by Virginia Kapembeza
At a time when integration throughout the Southern African region seems within reach, secession claims strike a hollow, yet disturbing ring.
In Zambia, Tanzania, Angola, Mozambique and South Africa at least one group has made calls to secede from central government. These sentiments were encouraged by the successful secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia in 1993, although the latter has quite different historical roots.
Secessionism can be driven by a desire to affirm vested self-interest or to pursue an autonomous political, economic, social and cultural development due to dissatisfaction with central government. Some claims for secession are due to political expediency.
In Zambia, Lozis from the Western Province, one of the four largest ethnic groups, want to break away and press for their demands through a traditional system led by the Litunga (king).
A Lusaka lawyer, John Sangwa, says the right to self-determination is recognized as a human right but, in Zambia, it is a colonial legacy. Under the latter, traditional societies with different social, economic and political organizations were forcefully brought together under one state.
After almost 30 years of one-party rule and national unity, three years of political pluralism have brought ethnic polarization. A university of Zambia lecturer, Jonathan Mweene says, “Tribes have always been nations separate from each other, and democracy has opened the way for the tribes of Zambia to express this yearning.”
Although some observers support the idea of secession, some argue that it may lead to the disintegration of a nation, while others argue that there should be no special status for the Litunga when there are 73 other tribal chiefs.
On 17 July 1993, over 5 000 Lozi loyalists met at their headquarters in Sikalo- Kuta and resolved to break away from Zambia and assume its original name of Barotseland. They went as far as suggesting that they will seek recognition from Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland because of their historical ties as British protectorates.
There is, however, division among the loyalists, some of whom are not seeking to secede but only to force the restoration of the Barotse Agreement of 1964 which gave the Litunga powers over land, forests and hunting rights.
The agreement, signed by former president Kenneth Kaunda and Chief Lewanika of the Lozis, outlawed secession.
The Zambian government has said it would not tolerate attempts by Barotseland to secede from the rest of the country. Remmy Mushota, the Minister of Information, says that the republican constitution states clearly that Zambia’s nine provinces make up a unitary state and this does not provide for secession. “The question of secession does not arise constitutionally. It could only be possible through an armed rebellion,” says Mushota. President Frederick Chiluba, already troubled by other crises, warned of arrests, branding the demands an act of treason. “This nation is an indivisible unitary state.”
Our borders are unalterable and our fundamental law gives this nation perpetual existence in its present form. “…the Western Province was an integral part of Zambia and government would use all its resources at its disposal to defend, protect and safeguard the integrity of the nation,” Chiluba added.
Unlike Kaunda, who balanced tribal powers in his cabinet, Chiluba emphasized that he would appoint his ministers on merit. Government has, through a series of constitutional amendments, eroded the local government authority which the Litunga enjoyed at independence in 1964 when Barotseland merged with Zambia.
In September last year, the Litunga, Ilute Yeta, was earning US$38 per month. Meanwhile, in Tanzania, the importance of the tribe has almost vanished. Last year, however, fifty-seven members of parliament called for a referendum in favour of a separate government and parliament for mainland Tanganyika, and the government agreed.
The union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, which on 26 April 1964 led to the creation of the United Republic of Tanzania, is now threatened. “It may not be today or tomorrow — but definitely a breakup is imminent,” says a political scientist at the University of Dar es Salaam.
With the introduction of political pluralism, antiunion sentiments are now resurfacing, especially among opposition parties, but also among some Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) parliamentarians who believe that Zanzibar is like a sovereign state within a state, sharing unequal responsibilities.
“While there is no clause that segregates residents of both parts of the union, mainlanders are required to carry passports to enter Zanzibar, which means Zanzibaris have more freedom than mainlanders,” said Njelu Kasaka, MP for Chunya in southern Mbeya.
The mainlanders are insisting on equal treatment with Zanzibaris. Anti-unionists in the mainland argue that although Tanganyika generates the money which sustains the union, most prominent government posts are occupied by Zanzibaris.
Mainlanders are required to pay for electricity, but in Zanzibar it is free. Another reason that has fuelled secession sentiments in Tanzania is Zanzibar’S secret membership to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which political observers see as a breach of the union constitution. They acknowledge, however, that Tanganyika’s secession will not destroy Islamic fundamentalism which is also very strong in the mainland.
Zanzibar, meanwhile, has been inconsistent in its reaction to the Tanzanian union. Originally the former was the one complaining about the union, but now it prefers the union to continue, as a breakup would undermine the union.
The Zanzibaris themselves are divided. Most of those from the main island of Unguja are African descendants, and so favour the union. Zanzibaris in Pemba are of Arab descent and prefer to strengthen their relationship with the Arab world.
Former president Julius Nyerere, whose brainchild the union is, warned that creating a Tanganyika government would lead to President Ali Hassan Mwinyi becoming another Gorbachev – a president without a country. “Have you found a Yeltsin?” he once asked.
In Angola, separatist sentiment is widespread in the coastal enclave of Cabinda. With a population of 200000 people, the enclave is cut off from the rest of Angola by Zaire’s narrow corridor to the sea.
During the 1992 elections only seven percent of Cabinda’s electorate voted. The Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC), a separatist guerilla movement, has been in existence for 30 years. One of its wings was the driving force behind the election boycott. “The people of Cabinda never had the intention to integrate with the rest of Angola”, said Hilario Martinho Bala, an advocate for Cabinda’s independence.
Also calling for secession are the Bakongo in Uige and Zaire provinces in Angola. The Movement for the self-determination of Kongos (Mako) has been linked to Cabinda and their alliance has allegedly assumed military levels.
In Mozambique, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported in April that a separatist movement called Rombezia has resurfaced. Under the leadership of little-known Manuel Rocha, the movement wants to fulfil a dream from over 30 years ago — creating a new autonomous state within Mozambique between the Rovuma and Zambezi rivers in the north of the country.
South Africa’s white rightwingers have also sought secession, demanding the creation of a volkstaat — an independent state for the Afrikaner minority. South African president Nelson Mandela has ruled out the creation of an autonomous white homeland.
“As long as I live, there will never be a volkstaat in this country,” he says. Initially, the whites drew strength from their alliance with the Zulus and the Tswana in Kwazulu and Bophutatswana respectively. The deposing of President Lucas Mangope and the eleventhhour registration for elections by the leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), Gatsha Buthelezi, weakened the secession threat.
Mandela maintains that he is willing to negotiate demands by a few whites seeking self-determination as long as this is achieved within the South African state.
The Afrikaner Freedom Front (AFF) leader, Constand Viljoen, himself acknowledges that it will not be possible to create a separate volkstaat because the Afrikaners are a minority in all areas — and that makes any idea of a forced removal of blacks cumbersome.
While most Afrikaners would like an independent state, they are not ready to tackle the attendant implications. Some do not want to leave their properties and the uprooting it entails. The likely areas for the volkstaat, parts of the Transvaal, are agriculturally poor and have large populations of blacks.
Another problem is that heterogeneous populations ensure economic viability — the use of labourers in farms, mines or factories, and this would be negatively affected if a white mini-state were carved out and blacks were driven out.
In the affected countries, however, there is little possibility of the secessionists and governments reaching a mutually beneficial agreement.
