By Vincent Ntema Sazita Please allow me space in your esteemed newspaper to air my views on the subject of the land question in Namibia and what would be seen as bottlenecks in its spring-over. The purpose of the colonizers of the past centuries was to arrest African countries in what was known as the Scramble of Africa. These countries colonized African countries for two major reasons as their cornerstones, and these, inter alia, included extractions of resources and land grabs from Africa to enrich themselves and the respective countries they originated from. Today, those two goals were achieved without any hindrance, because they had political powers to conquer, dictate and extort as they so wished. They enriched their countries as the case may be and today they are the best in the world with what was somewhat to be an African wealth portfolio. Their political power subdued African nations through the barrel, religion, force, terrorism, poaching and looting without resistance or retaliation, as Africans had no such weapons to protect or retaliate with such subversive actions. Let us first of all capture the historic events from L.G. Gann on land grabbing by the white settlers in the former Southern and Northern Rhodesias, Southern Rhodesia being present Zimbabwe and Northern Rhodesia being present Zambia. The East Coast Fever outbreak of 1901 indirectly encouraged arable instead of pastoral farming by doing much damage to the herds. The immigration of additional traders and the destruction of game made subsidiary occupations like ‘kaffir trading’ and hunting less worthwhile. In addition, the post-Boer War depression in South Africa encouraged immigration into Southern Rhodesia, just as it encouraged immigration from South Africa into Kenya. This post-Boer War depression led to the first considerable settlement of South Africans in Kenya in 1904. From 1903 the British South Africa Company and the Chartered Company began to make things easier for the small worker in the gold industry, and from about 1907 it embarked on a more vigorous land settlement policy. Speculation in claims and land diminished, the country’s real wealth expanded and more immigrants came to settle down permanently. Seeking cheap land and cattle, some Europeans soon began to push beyond the Zambezi, and in 1898 the Administration of Southern Rhodesia forbade unauthorized treks into the north, fearing lawlessness in a region devoid of effective European administration. A steady trickle of immigrants continued, however, and more settlers came when the railway was extended into Northern Rhodesia from 1904 onwards. In addition, a number of colonists made their home in the Fort Jameson area (RSA) after the defeat of the Nguni, and began farming with native cattle. Both Coryndon and Codrington (the former being the deputy administrator [North-Western Rhodesia] and the latter, resident/administrator [North-Eastern Rhodesia]) encouraged colonization, for they were convinced that the country would not develop otherwise. The Chartered Company was very closely concerned with this immigration. Its directors did indeed discuss the possibility of locking up the north for the time being, but they never considered it very seriously. Instead they regarded the northern lands as a potentially valuable addition to their commercial assets and thus took all possible steps to extend the Company’s land rights there. Between 1898 and 1909, they concluded a series of new treaties with Lewanika, the Paramount Chief of Barotseland (Western Zambia). These agreements made over the land rights of North-Western Rhodesia to the Company, only protecting the ‘Barotse Reserve’ from European settlement. The Barotse were concerned simply with keeping Barotseland proper inviolate, having realized that they would no longer be able to retain any influence outside it. In any case, it is unlikely that their influence ever reached beyond Kafue to any extent. The Company, however, induced the Colonial Office to agree to the extension of the boundary of ‘Barotseland North-Western Rhodesia’ from Kafue to the narrow part of the Northern Rhodesia territory between the Congo and Portuguese East Africa. This extension brought a great deal of territory under the terms of the Barotse treaty. In persuading the Colonial Office to agree to the change, the Company argued that there were very considerable administrative advantages, as the region to be separated from North-Eastern Rhodesia was too inaccessible from Fort Jameson. The Company also stated that there existed a ‘natural cleavage of tribes’ along the boundary, a statement which the Colonial Office could hardly dispute in the absence of any other information on the subject. Imperial approval was thus gained: and the Company then extended the area to a percentage of tax money to the whole North-Western Rhodesia, the question of delimiting Lewanika’s original sphere of influence not being investigated. In addition to deriving certain administrative advantages from the change, the Company thus gained land rights over an area where no indigenous chief had made any treaties with its emissaries, and mineral rights greatly superior to those laid down in the original ‘certificates of claim’ from H. Johnson, which might have been attacked subsequently on the grounds of that they extended over areas where no treaties had actually been concluded. The action of the Company has repeatedly been criticized, but it should be made clear that under existing circumstances, it could not have acted otherwise. The Company had assumed a vast administrative burden, but was not making any profits. Like so many other concerns it had vastly overestimated the chances of getting immediate profits out of Africa; and Northern Rhodesia was in fact a drain on its resources. It had to extend the basis of its economic power, which it did by means sanctioned by the Imperial Government. The policy of the Imperial Government itself was complex. On the one hand, it considered that the rights to land of tribesmen under the protection of the Colony could be modified by legislation. On the other hand, it wished to protect the Africans. Under the terms of the North-Eastern Rhodesia Order in Council of 1900,the Company was under an obligation to assign sufficient land and springs to the indigenous people, but the Administrator could, subject to the approval of H. M. Commissioner, remove the Africans from their land, provided compensation was given. These conditions were modelled on those in force in Southern Rhodesia and they were later, with slight modifications, extended