The Namibian population policy: A critical appraisal
One of the first national activities undertaken by the newly-formed Namibian government shortly after independence was the population and housing census, conducted in 1991. The census showed there were 1 409 920 people living on 823 144 square kilometres of the country.
The population density of the country was recorded as 1.7 people per square kilometre, with the exception of the Walvis Bay enclave, which was still part of the Republic of South Africa at that time. Results further revealed that the Ohangwena and Oshana regions had much higher population densities of 18 and 26 persons per square kilometre respectively, while regions such as //Karas and Kunene had the lowest population densities of about 0.4 and 0.5 persons per square kilometre.
Six years later, in 1997, the country launched its first, and only, national population policy for sustainable development.
Prior to policy formulation on the World Population Day occasion, national leaders expressed sentiments about the annual rate of population growth in the country, which stood at 3.1% in 1993.
The population growth was perceived to be higher and needed to be "checked" as it was seen as a major contributing factor to the high unemployment in the country, as well as a barrier to citizens' accessing formal education, health and municipal services. With the country’s total population standing at 1.4 million inhabitants in 1997 and an (estimated) growth rate of 3.1%, it was openly professed by our then leaders that the "very survival" of the nation was under threat.
As a result, they called for the urgent need to look and respond effectively to ways of reducing the population growth rate.
It’s surprisingly shocking that the population policy took this route, despite the low population level.
In many people’s mind, and as more often promoted by western influencers, population growth in developing countries is seen as the major contributor to developmental problems. As Frank Furedi puts it, population growth has always been among the factors blamed for poverty and famine, for instability and revolutions, for environmental degradation, and for the spread of communism or political disintegration of the African continent. In other words, population growth is an “all-purpose cause of problems”.
With this notion of population growth depicted by developed countries, the central question that continues to dominate across the population studies discourse is whether or not there really is a direct link – either good or bad – between a country’s population growth and its development. Literature does not confirm any empirical evidence linking population growth to developmental problems. Where such correlation exists, it’s found to be very weak. Despite a lack of evidence, the proponents of population growth and development nexus continued to vigorously advocate their guesswork.
Narratives
Frank Ferudi noted that statements, mostly by influencers in the developed countries, on population growth, are most often promoted by others' specious agendas for the population in the developing countries. To illustrate this point as well as the double standards of their developed counterparts, let’s consider the following historical events. In 1983, the European parliament adopted a resolution warning member states of the decisive effect of the population downtrend on the development of Europe. In a similar manner, commentators in Europe and America warned of the negative effects of the declining population in their respective countries and called for an increase in fertility to support the growing number of pensioners.
Looking at these two historical events, one can see that the young and fertile populations of these two countries were much needed and desirable. However, this was not their stance towards developing countries, especially in Africa. On the contrary, the same commentators were so preoccupied with the developmental problems in developing countries that they concluded that these problems were caused by population growth. Jacqueline Kasun, an American economist, in 1988 inferred that the youth in developing states were susceptible to extremism, terrorism and violence. Such statements were used by developed nations to set up and implement population control policies abroad while promoting increased fertility at home.
Why are developed countries suspicious of population growth in third world countries? The initial thought of the danger of population growth was linked to the preoccupation of power. Generally, opinion makers have associated prosperity and military dominance with a growing population. The comparison of population growth between nations was in the vocabulary of competitive fertility, where prominent communities saw the growing number of rival communities with suspicion. For example, the growing number of Black population in America was seen as problematic for the survival of the whites. Whereas, the argument of the numerical predominance of non-whites in South Africa justified the apartheid policy.
Another source of this sentiment was the interracial struggle. It was believed that strong races were, by definition, fertile races. Moreover, increasing fertility was also linked to moral qualities, with declining races represented as infertile. Such racial connotations, as promoted by the legacy of social Darwinism and eugenics, saw the issue as not so much population growth as the tendency for the lower class to increase at a faster rate than the middle class. According to Eugene Grebnik, obsessive concern about the growing number of the wrong types of people was linked to physical deterioration and moral inferiority. In short, the racial tone has influenced the population growth discourse until the nasty Nazi experience. Afterward, the justification in favour of population control changed to the need to protect the environment, to empower women, to curb global migration, and so on.
