigorously such that the boy who emerged in the process is the undisputed leader. Human beings depend upon rules and regulations and laws in order mainly to avoid and obviate personal interpretations that could create instability and disorder now and in the future.
In the all-time seminal book ‘The Art of War’, the Chinese guru, Sun Tzu had an instructive rule: ‘To win a war without fighting it is best.’. This instruction is as true now as it was in old China where civilization was built and sustained by values based and a set of rules known to and accepted as good by all inhabitants at any given time.
Without rules anarchy ensues and a world without certainty evolves wherein individuals do not know how to behave, where to go, and how to sustain order and peace. Rules are the foundations of discipline and discipline. Without these commonly accepted as a guide, it is impossible to have a sense of a Bonum Commune, the common good, and in the absence of which chaos, disorder, and lawlessness ensue with an unavoidable outcome: the survival of the fittest – a world wherein the most powerful, the most cunning, the most manipulative, survives better at the expense of the finest and all.
In the absence of clear and purposeful rules and guidelines, a civilization is rudderless, its upholders are unable to sustain the civilization over time, and cannot have the capacity to pass on to the next generations anything noble and durable with a sense of self-worth, pride as the glue that can hold together meaningful mutual relationships has disappeared. Clear guidelines assist members of any community to predict consequences, be it reward or punishment, of good and bad behaviour and such members are in a position to engage in meaningful interactions with others in ways that nurture the foundation for a better life for all. Without a set of clear guides to mould positive human behaviour, the end result is an expansion of a collection of people without a history, without memory and without a culture to illuminate the road it has still to cover towards its appointment with history. Such a people are a dead soul without a compass to navigate its way into an unknown future in competition with other nations.
This is the crossroads where Namibia as a nation finds herself right now. So far we have done well without clear rules, but with the leadership of one person whose judgement was in the best interest of the greatest number of our nation, Tate Sam Nujoma. Tate Nujoma and those with him had a vision of a nation that they pursued so steadfastly and with all a dedication and agility not given to many, and he has held the nation together. His presence and counsel offered comfort and warmth to all. As he moves further and further away from public life, the centre is fracturing. It is time for the nation to rethink its rules with which to navigate the future. Those gallant Namibians who prosecuted the struggle for freedom and liberation, to whom we owe our humble debt of gratitude, were guided by strict rules and a discipline without which history would not be the same. Just to build with and from nothing structures that were able to mobilise such a powerful solidarity movement to the extent that the United Nations took notice of and recognised our leaders as champions of our cry for freedom took a great deal of rule-making, rule enforcement and discipline to adhere to them at all times. We shall never give sufficient thanks to our leader of the liberation struggle for the individual and collective sacrifice they have made for our sake. The immediate challenge we face is that as the stories of the liberation struggle fade away and leaders pass on, we become more and more unable to uphold the rules of old experiences and we cannot retain the memories of those who are no more. In fact the rules of the struggle are becoming more and more remote and irrelevant as the life people live today can never produce the frustrations and anger of yesterday and yesteryear. Each historical epoch, each generation produces its own set of circumstances and consequently new rules to respond to the reality of the day organically. Without clear rules and regulations that are blind and timeless, human life is a jungle wherein the fittest can survive for as long as they are the fittest.
Here are some areas where we can begin to develop clearer rules:
RECOGNITION OF HEROES/SHEROES: The Namibian leadership has instituted a scheme by which individuals are honoured with medals and symbols of recognition for what they did in the life of the nation. It would appear that ambiguities rule this situation as here are no clear rules about what the persons have done to earn the medals. There are cases that generate more questions than answers about certain individuals who receive medals at State House for bravery or acts of heroism, and no one can explain what these individuals have done, save at times that they funded a project or so favourable to certain individuals in the body politic.
LEADERSHIP SELECTIONS: In better functioning democracies and economic systems that are advancing in the world, leaders emerge through the structures that require certain characteristics such as education, long service in smaller set-ups such as a law, business, regional government or diplomatic posting before individuals can aspire to rise to the top. Systems that cohere require of their leaders to go though some process of individual moulding, coaching and value-based capacity building as rites of passage from being the most junior to the commander. A novice goes through mentoring and socialization to understand and internalise the fundamental and self-evident values and ethics around which the nation coalesces in its search for maturity and better collective well-being.
There ought to be more standards to assist individuals to rise to high positions of leadership in the nation. Experience at a smaller scale for starters can help take on bigger issues. Above average literacy, numeracy and computing and the completion of higher education should be a standard to leadership. If education was not that important, then we may as well bring traditional leaders to the National Assembly as legislators and cabinet ministers. They would at least build palaces in their birth villages for relatives in their extended families. Proficiency in the English language ought to be a requirement in a country where English is the only official language. Otherwise contributions of well-intended individuals get lost in the translation or in the silence of members who open their mouths only when they eat.
FUNERALS: Just in the last three weeks, the country had three state funerals, without the death of a President. Without disrespect to some of the heroes who truly deserved to be given befitting funerals, we need to revisit our understanding of these costly exercises such that we become better both at burying our loved ones and stewarding the meagre resources at our disposal. It is becoming fashionable to have state funerals for all and any of those who did their utmost best to bring us where we are. It is neither right nor affordable that the government gives state funerals and bears all the costs for the burials of all who were in the liberation struggle or who serve(d) as ministers or members of Parliament at one time or another. It is not done anywhere in the world. In other countries, even those richer than Namibia, funerals and burials are governed by set and clear rules, and it is not up to the President to decide every time someone dies how far they are from getting a state funeral. They have their heroes and sheroes too, but they have in place clear guidelines that protect everybody and the head of state from answering why this and that does not get a state funeral. STATE FUNERALS are reserved for those citizens who served as President and head of state. They are buried with gun salutes and such etiquette. Other senior government officials who either die while serving or after they served but are still in good standing of the state receive a GOVERNMENT FUNERAL. The President or the Government may consider from time to time giving a person who is considered fit to be honoured by the nation an OFFICIAL FUNERAL. What is important is that the rules are clear so that individual families do not petition the President on the basis of what they think their family member did in the struggle or in funding the party or program or leader to give a state funeral. The money the nation ought to be giving to education, healthcare, safety and security, capacity building and development towards Vision 2030.
EVENT PROTOCOLS: A trend has entered our public life that affects our time management during memorial services and gatherings where our national leaders address the people. For some reason we misunderstand the purposes of memorial services and public events. Protocol dictates that at public events where the President, the Prime Minister or their representatives address meetings or conferences there is what is called the order of precedence. This is the list of all dignitaries and notable personages who need to be mentioned at such events. Protocol dictates that once those important people have been acknowledged by the Master of Ceremonies or the most senior speaker, the other speakers do not go through the list of mentioning them anymore – or over and over. We need to arrest this situation before we become ridiculous. Memorial services take far too long! Worse, the idea of one person reading the eulogy suggests that other speakers do not tell the life story of the deceased any more. Other speakers are to give brief reflections on the departed soul, not long winded and self-serving speeches.
ROLE MODELS AND OUTSTANDNG INDIVIDUALS IN SOCIETY: As a forward looking country we need to depoliticize life and return honour and dignity to ordinary people such that politics is left to politicians whereas other people have equally important functions to fulfil in the life of the country. We cannot all be politicians just as we cannot all be priests, and these functions are not mutually exclusive. There is a place for all of us regardless of what we are doing, as long as we acquit ourselves with honour and discipline while giving credit to other people for the spheres of influence wherein they are doing their best to make all of us better and stronger.