to Northern Rhodesia as a whole, though the special position of the Barotse reserve was recognized. The tribesmen were thus subject to administrative decisions, which formed the foundations for the subsequent introduction of reserves. Despite this policy of not recognizing the inalienable nature of tribal land rights, the Colonial Office was originally opposed to large-scale European settlement north of the Zambezi. Lord Milner, who was High Commissioner from 1897-1905, believed that the country was destined to become a tropical dependency rather than a white settler’s country. So did Lord Selborne. A later High Commissioner advised the Colonial Office against permitting ordinary farmers to come in, believing that whilst a few planters might make a living, working with a good deal of capital, the ordinary farmer would not do so, but only live on Africans. This would only cause political difficulties to the Company. The Company’s Administration, however, thought differently; even though the settlers might be unable to pay much for their land they should be encouraged, and the Company should look to the indirect benefits which immigration would bring. Settlers would help the mines by providing cheap food, and the Administration could look forward to more revenue from customs duties. In Kenya, under Imperial Administration, European immigration was being encouraged at much the same time in order to make a railway pay that had originally been constructed with an eye towards political rather than economic objectives. The Company considered that European rather than native enterprise would develop the agricultural possibilities of the Territory. This underlying attitude at the time is easily understood. The existing tribal economies were producing only very few articles capable of being exported, since those economies were geared to produce for subsistence rather than sale. In the long run the policy adopted produced problems, which did not appear in African territories such as Uganda, which were developed by the enterprise of native peasants and foreign traders rather than that of European farmers. Later in years and in about 1911 onwards, a number of rich landowners bought vast estates in the country. The most important of these landowners were Duke of Westminster, Lord Winterton and Lord Wolverton. These men possessed more capital than the ex-officials with their small savings. They stayed in England and farmed their land through paid managers though not always with satisfactory results. There was no one comparable to Lord Delamere in Kenya, who came out to the new country in person, engaged in a good deal of agricultural development work, and invested comparatively large sums in the process. The large landowners became important, not so much by reason of their economic contribution to the country, but because of their political influence in England. Finally, a little agricultural development work was carried on by the Chartered Company itself, as well as by some mining companies anxious to feed their labourers on land concessions. This work, however, was undertaken with scant success. In any case, farmers have constant temptation to use cheap labour. Ever since the early days of South African history, the Boers had been pushing northwards for more land in order to sustain their extensive, pastoral economy as well as for political and national reasons or interests. As their population increased, holdings had to be further and further subdivided as land prices rose. Many people could no longer make a living from their holdings. But on the other hand they found it equally difficult to find a job in the towns, where they could neither compete with the Africans as unskilled labourers nor with the European immigrants as skilled labourers or employees. Some went to Angola, others to Southern Rhodesia, others as far as Kenya all looking for cheap land; and from about 1898 onwards they also made their way north of the Zambezi in search of cheap land and labour. Based on Mr. Alexactus T. Kaure and others who are sentimentalizing on the issue of land and as well on the history as presented by L. G. Gann in the foregoing presentation hereof, also based on a comparative analysis and where I personally would want to present my sentiments, it is clear that the Namibian Government or the SWAPO Government, whichever is the one appropriate in this space of time, is to reconsider the attributes for which land in Namibia is apportioned, alienated or proportioned. The fact of the matter is that there is a crucial point in land matters and to decisively deal with it needs more studies and considerations to be thoroughly made with what other countries encountered in such policy objective rules. The examples of communal lands in Botswana, Zimbabwe, RSA and many African countries could be emulated. To my understanding, the traditional leaders are also government right-hands in assisting the government in immediate solutions related to land in a particular area. How government involves itself in rural land and thus trying to commercialize it is a question that leaves much to be desired. By demarcating land to the citizenry, the outcome is the creation of reserves for black people as was done by the colonizer of the past. There will be no freedom of movement in such areas and life will be very much cumbersome to our societies. Segregation of this nature will result in serious conflicts because when the people are more in a demarcated land, say 20 ha, conflict will be the recourse to settling those problems at hand as was in the L. G. Gann observation illustrated hereof. The creation of the Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation formerly in existent was twofold: 1. To re-buy or acquire land for the landless. 