Food and livelihood politics: Native agriculture more than yields

Last week, in the first instalment, we dealt with the question of alleged development through dispossession of the natives and the traditional leadership. It is argued therein that of the elements of colonialism – occupation, control and domination – only occupation ceased to exist, while control and domination of the natives remains.

The formulation concluded that continuity of control and domination is a tragic failure of imagination on the part of our leadership. Colonialism thus survives through alienation and subordination of the natives’ subjectivities. The native’s orientation towards agriculture is similarly alienated, with foreign agricultural outlook privileged. When our leaders talk of agriculture, their minds do not stretch beyond capitalist orientation. The purpose of agriculture thus becomes solely for supplying the market for profit.

This stands opposed to the African outlook to agriculture.

For Africans, agriculture operates within the greater framework of their societal organising principle, African collectivism, where agriculture primarily exists for the survival of families and communities.

When this is secured, individuals consider exchanging surplus for the goods they do not have. The ‘market’ was never the primary focus of African agriculturalists.

Each family is expected to grow and produce its own food. The traditional leadership ensured that each family carried out this responsibility. This ensured that the individual, who is subordinate to the collective, is secure through working the land.

If it is discovered that the individual is not working the land for a prescribed period, such land would be taken by the traditional leadership and given to the next member of the community who stands ready and able to work the land. Agriculture is thus a collective - as opposed to private - activity aimed to ensure the survival of the community.

Narrow approachBecause this philosophical outlook has been lost, middle-class youth returning from universities question their parents on why they are working the mahangu fields considering lower yields. “Why do we spend a lot of money cultivating mahangu just to get key kilograms? We can just use the money to buy mahangu at the market?” the indoctrinated youth would argue.

It doesn’t immediately appear to them that the mahangu at the market was produced and if everyone starts thinking like them, one day there will be no mahangu at the market. Our children must understand that mahangu goes beyond input cost and market dynamics.

Mahangu is a unique crop without which the lives of communities producing it would be negatively affected. From mahangu, porridge is produced, which is a staple food for these communities. Soft porridge for babies can be healthier than baby food.

A traditional soft drink, ontaku/oshikundu, is produced from mahangu. Another brew, omalovu giilya, is also produced from mahangu and used for important festivities. A traditional bread, oshikwiila, is produced from mahangu. When mixed with water, mahangu also cures a runny stomach (diarrhoea).

Mahangu can feed chicken. In producing flour from mahangu, a product called ‘uuhutu’ is produced used to feed both dogs and pigs. It must be recalled that mahangu stalk, ‘oshihenguti’, is also used as building materials. It is further consumed by cattle, goats, sheep and donkeys.

In summary, mahangu can produce and is used for food, drinks, medicine, building materials and animal feed, amongst others. Buying mahangu, instead of producing it, means parting ways with building materials and animal feed, amongst others. Seeing mahangu from a market and yield perspective is to take a narrow approach and to miss a lot.

Social engineeringEmbedded in mahangu production is social engineering, including gender orientation and roles. For example, while girls are taught to sow and transplant mahangu, boys are responsible for protecting the crop from harm and destruction.

There is also the spiritual dynamic. As the rain pours, mothers would be heard paying tribute to the gods; “iyaloo Tate kalunga, nayi loke twaakayake twaakagume sha shomuntu. Iyaloo kalunga kayaanasha naayamba” (thank God, let it rain so that we do not steal and touch other people’s things. Thank you God of both the rich and the poor).

As such, going into the field to produce mahangu is also seen as tribute to a caring God who gave the rain freely so that the natives could help themselves. After the harvest, a festivity called ‘oshipe’ is held to thank God and the ancestors for the rain and produce.

At the end of the season, each household is required to contribute a small portion of their produce, called oompale’, to the traditional leadership. This is used for safekeeping as a form of social security to assist the needy during difficult times.

To see mahangu production from a yield perspective is to miss all these aspects.

Who controls the change?Like mahangu, goats and cattle are more than products for the market. Goats and cattle are used as currency and also used to pay fines. Like mahangu again, goats can cure some diseases. For example, if a child has mumps, a kid (baby goat) is used to scream into the ear of a child. In a matter of days, the mumps would be history.

To an indoctrinated youth returning from town, taking care of five goats is a waste of time - until he comes across mumps. To look at native agriculture from a yield perspective is to miss all these aspects.

Of course, things are changing. But the question is: Who is controlling the change and who does the new represent and advantage?

Despite modernisation, the Italians and Chinese have not lost nor abandoned their food. You still find Italian and Chinese restaurants in New York. Whose food are these restaurants selling and where is it produced? Is there a country that has such a thing as Namibian restaurants?

Chinese and Italian restaurants are already in Namibia. Very soon, it will be easier to get seafood and Chinese dishes than omagungu and oshikwiilwa in restaurants in Ondangwa.

Sadly, the environment ministry - led by black leaders such as Pohamba Shifeta, Theo Nghitila and Timoteus Mufeti - will soon succeed in their efforts to further squeeze blacks, their food and livelihoods. They already started telling poor villagers not to hunt birds. Their grandfathers probably brought them up with bird meat. We have also seen them making comments about omagungu. It is only when we realise that there is such a thing as food and livelihood politics that we see that we’re headed down a slippery slope.

Those of us who can we must orient our children to understand that agriculture, to us as Africans, is more than yields. He who feeds you controls you, as ancestor Thomas Sankara told us. In the last instalment of this series, we will consider the options at our disposal to reverse the tide!

* Dr Job Shipululo Amupanda is the activist-in-chief of the Affirmative Repositioning movement and a former mayor of Windhoek. He holds a PhD in political studies from the University of Namibia, where he serves as senior lecturer.