The Barotse Question - Epitomising historical romanticism?

In writing this article, I first seek to categorically state that in our attempts to conceive the Barotse Question of self-determination and secession as an inane emotional attachment to historical romanticism, and a threat to the existing ‘assumed’ state of peace, lie the very threat to our nation-state’s peace and stability.

That a people that once felt a sense of existing in a defined nation-state today seek to live apart from that nation-state is itself indicative of the fact that something has gone miserably wrong.

In expressing myself here in, I do not seek claim to prodigious knowledge on the Barotse Question, but merely attempt to communicate the inherent threat of conceiving the issue as a question of historical romanticism. It is in this respect that I address the question to the best of my learned ‘ignorance’ and often-detached sense of belonging.

First, on the Barotse Question are the voices premised on arguments that it is neither socially relevant nor politically correct in today’s context. I argue that the social relevance of calls for self-determination lie in the political and historical cognisance of the undeniable fact that attempts to assert the right to self-determination and indeed the extreme threat of secession have through history shaped today’s role model political and governance structures.

Strategies and structures of devolution of power, decentralisation, federalism are inherently socio-political conflict resolution strategies with a historical genesis embedded in the very process whose social relevance is today found to be abhorrent. The often times upheld governance structures of states like the USA are the classical illustration of this fact.

On the other hand, the argument of the Barotse Question’s political incorrectness arises simply because of today’s Zambia’s obtaining political environment. This is a political environment where political correctness only allows expression and attitudes that do not and are unlikely to disturb the status quo as determined by the obtaining political philosophy of those that are in power. In an atmosphere of intolerance and reluctance to dialogue, I hasten to submit that a call for self-determination is politically incorrect. But, one has to ask - where from then is the threat to peace and stability, the Barotse Question’s proponents or the political governance fragility of the existing nation-state?

However, if we convince ourselves that the obtaining political reality is in itself politically correct, then, the political correctness of a call for self-determination should be seen in its catalytic light. That is, the unavoidable need to change our present governance structures so as to allow for more representative structures of governance.

Premised on the foregoing, I submit that a concerted resurgence of the call for self- determination can have desirable effects on Zambia’s present mode of governance. May be the missed opportunities of the 1993-5 Constitutional Review (and ended the one that just ended)regarding devolution of power to the provinces can become a reality!

Second, and maybe louder, are the voices arguing that the Barotse Question is founded on historical romanticism. These voices I find to simply symbolise the unfortunate unconscious indoctrination of being in an assumed peaceful and stable multi-ethnical nation-state.

Of concern to these voices are the questions:

1. What is the extent (boundaries of the Barotse kingdom and on what legitimacy are these boundaries?

2. Do the other non-MaLozi (or subgroups) inhabitants of Barotse also have a claim to self-determination or will the King impose his views?

3. What are the contentions in the Barotse Agreement?

First I must state here that in addressing these concerns one is inevitably drawn into the polemics and diametrical questions of definitions. This I will try to avoid. In my simplest understanding, a nation is a ‘common’ sense, a feeling, an idea of belonging to an ethnic or multi-ethnic group. This ‘common’ sense, or idea can arise through ancestry, immigration, and or whatever other factors of human mobility that result in one finding himself or herself with a sense of belonging to that particular nation.

Here in, lie the polemics, for the latter, also shows a nation is nothing much but an evolution of historical romanticism!

The concept of a state, on the other hand, regularises and legitimises this amorphous entity, through institutions and structures. The institutions and structures often embody mechanisms that facilitate or enforce observance of duty or obedience to the state.

