Guide to Citizens’ Rights and Responsibilities

part of the territory rose in rebellion in 1904, and the Germans suppressed
them in a genocidal war that resulted in perhaps two-thirds of the Herero and
half the Nama people of the south losing their lives.
In World War I (1914–1918) the Germans were ousted from Namibia by the
South Africans, allies of the British, and South African occupation then continued
from 1915 until the independence of Namibia in March 1990. For this extended
period the territory was ruled as a de facto colony of South Africa, which would
have annexed the territory had it been allowed to do so. Instead, Namibia
became a mandate under the League of Nations in 1921, and from 1946, when
the new United Nations ( UN) refused to allow South Africa to incorporate the
territory, the UN assumed some responsibility for it.
■ ■ ■  
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
163
F A S T   F A C T S
The Caprivi Strip is a finger of land in north-
east Namibia that was annexed to the country
to allow the German rulers to access to the
Zambezi River.
■ ■ ■  

When South Africa refused to withdraw, the issue went to the International
Court of Justice ( ICJ) in The Hague. When the court there did not find in favor
of South Africa’s withdrawal, the UN General Assembly terminated the mandate
in 1966 and began a process that led to the Namibian issue being taken up by the
Security Council, which referred the matter back to the ICJ. In 1971 the ICJ ruled
that South African rule was illegal and South Africa must withdraw. It took almost
two decades for that to be accomplished, during which a major liberation war
was fought by the South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO).
Not only was the South African rule extremely oppressive and brutal, and its
last phase highly militaristic, but the majority of the population lived in great
poverty. In 1978 South Africa was persuaded to agree to a plan for a transition to
independence involving the UN, and a decade later—by which time the war with
SWAPO had extended far into Angola—finally agreed to its implementation. A UN
presence helped ensure that the first democratic election held in the territory in
November 1989 was reasonably free and fair.
When a SWAPO government took office at independence, it faced the prob-
lems left by over a century of colonialism and decades of 
apartheid
rule and
war. The main port, Walvis Bay, remained under South African rule until it was
incorporated in 1994. Although SWAPO was not known for commitment to
democratic practice, under the influence of the international community, which
164
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N a m i b i a
apartheid: an official policy of racial segrega-
tion in the Republic of South Africa with a
goal of promoting and maintaining white
domination
■ ■ ■  
K A L A H A R I
D E S E R T
Ca pr i
v i Strip
Cape
Dernberg
Wreck
Point
S
k
e
l
e
t
o
n
C
o
a
s
t
N
A
M
I
B
D
E
S
E
R
T
N
A
M
I
B
D
E
S
E
R
T
K
a
o
k
o
V
e
l
d
K
a
u
k
a
u
   
V
e l
d
Okavango
Swamps
Etosha
Pan
Kunene
C
u
ba
ngo
C
uit
o
Za
m
be
zi
Ch
ob
e
Om
ata
ko
Eiseb
Ug
ab
N
o
ss
o
b
A
u
ob
F
is
h
Orange
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
S a n d w i c h   B a y
C o n c e p t i o n
B a y
H o t t e n t o t
B a y
Walvis Bay
Oshakati
Grootfontein
Tsumkwe
Otavi
Outjo
Omaruru
Karibib
Okahandja
Rehoboth
Mariental
Maltahöhe
Bethanien
Aroab
Lüderitz
Karasburg
Oranjemund
Ondangwa
Epembe
Tsumeb
Otjiwarongo
Swakopmund
Gobabis
Mamuno
Epukiro
Khakhea
Bokspits
Ghanzi
Tsau
Bagani
Luiana
Neriquinha
Maun
Keetmanshoop
Windhoek
Rundu
Katima
Mulilo
A N G O L A
Z A M B I A
B O T S W A N A
S O U T H       A F R I C A
Namibia
W
S
N
E
NAMIBIA
300 Miles
0
0
300 Kilometers
225
75
150
225
75
150
Ok avango
Konigstein Pk.
8,550 ft.
2606 m.
(MAP BY MARYLAND CARTOGRAPHICS/ THE GALE GROUP)

