41
minority. SWAPO rejected both the proposal and the conference. As a result, the liberation struggle continued from outside the boarders. (Jauch 1984:29).
The colonial history of Namibia as discussed above was shaped by the state in a way that discriminated against the black people. They were systematically disposed of their wealth and discriminated against and marginalised from mainstream economic activities. These racist colonial practices were exercised for around a century. This left the black Namibians out of the capitalist economy. At independence the inequality of accumulated wealth resulted in the call for wealth redistribution through policies such as indigenisation or affirmation action.
2.5 Ethical Issues Relating to the Colonial Discrimination of Indigenous African Capitalists
42
regulations alone was not enough to bring justice. There was need for action. According to Jauch (1998:16), and Weiner (1993:9), the governments of the independent states were bound by duty ethics and had the duty to bring fundamental change by taking active steps to redress the social and economic inequalities. It was with this understanding that indigenisation, black economic empowerment and affirmative action were described and adopted in various ways but fundamentally in the same spirit in almost all independent SADC states (Jauch 1998:16).
Indigenisation drives were seen to have objectives of redistributing wealth in order to eliminate the inequalities which were caused by discriminative racial colonial laws and policies (Nicholas, 1994:102). In addition, the other objective of indigenisation was to increase the participation of black people in the mainstream economic activities. Since the damage was caused by a state system, it was therefore viewed as the duty of the state to repair the damage through an engagement process (Jauch. 1998:16). The other objective of indigenisation was to bring on board indigenous capitalists who would create wealth and help in the development of the African economies. Indigenisation was therefore introduced to bring up marginalised black entrepreneurs with a view to developing indigenous capitalists who would help in the domestication of capitalism. As Nicholas (1998:95) observed, internal and domestic capitalists were important for developing countries in the SADC. This was a futuristic approach to the benefits of indigenisation.
Critics of indigenisation labelled it “reverse discrimination” which was not being implemented across all the sections of society and was in itself a strategy which would further divide the society and lead to unintended consequences. Social groups not benefitting from indigenisation would label it as a discriminating strategy (Jauch, 1998:17). However, despite these criticisms, Kennedy (1993) rightly argued that “Racial affirmative action constitutes a visible sign that a society once dominated by a white supremacist ‘pigmentocracy’ has rejected that elements of its past and is authentically committed to the creation of a new social order” (Kennedy, 1993:71).
Clearly, the backward look at the motives of indigenisation suggests a compensative approach which seeks compensatory justice for previous acts. If looked at from this ethnical perspective, then the backward-looking argument in support of indigenisation becomes justified and justice delivery requires urgency since justice delayed is justice denied. The ethics principle of justice
43
would therefore justify the backward-looking arguments that support indigenisation. Justice delivery calls for immediate action as one of the social ethical virtues that is given priority. The colonial practices were unjust. From consequentialism the consequences of indigenisation clearly lead to improvements in the future equality of the societies of post-colonial African states. This pursues the equal opportunity principle in ethics.
While debates and arguments on indigenisation have both been forward- and backward looking, it is important to have a clear understanding of the sources or origins of the calls for indigenisation. Backward looking arguments support indigenisation on the basis that it compensates for the harmful effects of colonial injustices. The initial views that supported indigenisation took a backward-looking argument. There has however, been an increase in the forward-looking arguments in support of indigenisation though historical sources of calls for indigenisation, giving greater relevance to the backward-looking debates.
