"To whom does a place belong when it embodies a people's soul? When time and tradition fuse, uniting the earth and its keepers, who have the right to sever that bond?"
Historical Foundations: The Rise of Hosea Kutako as Custodian
To truly understand the significance of the Hosea Kutako Memorial Museum, we must venture back to the early 20th century a time of hardship, resilience, and renewal. After the devastating Herero Wars of 1904–1908, the OvaHerero people faced not only the wounds of war but the deprivation of leadership and a place to call their own. In the aftermath, their leader, Samuel Maharero, was exiled, leaving a vast, profound leadership void among his people.
In response to the unrest and displacement, Hosea Kutako was appointed in 1916/17 by the community's clan leaders as Acting Paramount Chief. This role was soon solidified in 1920 when Frederik Maharero, son of the exiled Samuel, traveled to Windhoek to appoint Kutako officially. A gesture as solemn as it was transformative, Frederik placed his hand upon Kutako’s head, consecrating him as the official steward over the people and the land in South West Africa. The significance of this appointment lay not merely in his title but in the mandate given to him to safeguard and guide his people.
Since then, the land surrounding what is now the Hosea Kutako Memorial has stood as a witness to countless gatherings, ceremonies, and cultural practices of the OvaHerero people. From cultural rites to administrative decisions, the space has served as a living testament to the continuity of OvaHerero heritage, a heritage sustained through the tenacity and vision of Kutako and his descendants.
Cultural Continuity and the Role of the Shrine
The Hosea Kutako Memorial Shrine represents more than a museum; it is a wellspring of the OvaHerero's cultural identity, an axis around which their community has revolved for over a century. The shrine was not simply a structure; it was a space of sanctuary and gathering, a place where OvaHerero could connect with their ancestors, preserve their oral traditions, and foster unity across generations. For over a century, the OvaHerero have held meetings, observed cultural rituals, and honored the legacy of Kutako and other leaders within this space.
This uninterrupted use reflects the principle of “cultural custodianship,” where a community sustains its heritage through ongoing engagement with the land, preserving it as a sacred space. This longstanding relationship with the land now places it under both Namibian and international law protections as a site of cultural heritage. But the present government's recent actions their exclusion of rightful OvaHerero representatives from management decisions and their plans to unilaterally inaugurate the shrine raise significant concerns about their respect for these protections.
International Law: The Right to Custodianship and Cultural Heritage
The international framework regarding indigenous heritage rights is rich, complex, and vital to understanding the current situation. At the core is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which enshrines the right of indigenous peoples to manage, control, and protect their cultural heritage and lands. Specifically, Article 11 asserts that Indigenous peoples have the right to “practice and revitalize” their culture, while Article 12 protects their right to “maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites.”
Most crucially, Article 19 of UNDRIP mandates that states obtain the "free, prior, and informed consent" (FPIC) of indigenous communities before undertaking actions that may affect their lands or cultural heritage. When the Namibian government sought OvaHerero's consent initially to develop the memorial site, they acknowledged the community's role as custodians. Yet, in pressing forward with inauguration plans while excluding the OvaHerero leadership and avoiding full, informed consultation, the government potentially violates FPIC principles, disregarding both the spirit and letter of international law.
The situation surrounding the Hosea Kutako Memorial highlights the moral and legal dilemmas that arise when governments attempt to exert control over Indigenous heritage sites. While Namibia has not ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169, this convention underscores the universal standards regarding Indigenous peoples' rights to control and govern their cultural heritage. It affirms that Indigenous communities have the exclusive right to manage their sacred sites according to their customs, emphasizing the importance of respecting long-standing custodianship a principle the OvaHerero has exercised continuously since the 1920s. With the government’s recent maneuvers, questions arise: Is the government overstepping its moral obligations by attempting to undermine traditional authority and ownership simply because of physical developments around the shrine?
Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, famously argued that “the good for man is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence.” Applied to governance, this principle suggests that authority should not only serve functional purposes (such as building or restoring a site) but should also honor moral obligations to act in alignment with community trust and respect for cultural values. The government, in choosing to disregard the custodial authority of the OvaHerero over this site, appears to be neglecting what Aristotle would see as an essential moral duty to respect the community’s relationship to the place. Likewise, Socrates, in dialogues about justice, emphasizes that those who govern have a responsibility not just to wield power, but to uphold justice as defined by the people it affects. In this instance, respecting the authority of the OvaHerero would align with the deeper principles of justice that Socrates advocated.
Historical examples from around the world illustrate the negative outcomes when governments attempt similar actions. The British government’s treatment of Indigenous sacred sites in Australia, for example, led to legal battles and public outcry as it ignored traditional ownership and imposed its own regulatory control. This maneuvering sparked intense cultural division and, ultimately, a loss of public trust, highlighting the consequences of disregarding Indigenous rights. Similarly, the U.S. government’s attempts to control Native American sites for commercial use have led to ongoing conflict and legal challenges, as these actions were seen as an infringement on the communities’ inherent rights.
In Namibia’s case, by attempting to bypass the OvaHerero’s right to control the memorial, the government risks not only violating national and international principles but also diminishing its moral standing. It disregards the universal standard that heritage sites are more than mere physical spaces; they represent a living history that belongs first to those who have nurtured and respected it over generations.
Namibian Law and the Government’s Role in Protecting Heritage Sites
Namibian law also imposes obligations on the government to preserve cultural sites. The Namibian Constitution recognizes the cultural rights of communities, and the National Heritage Act requires that heritage sites be managed in accordance with the cultural practices of their custodians. The Act’s stipulations extend to areas where communities, like the OvaHerero, demonstrate long-term historical connections to the land.
In the case of the Hosea Kutako Memorial, the government’s recent approach of excluding Paramount Chief Prof. Mutjinde Katjiua and selectively inviting individuals sympathetic to its agenda undermines the impartial stewardship such a site demands. Is it not true that an act excluding rightful leadership, those to whom the community has entrusted its sacred charge, risks severing trust and violating constitutional guarantees for cultural guardianship?
Consider, then, the nature of just governance. In Socratic tradition, one might ask: does a government’s authority derive from the imposition of will, or from the respect for those whom the community has vested with spiritual and cultural custodianship? Aristotle reminds us that, for a government to act with justice, it must adhere to the principle of nomos law guided by reason and respect for communal heritage. By choosing to ignore rightful leaders in favor of those who may better serve their interests, does the government not transgress this principle?
Such actions reflect more than a breach of law; they suggest an unsettling erosion of the role of government as a neutral steward of heritage. To elevate certain voices while silencing others implies a bias that fails not only the OvaHerero but all Namibians who see cultural preservation as an impartial, collective responsibility.
This also calls into question the government’s motive, as it has chosen to ignore the comprehensive management plan submitted by the OTA under Prof. Katjiua. How can the shrine be inaugurated without a clear, agreed-upon framework for its preservation and future use? The lack of transparency and inclusivity raises suspicions about whether these moves are part of a broader attempt to undermine the OvaHerero leadership and erode the historical significance of the site.
Implications and Global Comparisons: Lessons from Indigenous Struggles
In New Zealand, the Māori people fought successfully to gain co-management of sacred sites like Te Urewera, a former national park now managed as a legal entity in collaboration with the government. This arrangement respects Māori cultural stewardship, reflecting international principles of indigenous autonomy and collaborative governance. Similarly, the Standing Rock Sioux in the United States employed legal and public pressure to halt the Dakota Access Pipeline, which threatened their sacred lands. These examples demonstrate that indigenous communities can, and should, be active agents in protecting their heritage, using legal, diplomatic, and grassroots strategies to resist unilateral state actions.