had played a very important role in bringing Namibia to independence, the con-
stitution approved by the elected Constituent Assembly prior to independence
was a liberal democratic one, providing for an elected president and multiparty
system. However, after taking office, the SWAPO government has tended to rule
in an 
authoritarian
manner, in part a legacy of the years of exile and armed
struggle. SWAPO has not been challenged by any effective opposition because
the main opposition party, the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, was regarded by
many as having been a South African puppet, and the great majority of the
Ovambo-speaking people support SWAPO.
Although the original constitution limited the presidency to two terms, the
first president, the founder of SWAPO, Sam Nujoma ( b. 1929), persuaded his
party to allow him to continue for a third term, and the constitution was changed
to permit this. In March 2005, Hifikepunye Pohamba ( b. 1935), also a founding
member of SWAPO and Nujoma’s handpicked successor, was sworn in as the
country’s second president.
The opposition remains small and divided between the Democratic
Turnhalle Alliance and the Congress of Democrats, and parliament is ineffective.
A group of people from the northeastern Caprivi region who tried to stage an
uprising in 1998 in support of 
secession
was quickly detained and in 2004
remained on trial for treason. Some allege that they were tortured.
Although its mineral wealth brings the country considerable revenue, the
bulk of the population remains very impoverished and the prevalence rate of
HIV/AIDS is one of the highest in the world. Nevertheless the country is known
for its free press, which has recently criticized aspects of the government’s policy
to
redress
the unequal land distribution by embarking on a land reform program
involving
expropriation
of white-owned farms. The judicial system remains inde-
pendent of government and committed to the upholding of the basic freedoms
enshrined in the constitution. Whether a democratic culture is taking root among
the mass of the people remains to be seen, but compared to the repression and
lack of freedom under the apartheid regime, the country since independence has
enjoyed an era of great stability in which citizens have by and large enjoyed a large
measure of freedom.
See also: 
Peacekeeping Forces; South Africa; United Nations.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Hopwood, Graham. Guide to Namibian Politics. Windhoek, Namibia: Institute for Public
Policy Research, 2004. 
Melber, Henning ed. Re-examining Liberation in Namibia: Political Culture Since
Independence. Uppsala, Sweden: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 2003.
Nujoma, Sam. Where Others Wavered. London: Panaf Books, 2003.
Christopher Saunders
National Association
for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP)
See
Civil Rights Movement in the United States.
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
165
N a t i o n a l   A s s o c i a t i o n   f o r t h e A d v a n c e m e n t   o f   C o l o r e d P e o p l e ( N A A C P )
authoritarianism: the domination of the
state or its leader over individuals
■ ■ ■  
secede: to break away from, especially
politically
redress: to make right, or, compensation
expropriate: to take property from its owner
and give it to another, especially oneself;
usually accomplished through government
decree or legal procedures

Nationalist Movements
A nationalist movement is a social and political movement for obtaining and
maintaining national identity and autonomy among a group of people that some
of its members consider a nation. The underlying principle of its motivating
ideology, nationalism, is to uphold national interest or national identity as the
primary basis on which political decisions are made.
Most historians agree that, as an ideology, nationalism became prevalent in
North America and Western Europe in the latter half of the eighteenth century,
and shortly thereafter in Latin America. The first wave of nationalist movements
reached its peak during the 1848 revolutions in Europe, which led to the unifi-
cation of Germany and Italy. Toward the end of the nineteenth century a second
wave swept Eastern and Northern Europe, as well as Japan, India, Armenia, and
Egypt. Soon nationalist movements spread to most of Asia and parts of Africa. In
the twentieth century nationalist movements became a global phenomenon. In
many instances, such as the anticolonial struggles in Latin America, Asia, and
Africa, nationalist movements were a progressive force. However, nationalist
movements also led to some of the darkest moments in modern history, such
as the rise of fascism in Europe during the 1930s and 
ethnic cleansing
in the
former Yugoslavia during the 1990s.
The early theorists of nationalism highlighted the crucial role of sentiments
in modern politics as well as the importance of preexisting traditions such as
race, language, and culture. Later European nationalists reacted to industrializa-
tion and linked the economic aspect of a nation’s life to its culture and politics,
thus making nationalism a more powerful ideology. Nationalism’s appeal is
based on the perception of individuals as an integral part of a community who
cannot be defined in isolation from this community, rather than as independent
and self-sufficient people. Such a viewpoint provides ample justification for a
nationalist movement and its perceived uniqueness. 
T H E O R I E S   A N D   D E B AT E S
Nationalism and nationalist movements did not become the subject of his-
torical enquiry until the mid-nineteenth century, or of social scientific analysis
until the early twentieth century. In the wake of the widespread nationalist move-
ments of decolonization in Africa and Asia in the 1950s and 1960s, many models
and theories of nationalism emerged with the premise that nations and national-
ism are intrinsic to modernity. These theories perceive the nation as the creation
of a distinctively modernizing, industrial, and capitalist West, and the product of
specific social, economic, bureaucratic, and technological innovations.
During the decades that followed, the “
modernist
” view of nationalism was
further developed and refined as scholars redefined the nation as a purely intel-
lectual construct. The fundamental premise of this kind of theory is challenged
by “
primordialists
,” who point to modernism’s failure to grasp the recurring
nature of ethnic ties and to ground its understanding of modern nations in his-
tory and earlier traditions. They argue that the power of ethnicity and ethnic
history is crucial to understanding the modern nation-state, and the modern
nation-state would simply not exist without ethnic foundations, even though
such foundations are often idealized. These theorists hold that ethnicity,
although mutable and constantly evolving, limits the degree to which a given
cultural identity may be transformed. In this sense, it is not a mere fiction and
cannot be expected to vanish gradually as a result of modernization.
166
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N a t i o n a l i s t   M o v e m e n t s
ethnic cleansing: the systematic murder of
an entire ethnic group 
■ ■ ■  
modernism: a philosophy advocating ideas
and elements specific to modern times, or the
integration of those ideas into preexisting cul-
tures or beliefs
primordialism: a way of studying national-
ism that advocates looking at familial and
ethnic connections and their relation to
underlying conflicts

