By DARLINGTON CHILUBA
IT takes an emancipated mind to realise that freedom is an avenue of constant evolution than
an end point. That freedom is, perhaps, the one ideal that strives to mirror the full complexities
and conflicting canvass of human emotions and thought so that constitutions typically reflect
emancipatory text as envisaged by a given people.
The State, at its best acts as a centre-point
to ensure that common freedoms are commonly enjoyed while those deemed sectional are
either nurtured or curtailed.
Arguably, freedom is only so when viewed from the perspective of those who currently enjoy
it.
For example, in 1988 at the height of the civil war in Angola, UNITA leader Dr Jonas Savimbi spoke in
Washington, United States, at the National Press Club that freedom cannot be deemed emancipatory if it is only enjoyed by a section of people in a country.
Interestingly, he was speaking about freedom concerning Angola, a country that had attained independence 13 years earlier in
1975. To him, Angola’s independence was sectional.
Elsewhere, in 1967, a largely uncelebrated African stalwart in the name of Herman Andimba Toivo ya Toivo expressed that freedom was not sustainable if it depended on the brutal dominance of one group to silence and obliterate another.
That freedom was not an imposition, but a natural order to which all people were entitled. He was speaking in court against apartheid at a time when South Africa intended to co-opt South-West Africa (now Namibia) into becoming a part of that country. Even here, freedom was for a select few – sectional.
From these two extreme examples we can make out that freedom can be exclusive and
therefore, beneficial to a select group. It may take the form of tribal alignment among those
who feel marginalised and excluded resulting in class or tribal politics and in some extreme
cases lead to civil strife and even secession.
As such, there are many ways in which people
reject sectional or hierarchical freedom. Civil war, secession, tribalism, class politics and
genocide are some extreme rejections of societies perceived to be unjustly unequal.
Even in the most developed nations such as the United States of America economic
and political liberties were largely sectional and excluded the Afro-American, Latino, Asian
(Chinese and Japanese) populations for the greater part of the 20th century.
These communities appealed to the conscience of their excluders and in most extreme cases their oppressors to bridge sectional society. The freedom, enjoyed in the US today came at
a cost even with the prospects of some States threatening to break away from the Union.
In much the same way, those autonomously independent communities that were forced into
becoming single nations during colonialism had to find common purpose to defeat the very colonial factor that created them.
These new nations were not created as an example of peaceful union. They were imposed on each other for western commerce to thrive.
Observably, the flow of global trade has hardly changed; Europe has more gold reserves, for
example, than nations that actually have gold mines. That we are united and national is
testament to the African spirit than any philosophy.
However, those variances, whether cultural, commercial or tribal became part of the political
fabric of most independent nations. Political strongholds, even now, are defined in terms of
tribal, regional (relational or cultural) connections.
The ultimate question, by way of
concluding, is whether modern day elections resolve sectional issues? Do the politics of
numbers, including regional and tribal numbers, resolve national issues or do they entrench
a sense of sectionalism?
Author