Barotseland was and is still a nation-state. This, the British, too, recognised, least the Barotse Agreement would not have been entered into. Any arguments to the contrary are merely an inept attempt to falsify history. Thence, relative to defining Barotseland’s geographic space, one is drawn to the understanding that boundaries are simply the extent of physical land occupation or ownership of a people with the idea of belonging. This extent, history has shown, can even imply such areas as at the time occupied by the group of people in question. (C.f., The case for Israel). However, given that Africa’s nation-states are rooted in the historical context of colonialism, concerns of geographic space should be seen in this light. And should, above all, recognise the fact that the nation-state as a western colonisation process dismembered Africa’s already existing boundaries defined by ‘common sense’, or ‘idea of belonging’.

In retrospect, the question of geographic legitimacy, becomes one of setting an epoch that will define an ‘acceptable’ criteria by which any people seeking self-determination can be provided concessions as to the extent of their claim to a historical nation-state. I must mention here that unfortunately the western societies’ definition of Africa’s nation- states is today what is internationally recognised, and is, in part, not only the genesis of contemporary Africa’s problems, but also the inherent problem to Africa’s redefinition of its boundaries.

Further, the concerns relating to other non-MaLozi’s inhabiting Barotseland invokes in me the issue of inclusion and exclusion. If we are to assume my conceptualisations of a nation and state provided here in are to some degree valid, then we must acknowledge the fact that the Barotse nation-state was one characterised by inclusion of all groups who paid homage to the King. We should, here in, however acknowledge the fact that historically Barotseland was highly socially stratified. There was the royal. And there was the commoner. But, the governance structures were (is) such that the Prime Minister (Ngambela) is always a commoner!

On the question of the contentions in the Barotse Agreement, I here simply surmise that the underlying premise of the contentions is the recognition of Barotseland as an autonomous state, whose autonomy should have been guaranteed in the post colonial period. I am afraid there are various views on this, and in the end it is just as polemical as the question of a nation-state.

Lastly, there have also been arguments that the Barotse Question’s likely effect of fragmenting an already existing nation-state is counter presently obtaining global trends of amalgamations of countries in the West. This, I find to be a blatant misinterpretation of the genesis of perceived global trends. Simply because this view conveniently or ignorantly, does not recognise the fact that fragmentation and the consequent process of devolution of power due (in part) to assertions of self-determination are the founding stones of these nations that today can easily economically amalgamate.

In addition, the proponents of the foregoing concern often seek refugee in Africa’s decaying adage of ‘strength in unity’, without embodiment of the requisite fact that such strength only exists were the consequent processes of conflict resolution such as devolution of power have evolved.

In ending my submission, I first seek to argue that counter-proponents of the Barotse Question should at least attempt to avoid the unconscious inclination of considering whosoever propagates or supports a particular notion or assertion as doing so out of a sense of ethnical or political affiliation. This is an unconscious inclination that we surely at this stage in history should liberate ourselves from, as it is merely a microcosm of the country’s political leaders.

Secondly, I argue that reasoning is a process that deals with the separates and seldom the totality. Thence, if one has to follow the separates argued here in, one should surely acknowledge the fact that if the Barotse Question is simply historical romanticism, then surely the nation-state we so cherish and call Zambia is indeed nothing but the epitome of colonial historical romanticism. And that our existence as a nation-state is not founded on ‘strength in unity’, but on the sustenance of a status quo that is embedded in political intolerance and command approaches to governance.

Ours is an illusion of well being in a geographic space defined by forces that knew little of existing social spaces. That the continent is today beset with myriad crises is simply evidential of the dangers of not only accepting that illusion, but more so seeking coherence in the illusion. What we should seek are the assumed ‘abhorrent’ lessons of calls for self-determination and or secession. That is the conflict resolution strategies inherent.
The Barotse Question should never be conceived as a recipe for chaos. The imminent fragmentation of a nation-state underlying such an issue should in my ‘ignorance’ be conceived as the fragmentation of existing unacceptable political structures!

Hence, in conclusion I ask - Does self-determination mean fragmentation of existing nation-states?

[The Barotse Agreement in pdf download is available at http://miliko.vndv.com]

(first published in The Monitor Issue No. 64 Friday July 23 - Thursday July 29, 1999)