The OvaHerero community faces exclusion from their own heritage site, the Hosea Kutako Memorial, by a government seemingly overreaching into traditional leadership matters. The Namibian government’s stance—refusing to recognize the current Paramount Chief Prof. Mutjinde Katjiua due to an absence of official gazetting—contradicts both Namibian law and broader principles of cultural autonomy. Traditional leadership is not, and has never been, a designation dependent on government sanction. Instead, it emerges organically from community consensus and shared values, independent of governmental validation.
Historically and philosophically, thinkers like Socrates and Aristotle illuminated this principle of societal autonomy and self-determination. Aristotle emphasized in his Politics that a community’s ethos and identity are defined internally, stating, “The city is a partnership, and not merely a partnership but one that exists for the highest good.” Forcing an outsider or government appointee upon a community threatens that “highest good” and the authentic cultural identity the community upholds.
Socrates, too, held that authority over moral and ethical matters—here, the matter of communal identity and leadership must come from within, asserting that justice must be aligned with the community’s truth, not external imposition. This echoes OvaHerero’s stance, where the community collectively validates their leadership. A government’s failure to acknowledge this can disrupt peace and violate principles of cultural respect.
The Namibian Constitution strongly supports cultural rights in Article 19, which asserts that every citizen has the right “to enjoy, practice, profess, maintain, and promote any culture, language, tradition or religion.” This includes the right of the OvaHerero community to independently select their leader. The failure to recognize Prof. Katjiua, chosen by the OvaHerero people themselves, disregards the essence of this constitutional provision.
Moreover, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Namibia has endorsed, upholds the right of indigenous communities to self-governance and the protection of their cultural institutions and heritage. Articles 3 and 4 of UNDRIP specifically guarantee indigenous peoples the right to self-determination and the freedom to sustain their social structures. This means that OvaHerero’s choice of leadership based on longstanding customs cannot legitimately be overridden by a government’s bureaucratic processes without violating these principles.
The Question of Government Intentions and Political Motives
The timing and nature of these recent government actions appear to raise larger questions about political maneuvering. With a newly formed coalition between SWANU and NUDO opposition parties with deep-rooted support within OvaHerero communities it seems plausible that SWAPO is employing strategies to undermine this alliance and disrupt their campaign. The alliance, a surprising development for the ruling party, has strengthened OvaHerero political influence, presenting a potential challenge to the status quo. In response, SWAPO may be attempting to destabilize community leadership by encouraging division within the OvaHerero ranks, as seen in the exclusion of the OTA from key events and the positioning of alternate leadership figures to fragment community unity.
Such tactics align with strategies observed in other historical and political contexts where dominant parties have tried to weaken opposition by fostering internal divisions, co-opting influential figures, or promoting rival factions. For instance, in post-colonial settings, ruling parties often introduce new community leaders or align with certain factions to dilute cohesive opposition voices. Additionally, established political players have employed media campaigns, dissemination of misinformation, and public events to shift focus away from opposition campaigns and create a diversion. Here, too, SWAPO’s actions hint at a calculated approach to redirect attention from the growing opposition coalition and maintain its hold over the political narrative.
Upholding Heritage and Legal Integrity
The Hosea Kutako Memorial Shrine stands as both a cultural beacon and a reminder of the resilience of the OvaHerero people. The Namibian government’s recent actions risk severing a sacred bond, dishonoring both national and international obligations to protect indigenous heritage. For the OvaHerero and all Namibians who value their cultural identity, this moment represents a profound call to action.
The community, with the support of allies both within Namibia and globally, must insist on its rightful role in managing the shrine. Through collective legal action, public advocacy, and political solidarity, they can reaffirm their stewardship over a place that belongs not only to them but to the shared heritage of humanity. Let this struggle serve as a testament to the enduring power of cultural legacy, a challenge to state overreach, and a clarion call for justice in Namibia and beyond.
Thinking Out Loud
Alphons K Koruhama
Computer Scientist and Indigenous Knowledge Researcher.
https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/OvaHerero-BCP_English-2024.pdf.
Comments
Post a Comment