Boxill and Boxill (2003:118) however warned of the dangers with backward-looking debates which tend to open old wounds. While forward-looking arguments are gaining popularity among scholars, backward-looking arguments should not be overlooked. He argues that if backward- looking arguments are sound and seeking to redress past injustices then indigenisation can be viewed as a demand for justice which makes it an issue of highest priority. Forward looking arguments may not receive similar priority. Boxill and Boxill’s (2003:118) views on forward- looking arguments say that if they are anchored on the idea of coming up with improved ways of life for people, such as the black Africans, and reducing racial stratification and discrimination, there are many ways to achieve them. Therefore, indigenisation based on forward looking debates may not be the best. The backward-looking argument that is based on compensation offers some way to deliver justice. But justice is viewed as the first virtue of a society. This ethical principle gives credit to the arguments that are backward and justice seeking. Justice is a highly contested term however, the understanding of justice in ethics is that, each person should be given what he or she deserves or simply giving each person his or her dues. It is closely related to fairness and equality. Disagreements and conflict of interests are evident in trying to correct the undesirable social and economic effects of marginalisation and discrimination that was practiced on black Africans by colonial authorities. It therefore requires principles which help deliver a fair outcome. These principles of justice should be acceptable by all as reasonable
44
and fair guidelines for coming up with what people deserve. To simply declare equal social and economic standing for the blacks and whites without reversing the advantage of those who benefitted over blacks will not be fair. To bring equality in a fair way, some compensatory justice must be delivered. In compensatory justice two questions need to be answered. First, who is to be compensated and by how much? Second, who is responsible for the cost of compensation and how much should they pay? (Amdur,1979:229). Answers to the first question are not as contested as these to the second question. To avoid the challenges of who should pay the costs, the related compensatory costs have been encapsulated in policies which give preferential treatment to blacks.
Informed by the historical issues that led to the call for indigenisation, one good consequence claimed by indigenisation is to have an environment of equal business opportunities for all. From an applied ethics perspective this is informed by the equal opportunity principle. The argument here is that business opportunities should be given to all and the best in the field of business will succeed, and not to stratify people in a way that discriminates others (Boxill and Boxill, 2003:119). In most instances such discrimination would have been done on the basis of factors which have nothing to do with the potential success of prospective people in business.
One of the benefits of the equal opportunity principle is utilitarian. African economies will prosper as greater participation is open to all and maximum business or economic performance will be realised when those most capable are allowed to participate without restrictions.
However, as Boxill and Boxill (2003:119) observed, the equal opportunity principle can be best applied in cases where the background of those prospective business people is the same and does not give an advantage to others. In cases were those who could have been good business people were coming from disadvantaged position they may not succeed if made to compete on an equal opportunity principle. This makes the equal opportunity and utilitarianism incomplete as there is an element of discrimination because of unequal historical opportunities. Some form of preferential treatment would be required, but this then would be in violation of the equal opportunity principle, although it helps to create opportunities which are more equal for the previously disadvantaged. This is what the economic ethic of indigenisation seeks to achieve.
Preferential treatment is forward looking as Boxill and Boxill (2003:121) stated: “Preferential treatment is justified entirely on forward looking considerations, namely, that it will make
45
opportunities more equal for blacks...” As such, it cannot be viewed as a compensation for previous harm.
What Boxill and Boxill note here is that declaring equal opportunities for black entrepreneurs and European business people is not enough to achieve equal opportunities for everyone to participate in the economy. The declaration needs to be complemented by some preferential treatment of the blacks who trail behind in order to create an environment that is more equal for all to participate in the economy. While the consequences of indigenisation can be regarded as desirable from consequentialism, the practice may be found unacceptable as it tends to be discriminating. Boxill and Boxill (2003:121) argued that the practice violates human rights and it violates the rights of the white former colonisers.
Another forward-looking argument for indigenisation is that it reduces economic racial stratification and therefore racial economic prejudice. However, it has been argued by Boxill and Boxill (2003:123) that the blacks who become successful on the basis of preferential treatment from affirmative action will always believe that their success was a result of some unfair practice. If the argument of reducing racial stratification is to be sustained it has to be free from the belief that the success of others was the result of some unfair practice. Despite these criticisms, this argument is irresistible as it reduces social inequalities. Boxill and Boxill (2003:124) perceived racial prejudice as unqualifiedly evil and anything that reduces it would be morally good.
The backward-looking arguments for indigenisation view it as a way of compensating for past injustices or injuries arising therefrom. As Boxill and Boxill (2003:124) put it, there are two forms of this backward-looking argument. The first perspective is that indigenisation compensates blacks for the injuries they suffer as a result of the unfair and unjust racial prejudice and discrimination that was deliberately directed at them. There are two versions of this argument based on compensation for unjust racial prejudice or discrimination. One is that indigenisation is compensation for specific acts of discrimination such as being denied the opportunity to invest in a specific sector and location on the basis of race. The other version is that indigenisation is compensation for injuries suffered as a result of racist economic practices.
