On the Barotse Question

Much has been made of the issue of Barotseland and its quest to secede from Zambia whom it brands as "illegal occupiers of their land". For those not schooled in Zambian regional politics, Barotseland is part of Zambia's Western province, home of people of the Lozi persuasion under their traditional ruler King Lewanika also known as The Litunga. As opposed to the rest of Zambia or Northern Rhodesia then, Barotseland was a British protectorate and not a colony. Upon assumption of independence in 1964, the much referred to Barotse Agreement (BA 64) was signed between Zambia and Barotseland so that the two could be one country. The document, which I have read, spells out a number of non controversial obligations that the Zambian government will have over Barotseland such as equitable distribution of wealth, recognition of its traditonal rulers and so forth. In short the normal standards one would expect a government to uphold for any of its regions and peoples.

Though the exact boundaries and composition of Barotseland are not clear, the debate recently has been steered by the Barotse National Council who earlier this year resolved to secede from the rest of Zambia. In so doing they wrote to the government of the Republic of Zambia informing it of their decision and their intention to swiftly inform international organisations such as the African Union and United Nations. The main reason for their action they said was the abrogation of the BA 1964 by successive Zambian governments to the point that the relationship between the two had deteriorated irreconcilably. I do not wish to delve into the legal nuances of the BA 64, not only am I not a lawyer, but a lot has been written regarding that. I just wish to point one or two points that I think are extremely important in this debate.

As a neutral I cannot help but notice that there is a significant chunk of the debate that is steeped in romanticism. The idea of returning to a pristine existence untainted by the Zambian government where the land flows with milk and honey, to borrow the Biblical cliche has driven a sizable portion of the reasoning. And for such a story, you need a villain hence the casting of Zambia as "the occupiers". Obviously romanticism does generate plenty of passion as this debate itself can reveal judging by the heated discussions on blogs. I am scared that in the ensuing emotional melee rational discourse will be and has been lost. For example I have yet to be persuaded on the exact ways in which the BA 64 has been abrogated. Even more seriously no one has come up with a succinct alternative of how they are going to redress the situation apart from calling for secession.

A bygone era alluringly beckons!


The problem with reasoning muddled by romanticism coupled with yearning for a bygone era is that it often glosses over important points. For example has anyone thought of how the governance structure of the proposed new country is going to be like, what role the Litunga will play, the actual boundaries, waht about Namibia etc. But perhaps all this dwarfs when you compare it with the often neglected sin of creating unrealistic hopes in the people. Agitators of the Barotse cause should make it clear that simply seceding from Zambia will not instantly turn Barotseland into a land flowing with riches as numerous as its sands and opulence to turn the rest of humanity green with envy. Let the people know what they are getting into. Eritrea is a good example where years after separating from Ethiopia the country keeps getting deeper into the clutches of poverty while its leaders have created a rich ruling elite akin to the North Korean dynasty.


One of the many maps

Let it also be said that contrary to popular portrayal no one was coerced into signing the BA 64. Both sides saw that there were benefits to be obtained from such an arrangement and went for it. Unfortunately some people even within the Lozi ranks have been made villains and called names because of their part in this agreement. I can understand the frustration Barotse people feel at the lack of development, its a frustration shared by the poor of Luapula, Southern, Eastern and the rest of the provinces. The fact that there is uneven distribution of wealth is inescapable regardless of the province one comes from and regardless of the agreement that made them be part of Zambia.

My opinion on the Barotse issue is that it has dragged on for too long. Frankly it makes no difference to me whether Barotseland secedes or not. If Barotseland wants self-rule, then let them go ahead. There is no point in keeping someone against their will. Frankly I cannot see any benefits for the Lozis apart from the sense of patriotism and pride that has been so ubiquitously invoked in this debate. But whether patriotism and pride is enough to turn around lives of millions steeped in poverty is another thing altogether and romanticism aside, might prove extremely tricky.