2. To rehabilitate those who had to be rehabilitated. Once the mission was over, it would look into what it could be responsible for in the future. As the case stands currently, the people who are buying land are the elite created within the inner-circle empowered with resources and using the political power to acquire land for themselves and those friends and relatives close to them. This perpetuated, would mean that the poorest of the poor still are at the receiving end of abject poverty and would continue to be so, until the conflicts of land take over control in disastrous and monstrous manners resulting in pogroms and scanty killings year after year. Communal land does not mean that the traditional leaders are chiefly in control, but through policies created, communal land would mean that government is the overall responsibility in this regard. The government in creating commercial land in the communities means fencing off land and giving it to those would-be farmers with no skills of farming and hence their settling on the land of considerable huge size but doing nothing on the land that had been issued. Wild animal habitation – and life afterwards become unbearable. The same colonial mentality is cropping up to concentrate on disadvantaging our societies and making them subjects of abject poverty. What we should come to understand is that our communities are already poor and this poverty line will trickle down for many more centuries to come. This government today and the government that comes tomorrow will not be able to suffice our communities. So, clearly, this situation of demarcating land for the rural community should not exist now and then, since grave danger is lying waiting for the government and its people. When one sits and thinks deeply on the reasons why this is happening, one does not see a clear picture of this rural land demarcation. The communities were not aware of what might happen with them tomorrow. Reserves created would mean that control and management of land matters become void of government and only those elites would control the land because of their money and political supremacy. It must also be known that politicians come and go, but societies are fixed. Politicians serve in positions for a short season and then others come in. The greatest problem our country faces is the poverty line and this to be averted needs many strategic plans and goals, which could take centuries to be accomplished. The problem is that people do not have access to farming implements, capital, the know-how, the management of land and use thereof. The elite who are currently there bought farms, but it is strange and uncommon that production is not satisfactory there for some – then there are low wages for their farm labourers who are exploited at the hands of their own masters. The other factor is that those elites are part-time farmers who have no roots in farming, but would only want to have farms for status and political reasons in the most counts. Strange to mention is that the proposed land redistribution does not come clean as to why and who is to be issued with land and what has to be done on the land. The understanding was that those who did not have land or whose land was taken away from them by the settlers should be accorded such rights of land redistribution. Today, everyone in the inner-circle who wishes to have a farm is given a farm, yet with no clear vision as to what could be the productive side of such a farm. Critically speaking as critics may allude to in this scenario, Government has the following to consider: 1. Land rights in the colonial system as per the Imperial Government in Britain was based on creating the inner-circle for whites only ahead of their black counterparts in Africa in terms of land rights since they had both economical and political powers. What happens to the inner-circle of the elite in our government purporting to this with the proposed land redistribution? Is it not the same situation where our societies are to be meagerly given land? 2. The Imperial Government created reserves where blacks could be kept and be used as cheap labourers in the plantations or mines. Is this not the case in most of our farms now? 3. The settlers demarcated small ha of land to black people and kept them there than allowing them to grow higher yields for market purposes. What is taking place with demarcating land in 20 ha in the northern regions today for households to be localized? What will happen if the households multiply in years to come? Where will they get land when all the land had been commercialized? Will family ties and cleavages (navel to navel) still continue to be or not? Do the local communities have the knowledge of all what they will go through or be aware of what befalls them tomorrow? 4. The settlers knew well that they were not permanent and tried to limit their economic emancipation to mining and pastoral farming than growing crops for that purpose. It is common practice that our politicians fail to differentiate between office terms as politicians and are under the impression for them to be hailing perpetually grounds that make them feel that they would not have any place to go once they are stripped of their positions as politicians. They only work for today, but they do not know how to work for tomorrow. They do not prepare themselves for the life after having been a minister or a parliamentarian in the shoes of the unemployed and the pauper. Had they known all these, they would not go down even to the bottom of the only hope for the poor and that is taking away land from the poor. 5. The settlers did not want the white immigrants to percolate the northwestern parts of Northern Rhodesia since there were agreements between them and the traditional authorities to reserve land and not be totally influenced by the whites throughout. Paramount Chief Lewanika of the Barotse nation knew well that his native people needed land for their survival since all of them were not commercial farmers and would need land to live on. 6. Later the settlers moved in themselves without consultations. To substantiate this point, one looks at fencing land and people had multiplied; all they would do, would be to move illegally on land reserved for future use by government, hence resulting in more arrests and jailings that our country would witness in the future. The question we must ask ourselves is: are communal issues on both land and other matters serving a purpose in Namibia or not? 7. We also see a situation in the presentation hereof where the farmers left the territories and went to Angola, Kenya and other countries in search of cheap land when the land pricing went high in the two Rhodesias. Good governance means working towards good governance and not something that is only mentioned but not pursued with prowessness and doing all one can do to ensure that such a system does not have loopholes of corruption, favouritism/favourism, ethnicism, regionalism, tribalism, nepotism, loyalism, genderism and the bad habits African governments are practising to decay the very essence of good governance and shoot themselves in their own feet. Much had been said about Africa complaining on the trend of a ‘brain drain’, a situation that African governments promote themselves by frustrating the skilled in order to leave the country so that they could rem