Power and Weapons Stimulate Use of Force

PRESIDENT Hage Geingob provided some comfort this week when he seemed to realise that his appeal to civilians not to “provoke” security forces may have contributed to the abuse of power against citizens.

“Allow the authorities to work unhindered and do not provoke them,” said Geingob, looking down at his script.

He then proceeded off the cuff: “And let me add here – the other time I said ‘do not provoke the officers’ and I saw one standing and saying the president said ‘do not provoke us’ and showed the AK [assault rifle]. Please officers, let us be professional. These are not our enemies. These are our people…”

Geingob and other leaders in positions of state power often warn lesser mortals about their use of words or actions.

Yet they don’t always seem to appreciate that their words can be quickly weaponised and at times lead to the physical harm of civilians.

Rulers often accuse ordinary citizens of provoking security officials, but if they truly look at widely publicised instances of brutality by police and soldiers, they’d realise that the use of force is excessive and unjustified in most instances.

Police chief Sebastian Ndeitunga last week condemned an incident – shown on video – in which the police order a man to roll in spilt traditional brew (tombo).

But for how long can Namibians accept condemnation as action?

We cannot allow strong-arm tactics by the police and military to become normalised.

We doubt whether the president and his fellow leaders get to see recordings of soldiers kicking or hitting civilians with weapons.

No amount of so-called provocation justifies security officers meting out punishment in a country that trumpets the “rule of law”.

The military deserves to be singled out. For nearly a year now, soldiers have been sent onto the streets with dire consequences for many civilians.

The declaration of the state of emergency to stop the spread of Covid-19 has only emboldened what appears to be an unnecessary use of state machinery. Talk of ‘war’ against the ‘enemy’ called coronavirus plays into the psyche of an idle soldier who has been trained to physically assail any perceived danger.

They are quick to manhandle and round up people, defeating the very essence of “social distancing” required to stem the transmission of Covid-19.

We should not expect anything different despite the president saying “these are not our enemies”.

What we need is a new language to promote respect for civil liberties, which entails a responsibility towards self-restraint by all (one’s rights end where another’s begin).

Parliament approved a six-month state of emergency. It is time that a review is undertaken to assess whether such a drastic move is the only option to tackle a natural disaster caused by a virus.

A state of emergency connotes a need for war, which for many means confronting an enemy in the form of another person.

People in positions of state power should understand that weapons are a stimulant for the use of force. Maximum caution, training and conditioning are required on who should carry them, especially in a democracy.

Otherwise the conclusion is inescapable that the security forces are set up to contain civilians as some sort of “enemy”.