Over the years the differences between the modernists and primordialists
seem to have narrowed, at least among leading voices. At the same time, some
argue that both intellectual camps have adopted a perspective emphasizing
historical progress and the necessary development of nation-states that has, in
fact, become an impediment to understanding non-Western national conscious-
ness and new forms of modern community. 
C O N T E M P O R A R Y   C H A L L E N G E S
It is widely recognized that nationalism has both a positive and negative
side. A nation may be democratic, inclusive, 
secular
, and forward-looking, or
authoritarian
, exclusionary, religious, and backward-looking. Similarly, national-
ist movements may be progressive, such as many anticolonial struggles, or viru-
lent, such as ethnic cleansing. Well-known leaders of nationalist movements
include not only the chief proponent of nonviolence, India’s Mahatma Gandhi
(1869–1948), but also Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), brutal
Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu (1918–1989), and the former Yugoslavia’s
strongman, Slobodan Milosevic (b. 1941).
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
167
N a t i o n a l i s t   M o v e m e n t s
FILING PAST THE HO CHI MINH MAUSOLEUM, BUDDHIST MONKS TAKE PART IN VIETNAM’S INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE IN HANOI ON
SEPTEMBER 2, 2000.
Reunification Day is a national holiday commemorating the day North Vietnamese took control of Saigon
on April 30, 1975, bringing the Vietnam War to a close. 
(SOURCE: © AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS)
secularism: a refutation of, apathy toward,
or exclusion of all religion
authoritarianism: the domination of the
state or its leader over individuals 
■ ■ ■  

