Neotraditional authority contested: the corporatization of tradition and the quest for democracy in the Topnaar Traditional Authority, Namibia

Abstract

This article examines two closely related themes: the triangle of tradition, capital and the state; and resistance to neotraditional leadership and local activism for democracy. I investigate an uprising in the Topnaar Traditional Authority in the Erongo region of Namibia by young community activists who aimed to promote democracy in their community in a context of manifold accusations of self-enrichment and corruption against the neotraditional leadership. The article demonstrates that the corporatization of tradition is a double-edged sword: neotraditional leaders expand their local power towards their subjects in the short term, but it often produces severe conflict that may result in the delegitimization of neotraditional authority in the long run. However, the Topnaar youth uprising and quest for democracy was less about challenging neotraditional authority per se and more about replacing the incumbents as well as obtaining a fair share of political power. It resulted from the perception that the neotraditional-cum-corporate ventures no longer served the cause of a common good; this, in turn, contradicted the general ideal of equality among the Topnaar. The corporatization of tradition thus generated local grievances and stimulated demands for democratic participation. Since the uprising gained at least some of its momentum from my research on neotraditional authority, I also reflect on my role.

Can the center hold? Boundary actors and marginality in a community-based natural resource management network

“…When many Nama groups were nearly exterminated (Olusoga and Erichsen 2010), the Topnaar successfully resisted the forced relocation attempted by the South West Africa apartheid government (Widlok 1998, Hopkins 2020). This peripheral status, however, is no longer serving the community, as shown by the recent publication of Topnaar internal struggles (Krämer 2020), which prompts further analysis of the marginalizing effects of this distance between the center and the periphery.…”

“…As a result of their elite position in CBNRM, traditional authorities in Namibia, and elsewhere, are often accused of capturing and corporatizing the community's natural and cultural resources (Bixler et al 2016). Concurrently, traditional leaders tend to favor top-down decision making over transparency and participatory approaches and may garner a disproportionate share of benefits (Botelle and Kowalski 1995, Kashululu 2009, Krämer 2020). These practices have been termed "neotraditional leadership" (Baldwin 2016, Krämer 2020.…”

“…Concurrently, traditional leaders tend to favor top-down decision making over transparency and participatory approaches and may garner a disproportionate share of benefits (Botelle and Kowalski 1995, Kashululu 2009, Krämer 2020). These practices have been termed "neotraditional leadership" (Baldwin 2016, Krämer 2020. Thus, although traditional authorities can be important information brokers and boundary actors, adoption of neotraditional practices can undermine their ability to effectively play these roles (Krämer 2020).…”

“…These practices have been termed "neotraditional leadership" (Baldwin 2016, Krämer 2020. Thus, although traditional authorities can be important information brokers and boundary actors, adoption of neotraditional practices can undermine their ability to effectively play these roles (Krämer 2020).…”

“…In this study, we explored the role of boundary actors in bridging the divides between selected state CBNRM structures and local communities that have been forged by historical and current patterns of marginalization (Di Marco et al 2010, Schnegg 2018, Krämer 2020. Although prior research has documented the importance of boundary actors in CBNRM (Mollinga 2010), there is a lack of research on their effectiveness in promoting equity, inclusion, and collective action in CBNRM arenas.…”