Namibia, like many other developing countries, has seen quite a good number of foreign-funded programmes centred on controlling fertility. These programmes were initially referred to as "population control" and then changed to "birth control" and later altered to "family planning"—a more inoffensive vocabulary under the disguise of the appellation of reproductive health, education, women's empowerment and responsible parenthood.
Conclusions
With all this being said, the question still remains: Does population growth really cause under-nutrition and other societal ills? Evidence from literature has shown that the decrease or the increase in the population does not have any positive effect on the quality of life. According to the United Nations, many societies, such as France and Nepal, that experienced significant declines in their respective populations failed to improve their wellbeing. At home, the reduction of the number of young people from rural areas through rapid urbanisation did not reduce poverty, nor did it increase agricultural productivity.
Thus, countries face famine and poverty as a result of a lack of control over their situations, colonial histories, and economic and sociopolitical factors, rather than their rate of fertility or population growth, which bore a large share of the blame in this tragedy.
To conclude, nothing in the literature unequivocally establishes the link between population growth and developmental problems or prosperity. According to Ferudi, the effect of population growth depends on the circumstances that prevail in societies. Thus, he observed that the population decline in some parts of the world does not influence unemployment. Similarly, leading economies with high fertility rates are not immune to labour shortages. Thus, it can be concluded that the fortunes or misfortunes of countries have little to do with their population growth but rather more to do with their ability to smartly leverage the opportunities at their disposal. This, I think, should be the line of thought taken by current Namibian leaders who wish to revise and update the 1997 population policy of Namibia that is still in use.
Kauluma Shipanga is a senior lecturer in population studies at the University of Namibia. The views expressed in this article are entirely his and are expressed in his capacity as a Namibian by birth and do not reflect those of his employer.
The population density of the country was recorded as 1.7 people per square kilometre, with the exception of the Walvis Bay enclave, which was still part of the Republic of South Africa at that time. Results further revealed that the Ohangwena and Oshana regions had much higher population densities of 18 and 26 persons per square kilometre respectively, while regions such as //Karas and Kunene had the lowest population densities of about 0.4 and 0.5 persons per square kilometre.
Six years later, in 1997, the country launched its first, and only, national population policy for sustainable development.
Prior to policy formulation on the World Population Day occasion, national leaders expressed sentiments about the annual rate of population growth in the country, which stood at 3.1% in 1993.
The population growth was perceived to be higher and needed to be "checked" as it was seen as a major contributing factor to the high unemployment in the country, as well as a barrier to citizens' accessing formal education, health and municipal services. With the country’s total population standing at 1.4 million inhabitants in 1997 and an (estimated) growth rate of 3.1%, it was openly professed by our then leaders that the "very survival" of the nation was under threat.
As a result, they called for the urgent need to look and respond effectively to ways of reducing the population growth rate.
It’s surprisingly shocking that the population policy took this route, despite the low population level.
In many people’s mind, and as more often promoted by western influencers, population growth in developing countries is seen as the major contributor to developmental problems. As Frank Furedi puts it, population growth has always been among the factors blamed for poverty and famine, for instability and revolutions, for environmental degradation, and for the spread of communism or political disintegration of the African continent. In other words, population growth is an “all-purpose cause of problems”.
With this notion of population growth depicted by developed countries, the central question that continues to dominate across the population studies discourse is whether or not there really is a direct link – either good or bad – between a country’s population growth and its development. Literature does not confirm any empirical evidence linking population growth to developmental problems. Where such correlation exists, it’s found to be very weak. Despite a lack of evidence, the proponents of population growth and development nexus continued to vigorously advocate their guesswork.