46
Most scholars agree that indigenisation may be appropriate for compensation of past racial prejudice and discrimination, at least where the discriminator pays the costs of compensation.
The argument for compensation for injuries has been more controversial than the other version.
In this argument some scholars submit that all blacks in post-colonial SADC states have suffered injuries that deserve compensation even if they have not suffered directly from specific acts of racial discrimination. As Thurgood Marshall noted in relation to the injuries of American racism on blacks, “…it is unnecessary in the twentieth century America to have individual Negroes demonstrate that they have been victims of racial discrimination …… (It) has been so pervasive that none, regardless of wealth or position, has managed to escape its impact.”
(Tushnet, 2001:353). What Tushnet observed in America is the same situation if not worse in post-colonial African countries where the impact of past pervasive discrimination is still being felt by the blacks.
The second backward looking argument for indigenisation is that it is compensation for the present generation of post-colonial black Africans for injuries they have sustained as a result of racial unjust ill treatment of their forefathers. This argument applies to injuries suffered by the forefathers or ancestors of the present generation of post-colonial black Africans. Though there are criticisms of this view based on the fact that one can only be compensated for injuries one has personally suffered. What this criticism appears to be lacking is that this backward-looking argument only appeals to the injuries of the ancestors but seeks compensation to present day blacks for their injuries arising from their ancestors’ injuries. As argued by the concept of historical trauma which observes a complex and collective social trauma, a commonly shared history of oppression, discrimination and deprivation, suffered over time and across generations by a group of people who have a common identity such as those colonized African groups. The “trauma” or wounds of social and economic injustices experienced by individuals of an earlier generation are shared by a group of people, rather than an individual experience; the injuries span multiple generations, such that the present generation of the affected group who experience the effects without having been present during the past traumatizing event(s). Historical trauma can be discussed in terms of repeated narratives which link present-day occurrences to injuries and suffering arising from past injustices which could have taken place centuries back. Though historical trauma can be taken as a
47
narrative, it is essential to realize that these narratives have a relationship with to real injustices (Campbell & Evans-Campbell, 2011). This comes from the understanding that the injuries on the ancestors also caused indirect injuries on the present-day descendants of black Africans.
As Boxill and Boxill (2003:125) observe, no reputable historian can deny that the legacy of colonialism has deeply affected and harmed the present generation of blacks. They are starting off from a weaker social and economic position as they did not have much to inherit from their ancestors. The other, perhaps, more important argument based on the legacy of pre-colonial injustices is that descendants of blacks are generally despised because they are descendants of socially lowly regarded blacks and this continues to hold blacks down and they cannot participate freely in the economic development of their countries. They are side-lined in big business deals by rich whites. Furthermore, the legacy gives blacks the feeling that they cannot succeed. Indigenisation would them help restore hope as a way of compensation.
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter discussed and analysed the historical issues that led to the calls for indigenisation by most SADC countries. The history of the region shows the existence of social and economic systems which were discriminatory, unjust and favouring the white colonial masters. To that, the development of indigenous capitalists was systematically suppressed and yet indigenous capitalism is said to be an essential and missing element required to help develop the African economies and reduce poverty. Unfortunately, the black people come from a socially and economically disadvantaged position which requires extraordinary measures to correct, hence governments in SADC countries came up with controversial policies such as indigenisation.
It can be concluded that during the colonial era an environment was created for promoting social and economic inequities in favour of the minority whites. This later led to calls for indigenisation by the independent SADC states. The colonial injustices justified the calls for the African economic ethic of indigenisation or black economic empowerment. Indigenisation as a policy is not without faults and inadequacies. There is need to study all the options that are available to
48
ethically bring blacks to participate in the mainstream economic activities of their countries even if they come from a background characterised by racism, injustice and discrimination.
Chapter three focuses on how the principles of regional economic integration would relate to the African economic ethic of indigenisation.
49
CHAPTER THREE: REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND THE AFRICAN ECONOMIC ETHIC OF INDIGENISATION