The universal or near universal relationship between national governance and the application of the concept of human rights is mirrored by international conventions. There are two conventions that shape the current debates and perception surrounding the Basarwa cultures, which are known globally as indigenous.These are; the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention (No. 107) of 1957 for Indigenous and Tribal Populations and the ILO Convention (No. 169) of 1989 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries.
The 1989 Convention was a revision of the 1957 Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention (No. 107); which initially adopted the integrationist approach, aimed at assimilating indigenous peoples to mainstream societies in which they lived. The reason for its revision was that it no longer reflected current thinking where cultural diversity has become the main focus. By 1957, most African states were not independent, therefore the welfare of “the indigenous” was a responsibility of their colonisers. It is not surprising, therefore, that assimilation was a priority as most colonising powers focused on changing the “barbaric” and “uncivilised” attitudes of their subjects, be they “indigenous” or otherwise.
Therefore, the 1989 Convention was meant to improve the situation and status of the indigenous peoples by persuading governments to take responsibility for developing co-ordinated and systematic action to protect indigenous peoples’ rights and guarantee respect for their social, cultural and economic integrity. Unlike the 1957 Convention, it reflects the ideologies of the post-colonial era, where colonialism is being shunned for the damage it brought or may bring to certain cultures.
However, the emphasis of this convention on what has come to be known as the “indigenous”, is now changing the direction of the racial discrimination debate, or rather blame. In contemporary African states, it is shifting from being a black/white or coloniser/colony issue to being indigenous groups versus other ethnic groups or indigenous groups versus their national governments scenario. It is this turn of blame that is viewed with suspicion by most African countries. Why does the blame suddenly become that of the independent national governments when the 1957 Convention has always advocated for what they are accused of pursuing; assimilation?
Due to this development, most African countries perceive advocacy organisations as not being fair in putting all the blame on them and capitalising on their post-colonial “mistakes” as regards these communities, rather than looking at the root of the problem and acknowledging where necessary, that it is not all their fault. This might explain the reluctance by most developing countries to ratify the convention.
The ideals, definitions and focus of the convention are also questioned. By virtue of its definition and focus on what the “indigenous” is, without establishing the relationship between them and mainstream ethnic groups in their localities, the convention and the concept have deliberately become selective. This imbalance ignores the fact that, whether “indigenous” or not, most ethnic groups in southern Africa were colonised and therefore were impacted upon either culturally, socially, economically and otherwise. Most people still do not understand “why them”, “not us” especially where cultural revival is concerned.
Therefore, the concept of indigenism is at times perceived in the developing or postcolonial world as having colonial inclinations that existed before the mid 1960s when most African countries gained independence. By focusing on the dichotomy between authentic and non-authentic cultures, it becomes associated with colonial concepts such as “divide and rule” whose approaches are still associated with the legacy surrounding some civil wars in the continent. The concept of indigenism, therefore, is viewed with suspicion by most developing countries, and countries such as Botswana are no exception. As a consequence of this mistrust, a conflict has developed between advocacy organisations, such as Survival International and national government, such as Botswana. In dealing with the Basarwa, Survival International (SI) has resorted to using the very same human rights concepts from ILO that are perceived as dubious by these governments.
Within the United Nations system, issues dealing with indigenous populations fall under the Commission on Human Rights. Whereas most States relate with the concept of human rights, it does not seem to fare well in issues covering indigenous communities. This is evident from the number of countries that have ratified the ILO 169 Convention of 1989. It is recorded that by April 2003, the Convention was ratified by only seventeen states, although about seventy-six states have indigenous and tribal populations. Of the 17, only three are from the developed world. Finland and Sweden did not sign the Convention and although Denmark and Norway ratified the Convention, both countries failed to comply with it, especially in relation to lands and natural resources”. This indicates that the concept might also be facing problems in the West.
However, the human rights concept is guided by international law, which has been accused of mirroring ideologies of their membership, the majority of which is Western. The human rights concept has been criticised for being the exclusive domain of European powers with imperial agendas.
It appears, therefore, that because international advocacy organisations fail to recognise that the concept of indigenism is basically a North-South debate, there is very little reconciliation of perception that is embarked on before implementation in other parts of the world. The approaches towards these ideologies, therefore, run the risk of being likened to earlier patterns of implementation of models of development, where technologies were simply diffused to the developing world without any consideration of their impact in these areas and cultures. This automatic diffusion is illustrated by the transition from the ILO Convention No. 107 of 1957 to the ILO Convention No. 169 of 1989. The former encouraged assimilation of native cultures and was signed by most developing countries’ states. However, the latter is now advocating for an opposite treatment of these people. This lack of consistency and extreme changes to ideologies dealing with communities in sovereign states by international organisations and the expectations that countries should just follow, willy-nilly, comes across as dubious and it sabotages effective state participation in cultural preservation of these communities’ cultures.
International organisations such as Survival International have resorted to justifying the special treatment of the indigenous by using the “from time immemorial” concept to support policies of cultural authenticity.
Whereas the “time immemorial” concept is tolerated and at times recognised at African national levels, the problem arises when organisations blame post-independent African governments of cultural sabotage of “the indigenous”. The 1960s Africans’ struggle for independence itself stemmed from the fight for freedom from colonialism models manufactured along the lines of segregation of ethnic groups into superior/inferior or major/minor categories. Selecting only the “indigenous” as the culturally wounded, therefore, could be viewed as a particular form of “conspiracy” meant to discredit post-colonial governments such as Botswana.
One other concept that sabotages international organisations’ advocacy for the indigenous as culturally distinct is that of ethnicity. The “cultural difference” of the Basarwa advocated for by SI in Botswana does not address how “indigenism” does or does not relate to the concept of “ethnicity” as an indicator of cultural difference at the national level. Ethnicity has always provided the basis for cultural difference, not only in Botswana but also in most parts of Africa. Locally, the San are perceived as just another ethnic group. When human rights organisations choose to deal with the rights of the indigenous, they fail to reconcile this concept with an already existing and established framework therefore challenging other ethnic groups and national governments within which they exist to question the premises of their point of departure. Failure to situate the concept of indigenism and its practice within local perception and understanding leads to a difference, which once extended to the global scenario objectifies indigenous communities and their cultures. This has consequences for cultural sustainability of such communities.
