One community, one legitimate voice

The Ovambanderu people have a long and difficult history - one marked by resilience, displacement, leadership struggles, cultural survival and the determination to preserve their identity. For that very reason, the question of traditional leadership should not be treated as a matter of personalities or factional interests. It is fundamentally a question of institutional legitimacy, unity, governance, historical responsibility and the future of the Ovambanderu nation.The concern is not that members of the Ovambanderu community may hold different opinions. Diversity of opinion is legitimate and necessary. The concern arises when an unrecognised structure presents itself to the public, government and especially the younger generation as though it possesses the same legal and institutional standing as the recognised traditional authority.This creates confusion about who legitimately speaks on behalf of the Ovambanderu community, who is responsible for traditional governance, who represents the community in engagements with the government, and whose decisions should be relied upon.The consequences of this confusion extend far beyond the present generation.Danger of two centres of powerA traditional community cannot effectively navigate modern governance when two competing structures claim authority over the same people and territory.The recognised traditional authority operates within the framework of the law and is the institution through which the government can engage traditional leadership on matters affecting the community. An unrecognised faction, however, may continue to organise meetings, make pronouncements, engage institutions and mobilise community members despite lacking the same legal recognition.The result is institutional uncertainty.Perhaps the most serious consequence is the message being transmitted to the Ovambanderu youth.Young people are currently growing up in an environment where they are exposed to competing narratives about traditional leadership. If an unrecognised structure continues to operate publicly as though it has equal standing with the recognised authority, young people may understandably ask: Who should we believe? Who is our legitimate traditional authority? Why are there two structures? Does recognition by the government matter? Can anyone establish a competing traditional council and claim authority? These are not insignificant questions.The youth are the custodians of tomorrow’s Ovambanderu identity. If they inherit confusion rather than clarity, the consequences will extend for decades.Today’s historyHistory is not only written by historians. Communities write history through their actions.The current generation of Ovambanderu leaders therefore has a responsibility to ensure that today’s disputes do not become tomorrow’s historical narrative.Future generations will ask why the Ovambanderu community experienced prolonged institutional division even after the State had determined which traditional authority was legally recognised.They will ask why some leaders chose cooperation while others chose continued confrontation.They will ask whether the leadership of our generation prioritised the interests of the Ovambanderu people or the survival of particular factions.Development cannot effectively be driven in an environment of competing and unclear traditional authority.Government development programmes often require consultation with traditional leaders on matters such as communal land, community infrastructure, cultural heritage, settlement planning, natural resources and other matters affecting traditional communities.If the government is confronted with competing structures claiming to represent the same people, development processes can become unnecessarily complicated.Imagine a development project requiring community consultation.Participation &amp; recognitionThere is an important distinction between allowing people to participate in democratic public life and recognising an institution as a traditional authority.Members of an unrecognised faction remain citizens. They have constitutional rights to freedom of expression, association and participation in public affairs, subject to the law.But those rights do not automatically confer upon an organisation the legal status of a recognised traditional authority.Government therefore needs a clear policy of engagement.Participation in public consultation should not be confused with institutional recognition.An unrecognised association or faction can express its views on development, culture, history and public policy. But that does not necessarily mean that the government should treat it as an alternative traditional authority where the law recognises another institution.Government has an obligation to engage communities broadly, but it also has an obligation to maintain clarity in its administrative dealings.Where a traditional authority is legally recognised, Government departments should consistently identify and engage that authority in matters falling within its lawful mandate.This does not mean that the government should silence people who disagree with the recognised authority.It means that the government should be clear about who possesses what institutional mandate.Development projects should not become bargaining platforms for competing traditional factions.Nor should the government inadvertently strengthen an unrecognised structure by giving it the same institutional status as a recognised traditional authority.If the government continuously treats competing structures as equivalent, it risks creating a situation where recognition becomes meaningless in practice.There is also a broader question that deserves honest public discussion.If a particular faction repeatedly positions itself against government initiatives, government policies or national efforts concerning issues affecting the Ovambanderu community, it becomes legitimate to ask whether that faction is functioning primarily as a traditional institution or increasingly as a political opposition platform.Traditional authorities have an important role in representing the interests, culture and aspirations of their communities. They may and sometimes must raise concerns with the government.But there is a difference between constructive engagement with the government and systematically positioning a traditional institution as an adversarial political platform.The genocide question illustrates this complexity.The Ovambanderu genocide and the recognition of the suffering of our ancestors should unite the community, not become another battlefield for competing political or traditional factions.A traditional authority can disagree with the government while remaining a traditional authority. But when disagreement becomes the defining feature of an institution’s relationship with the state, the public is entitled to ask whether the institution is still primarily performing a traditional governance function or has become something fundamentally different.Let history record that our generation ended the division, not that we became the generation that prolonged it.*Katjingurukee Tsepo Mutenge holds a bachelor of laws from the Open University of Tanzania and is a community activist from the Red Dunes of Eiseb, Omikai-kai.

One community, one legitimate voice

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-11-02

Please login to leave a comment

One community, one legitimate voice

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-11-02

Please login to leave a comment

Subscription Required to Access Content ×

Subscription Required to Access Content