George Orwell, the pen name by which he was known (real name Eric Arthur Blair 25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), with sheer verbatim (and true psychic) placed one of his many literary criticisms unto the thoughts of contemporary writers -based on the awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism and commitment to democratic socialism when he noted “All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.”Often, particularly in Pan-Africanism we are taught that to borrow from the literature registers of anything that resembles the colonial construct, should be discouraged. Apposite to point out here perhaps is that literature irrespective of the genre in which it has been enveloped, must be left as addressed to the addressee and not be diluted along the way. It’s incumbent upon the receiver, in this case the reader of such material who so wish to absorb such literature or not, to scrutinize the significance thereof. It is rather the aforesaid cogent prose of Orwell that compels us to question the “political thinking” in the past besieged by forms of social injustice in contemporary Namibia. Upon the ample, the recent Aussenkehr ‘accident’ is one that comes to mind vis-à-vis the fundamental issue of social injustice - just to contextualize what Orwell meant, which was preventable if only the owners of the means of production at the said company and others could have heeded the numerous calls made by the workers, to embark on a complete repair of its treacherous conditions of employment, including but not limited to that of accommodation and transport. Having been part of a team that have been dispatched from Keetmanshoop to the Aussenkehr settlement during the 2010 National Housing and Population census to fast-track the enumeration of data there (amongst other visits), I can speak with authority regarding the deplorable (for lack of a more fitting term) conditions of the thousands of workers that greets you upon entering the settlement. To cut it short, the glob in one’s throat became quickly nourished by the anger and frustration when you note the hopelessness and despair in the eyes of those you meet. It has become fashionable to adopt the undemanding way out to confront, condemn and shun those we deem responsible for such odiousness for the lack of social mores to bestow a sense of dignity, respect and humaneness to workers. In essence, swopping pro-action with reaction. Disappointingly and embarrassingly so, we fail in our analysis to be self-critical in our views which at most remains void of any empirical or substantial matter that could have rendered it valid with impetus. This is where the “Micky Mouse” cycle of social injustice is launched. The settlement of Aussenkehr of late (past few years) have been the subject of mainstream media, if it was not the issue of the dehumanizing conditions, it was about the eviction of farmers. Whilst this remained a topic of discussion for others tragically to the workers and their families of Aussenkehr, this continuous to be living hell on a daily basis. Surely, you would assume a radical approach would have been more apt given the gravity of the settlement’s predicament, which requires more than laconic statements and utterances. Another ambiguous trap is the hackneyed “efforts of all stakeholders to the table” or the audi alterum partem principle (hearing the other side) which have become synonymous when syndromes of such magnitude arises. Just when the dust of outcry and condemnations appear to settle, so does the “stakeholders” fade away into thin air just to resurface at the next dilemma wrestling for the podium. This vicious conundrum then not only remains unsolved but allows time to enemies of the state to reorganize and synergize efforts to tap and eat away further into the loopholes consciously created for social injustice to thrive for political thinking for years past have been vitiated in the same way as Orwell would have located it. The future of the owners of the means of production and that of the workers ubiquitously do not coincide otherwise a different narrative would have been paved insofar as social injustice is concerned. It’s a façade to want to believe that the motto of business is inextricably linked to the prosperity of both parties. The tenaciousness of the business environment, in particular but not limited to the company concerned to paddle on as if nothing has happened without no clarification to mitigate public outrage is indication that social injustice and the “most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.” Benedick M Louw is a Youth and Rural Political Activist and //Karas SPYL Secretary for Information, Mobilization and Publicity. NB: The views expressed herein do in no way reflect the position of the //Karas SPYL but remain strictly the views of the author.
Posted on: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:31:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015