Some scholars believe that Western European nationalism began as predom-
inantly liberal and democratic, whereas Eastern nationalism has fundamental and
pervasive tendencies toward “authoritarianism.” According to this binary view of
nationalism, nationalism can be divided into two categories: civic nationalism
and ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism defines national membership in terms
of adherence to democratic principles, whereas ethnic nationalism defines
national membership in terms of the more exclusionary categories of ethnicity
and culture. In practice, however, these types are often closely intertwined, and
sometimes it is not difficult to move from one version to another as circum-
stances change. Moreover, diffusion of a common language and national culture
occurs even in the most liberal democracies.
Many have suggested that there is little intellectual content behind national-
ism, and hence its historical manifestations cannot be fully understood unless
placed in the context of major political traditions such as 
liberalism
, conservatism,
and Marxism. Despite the fact that most of these political traditions relegated
nationalism to a secondary position, nationalism has demonstrated astounding
resilience through centuries of political turmoil. Many philosophers, such as Karl
Marx and John Stuart Mill, have tried to explain away nationalism and failed. This
makes the relationship between nationalism and liberalism, the political ideology
on which the ideas of liberal democracy and universal human
rights are based, a particularly important theoretical and practical
issue in the contemporary world.
Liberalism’s core ideas, such as the beliefs that the individual
is the primary political actor, that the state is the exclusive arena
for civic identification, and that individuals should be granted a
set of rights guaranteeing freedom and equality which the state
must not take away, seem radically incompatible with nationalist
movements that demand complete loyalty and partiality, and prioritize national
interests over individual rights. Liberalism’s universalist outlook has always made
the matter of national and other boundaries problematic: Liberals tend to either
assume the nation-state exists as an arena for justice and democratic principles
without properly theorizing it, or try to justify particular boundaries from univer-
sal premises. Thus, many liberals have long regarded nationalism as “irrational”
and hence a subject unworthy of serious scholarly attention.
Nevertheless, liberal institutions and practices developed within the frame-
work of the nation-state. Even during the early days of nationalism, liberal political
thinkers advocated nationalist movements to achieve political unity in countries
such as Germany and Italy, and invoked nationalist sentiments whenever they
perceived that the interest of their country was at stake. In his Fourteen Points of
1918, submitted at the conclusion of World War I, U.S. President Woodrow
S. Wilson (1856–1924) offered the principle of national 
self-determination
as the
liberal answer to the question of national 
sovereignty
. This principle was further
institutionalized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formulated by the
United Nations (UN) in 1948. It provided a standard for nation building after both
world wars, as well as during the process of decolonization in the Third World.
Although its language is somewhat abstract and ambiguous, the declaration’s core
meaning remains incontrovertible and simple to grasp: “the belief that each nation
has a right to constitute an independent state and determine its own govern-
ment.” The liberal principle of national self-determination became one of the most
influential ideas of the twenty-first century.
During much of the Cold War, nationalist movements were often overshad-
owed by the power struggles between the United States and the former Soviet
Union. The end of the Cold War once again pushed the question of national
168
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N a t i o n a l i s t   M o v e m e n t s
self-determination: the ability of a people
to determine their own destiny or political
system
sovereignty: autonomy; or, rule over a politi-
cal entity 
liberalism: a political philosophy advocating
individual rights, positive government action,
and social justice, or, an economic philosophy
advocating individual freedoms and free
markets
■ ■ ■  
“. . . nationalism has demonstrated
astounding resilience amidst centuries
of political turmoil.”
■ ■ ■

sovereignty into the foreground of international politics. From 1991 to the end
of 1992 three former communist multiethnic states—Yugoslavia, the Soviet
Union, and Czechoslovakia—disintegrated, producing more than twenty
successor states. With communism no longer a viable political force across the
globe, it appears that the entire postcommunist world is experiencing a revival
of nationalist movements. Such movements in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa
pose serious threats to regional stability and security. These developments chal-
lenge the notion that liberalism is the only game in town and have resulted in a
burgeoning literature on “liberal nationalism.”
Acknowledging that the nation-state is here to stay, liberal nationalists
offer a variety of reasons why nation-states are the appropriate outgrowth of
liberal political theory. They argue that the liberal state is, in fact, critically
dependent for its unity and stability on civil bonds, which existed before
political ties, that can only be provided through national attachments. When
citizens assume a national identity, it serves to both legitimize the state’s
protection of citizens’ rights and provide the cultural environment in which
liberal rights might be exercised. In general, liberal nationalists advocate
political and cultural tolerance. They oppose coercive means to promote
a common national identity and are tolerant of political activities that might
yield a different national character.
Liberal nationalism typically entails a more open definition of the nation, with
the membership of the nation being more inclusive. Giving explicit recognition to
the fact that the bonds between individuals are rooted in a social context, liberal
nationalism has had significant implications for politics in contemporary multina-
tional liberal states, as it provides justification for the rights of some groups and
the preservation of minority cultures.
In broader theoretical and political terms, however, liberal nationalism pro-
vokes more questions than it answers. Although it accepts the notion that a
person is part of a multiplicity of communities and collectives, liberal nationalism
assumes that the same individual can always distance him or herself from any such
label, and in that sense endorse or criticize it. This perception of an individual’s
sense of national identity as the outcome of rational and critical reflection clearly
contradicts most nationalists’ view of national identity as a product of cultural or
historical factors. Moreover, for liberal nationalists, national identity is only one of