Narratives
Frank Ferudi noted that statements, mostly by influencers in the developed countries, on population growth, are most often promoted by others' specious agendas for the population in the developing countries. To illustrate this point as well as the double standards of their developed counterparts, let’s consider the following historical events. In 1983, the European parliament adopted a resolution warning member states of the decisive effect of the population downtrend on the development of Europe. In a similar manner, commentators in Europe and America warned of the negative effects of the declining population in their respective countries and called for an increase in fertility to support the growing number of pensioners.
Looking at these two historical events, one can see that the young and fertile populations of these two countries were much needed and desirable. However, this was not their stance towards developing countries, especially in Africa. On the contrary, the same commentators were so preoccupied with the developmental problems in developing countries that they concluded that these problems were caused by population growth. Jacqueline Kasun, an American economist, in 1988 inferred that the youth in developing states were susceptible to extremism, terrorism and violence. Such statements were used by developed nations to set up and implement population control policies abroad while promoting increased fertility at home.
Why are developed countries suspicious of population growth in third world countries? The initial thought of the danger of population growth was linked to the preoccupation of power. Generally, opinion makers have associated prosperity and military dominance with a growing population. The comparison of population growth between nations was in the vocabulary of competitive fertility, where prominent communities saw the growing number of rival communities with suspicion. For example, the growing number of Black population in America was seen as problematic for the survival of the whites. Whereas, the argument of the numerical predominance of non-whites in South Africa justified the apartheid policy.
Another source of this sentiment was the interracial struggle. It was believed that strong races were, by definition, fertile races. Moreover, increasing fertility was also linked to moral qualities, with declining races represented as infertile. Such racial connotations, as promoted by the legacy of social Darwinism and eugenics, saw the issue as not so much population growth as the tendency for the lower class to increase at a faster rate than the middle class. According to Eugene Grebnik, obsessive concern about the growing number of the wrong types of people was linked to physical deterioration and moral inferiority. In short, the racial tone has influenced the population growth discourse until the nasty Nazi experience. Afterward, the justification in favour of population control changed to the need to protect the environment, to empower women, to curb global migration, and so on.
Namibia, like many other developing countries, has seen quite a good number of foreign-funded programmes centred on controlling fertility. These programmes were initially referred to as "population control" and then changed to "birth control" and later altered to "family planning"—a more inoffensive vocabulary under the disguise of the appellation of reproductive health, education, women's empowerment and responsible parenthood.
Conclusions
With all this being said, the question still remains: Does population growth really cause under-nutrition and other societal ills? Evidence from literature has shown that the decrease or the increase in the population does not have any positive effect on the quality of life. According to the United Nations, many societies, such as France and Nepal, that experienced significant declines in their respective populations failed to improve their wellbeing. At home, the reduction of the number of young people from rural areas through rapid urbanisation did not reduce poverty, nor did it increase agricultural productivity.
Thus, countries face famine and poverty as a result of a lack of control over their situations, colonial histories, and economic and sociopolitical factors, rather than their rate of fertility or population growth, which bore a large share of the blame in this tragedy.
To conclude, nothing in the literature unequivocally establishes the link between population growth and developmental problems or prosperity. According to Ferudi, the effect of population growth depends on the circumstances that prevail in societies. Thus, he observed that the population decline in some parts of the world does not influence unemployment. Similarly, leading economies with high fertility rates are not immune to labour shortages. Thus, it can be concluded that the fortunes or misfortunes of countries have little to do with their population growth but rather more to do with their ability to smartly leverage the opportunities at their disposal. This, I think, should be the line of thought taken by current Namibian leaders who wish to revise and update the 1997 population policy of Namibia that is still in use.
Kauluma Shipanga is a senior lecturer in population studies at the University of Namibia. The views expressed in this article are entirely his and are expressed in his capacity as a Namibian by birth and do not reflect those of his employer.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article