As Genocide Remembrance Day approaches, any bona fide Namibian genocide descendant cannot but reflect on what happened as well as visualise the day.
The remembrance is officially marked on 28 May.
In this treatise, I am titling it the problem of the problematic as a missive and/or critique on the ever evolving and developing political razzmatazz over the sacred cause of the descendants of genocide survivors.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
It is a cause that should be sacred to all Namibians which is why there is a special day to mark it.
I am also titling these reflections the problem of the problematic for lack of a better characterisation, as well as an inability, as much as I might have a clear idea of what the problem is, to put my finger on the pulse of the matter.
This is because the nature of the problematic - within the realm of the human, political and social endeavour of the descendants themselves - is exacerbated and complicated (if not exploited), by the Namibian and German governments for their bilateral agenda.
The message and meaning
The organisational machinery for this important day appears to have been put in motion belatedly - on 28 April via an internal memorandum from the Office of the President to all regional governors on holding commemorations in their regions.
It left little time for consultations with relevant stakeholders, particularly the descendants.
It thus remains to be seen to what extent genocide descendants will play a meaningful role in this year's commemorations; meaningful in terms of the key message, and of descendants not being relegated to spectators or, at worst, cultural mannequins.
During this year's state of the nation address (Sona), president Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah indulged parliament, and thereby the nation, particularly the descendants, regarding the joint declaration (JD) being finalised.
It is set for the end of the year following a bypass, or stopover, in parliament.
I specifically could not but wonder and question why it is still being reverted to parliament? For the sake of what?
Granted, in a motion in 2006 parliament birthed the would-be diplomatic shuttling between the two countries. Ending, however, in a JD cul de sac in 2021 it seems.
More than anything, the JD is and has been nothing but a cul de sac and, if not a violation, indicates disregard for the 2006 motion.
Envisaged engagement
Among others, the motion envisaged engagements between the descendants and the German government.
It was to be facilitated by the Namibian government - not as one of the two players but as a go-between.
It was to make it possible for the descendants and the German government to sit around the table and discuss their common history entailing the genocide of the descendants' ancestors.
Most critical, and it must be said loudly and clearly, the would-be engagement would be specifically about genocide as opposed to colonial excesses, politically, militarily and otherwise.
Equally critically, the motion implored the Namibian government to be a go-between to ensure that descendants, first and foremost, gathered around the table to map out a clear understanding among themselves before engaging the German government.
Last but not the least, the engagement was not to be an end in itself but to engender necessary understanding between the two sides on the sad history.
It was also to ultimately establish how Germany, having recognised the genocide, should and could atone for such.
Not as a matter or morality but for what it committed. Genocide.
The crux of the matter
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
This month, the month of genocide remembrance, enters parliament with a delegation going to Germany.
Media reports about the trip have me questioning the meaningfulness of reverting the JD to the august house.
As if such a move would make any difference to the government's seeming resolve to ram the JD down the throats of the descendants via the august house.
What may have been revealing about the delegation is what they seem to have discussed in Germany, which was an improvement to the JD.
While genocide descendants clearly and loudly reject the JD, the disposition of some members of parliament on the matter is understandable.
They have not been sent to parliament on this mandate.
Thus, there's not much the descendants can expect. Therein lies the problem of the problematic!
- Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro is a descendant of the survivors of the Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama genocide, a veteran and freelance journalist, a reparations advocate and an adherent of restorative justice.
