Making Politics, Making History: Chiefship and the Post-Apartheid State in Namibia*

Abstract

Since the early part of the twentieth century, a long-standing factional dispute in Kaokoland, Namibia has conditioned not only local internal political processes, but also the relationship between Kaokolanders and the national ruling regime of the day. Under the South African regime, the dispute manifested and perpetuated itself through colonial practices of indirect rule; it generated a dynamic set of politico-ethnic formations; and it helped manufacture competing chiefships in the region. Since independence in 1990, the conflict has been implicated in national party politics, international development initiatives, and the government’s recognition of traditional authorities. Despite the political overtones, local leaders and ordinary people vehemently deny any overlap between these ‘traditional’ institutions and the practice of politics. The Kaokoland case is a complex one, but by peeling through the layers we can consider a number of important issues relating to colonial and postcolonial rule in Africa: the legacy and continuity of colonial divide and rule practices; the politics of ‘history’ and ‘tradition’; political conceptions of ethnicity; and autochthonous discourses of belonging. Most significantly, however, the article offers an ethnographic perspective on Mahmood Mamdani's notion of the bifurcated state. In practice, Namibian state bifurcation appears less distinct than his model suggests. Kaokoland's micro-politics takes root in the state, and, conversely, the Namibian state finds root in local political processes. Here, we see a symbiosis between local and national politics, between chiefs and political party politicians, and between the traditional authorities and central government. The Kaokoland case reveals how local and national power constellations infuse one another, and the extent to which traditional authorities and the state are mutually constitutive.