fPcN interCultural:

friends of Peoples close to Nature

The latest news out of Botswana is that the government is going to attempt to amend its own constitution to be "tribally neutral". Great idea on the face of it, right? Diffusing tribal and ethnic conflicts, thereby safeguarding Botswana from the dangers of ever descending into tribal war. Or is that why it"s being done?
One of the most effective ways to strip people of rights is to first strip them of their identities. It"s what the American and Australian governments did back in the bad old days. Imagine if, now, the American Constitution were amended such that tribal identities no longer had any legal standing. The Indian Reservations would no longer be sacrosanct. Government or corporate interests (which already gnaw at the edges of the rez"s) would be able to step in and take land unhindered. But everyone would be American and equal, right? Right - but some would of course be more equal than others.

On a darkly humorous note, does this mean that the name of the country "Botswana" will no longer have legal standing? It is, after all, named after the dominant tribe there - the Botswana.

More serious questions arise, however: what will the other countries of the African Union think of this? Or the UN? Tribal identity is obviously of great importance within Africa. However, it"s likely that most countries on that continent will not want to interfere - especially as Botswana has Africa"s most powerful economy (built on diamonds) and a correspondingly powerful military. In this country of 1.4 million, the spending on the armed forces and state-of-the -art weaponry including jet fighters is reported to be about 5% - out of all proportion to the size of the country.

To the international community the move to become "tribally neutral" can always be presented as a forward-thinking policy to diffuse any tribal conflict that might arise in the future; not that Botswana has any precedent for this - but then you"d have to know Africa pretty well to be aware of that. Robert Mugabe"s land grabs of 200/2001 come to mind: he played a devilishly clever card - claiming that he was repatriating African land for African people to keep the UN off his back while in fact sending armed thugs onto the land to terrorise the country"s voters into re-voting his ZANU-PF party back into office after the country had taken a vote of no-confidence in Mugabe and demanded a change of government. Then he took the land and divided it up to his supporters. Thousands of workers were dispossessed. The neighboring countries did and said nothing. The same result will be likely for this latest move.

But why bother amending the constitution to wipe out legal standing for tribal and ethnic identity and rights? It seems that the Botswana government is learning a lesson from the international outcry that has dogged its decision to forcibly relocate the Basarwa, as it calls the San, or Bushmen, of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR). Ever since the dispossessed residents of the CKGR first took their government to court for this illegal action - after all the CKGR was granted to the San in perpetuity in 1961 and this was re-ratified in "65 - the government has threatened to amend its constitution should there be a verdict in favour of the dispossessed San. Now, it seems, the government is going to make that move preemptively, attempting to obviate any verdict before it ever comes. And also, presumably, re-arranging things so that if any other tribal or ethnic group gets shoved off its land for another project (and one can only assume that this is inevitable), they will have no rights to that land, no matter what the history.

Brilliant. Also pointless: Botswana wants to keep its past reputation of a "shining light of democracy in Africa. Moves such as forcible relocations and attempts to strip people of their ancestral (and legally ratified) rights don"t do much for the image. In such a large, under-populated country, there is no need to move people around like this: for example were the government to change its tune and allow the dispossessed CKGR San to go back to the reserve, observe their rights to the land, re-start basic services and - we"re dreaming pretty hard here - give them a stake in any development for the region, then money would still be made from the diamond exploration and possible mining of the reserve, and the government (and the associated mining companies such as De Beers, Debswana and BHP Billiton) would come up smelling like roses.

Is this all about ego at the end of the day? Partly: the government seems dead set on doing the wrong thing as much because of international criticism as from any real economic or other motivation. But, more sinisterly, perhaps it comes down to tribe after all. The Batswana, of Botswana (or Neutral-Tswana, as the country may have to become known), have always been the ruling tribe. Smaller ethnic groups such as the San, and others have always been marginalized, mistreated and pushed around at the whim of their more dominant neighbors. By making its constitution "tribally neutral" Botswana will in fact place more power firmly into the hands of the Batswana tribe - or rather the handful of ruling houses of the Batwsana tribe.

So, a shining light of democracy then. It"s worth a read of the US State Department"s latest assessment of that. Human rights abuses of all kinds are a growing concern in Botswana, and people - even those who don"t know Africa well - are starting to notice.

Thanks for reading
Rupert Isaacson and Kim Langbecker - Indigenous Land Rights Fund
Note: http://www.landrightsfund.org/news.html

Region

• South Africa

Topic

• Conservation

Tribe

• San