I recently watched a documentary on Namibia. The documentary seemed to suggest, albeit inconclusively, that the Southern African state
could be named as Africa’s New Eldorado.
Eldorado is a sweet and soothing name which reflects a state with legendary
riches. However, there was a subtle but powerful undercurrent of irony in the
documentary. While suggesting potential wealth and prosperity (the ‘New
Eldorado’ concept), the documentary presented a narrative about
post-colonial experiences in the Namibian state, highlighting the gap between
economic promise and social reality in Namibia.
In many African cultures, names are far more than mere labels - they are repositories of history, prophecy, social context, and personal narrative. The practice of changing names, is not just a personal quirk but often a complex social and political act. So, the description of the Namibian state got me thinking, rather curiously, about what is in a name. Specifically, I asked myself, “Who has the power to name?” And “What nuances are covered by the name?”
These questions are particularly potent when examined
through the lens of digital ID projects. In the African context, digital ID systems are not just technological
interventions; they are deeply political acts of recognition, classification,
and potentially, control.
Many African governments view digital ID systems as a way to streamline bureaucratic
processes, reduce fraud, and create more efficient public service delivery
mechanisms. They are adopting AI-powered digital ID technologies to offer better national
identification methods. For various political, social and economic reasons citizens
in some states which plan digital ID projects have pushed back against their implementation.
To counteract these pushbacks, some African governments use African heritage names for
their digital projects. They do so ostensibly to create some sense of cultural
resonance, create ownership, reduce perceptions of foreign interests, and
reduce resistance by framing them as indigenous solutions.
The Appeal of Some African Names in
Eastern Africa
The digital ID in Uganda is dubbed Ndaga
Muntu. This is a
phrase from the Luganda language which
means an ‘identity card’. In Kenya, the current initiative for the digital ID
is dubbed Maisha
Namba. This
phrase comes from Swahili, meaning a ‘service number’. The Ethiopian digital ID
project is dubbed Fayda, a term borrowed from the local
Amharic dialect meaning ‘value and importance’. On its part, the Tanzanian
digital ID project is dubbed Jamii
Namba, a phrase from Swahili meaning ‘a community number’.
The digital ID projects adopting African names seek to
cultivate national pride, celebrate cultural heritage, and create a sense of
authenticity. By resonating with local identity, these chosen names aim to make
technological initiatives more relevant and meaningful to African communities.
In Rwanda, historical sensitivities surrounding ethnic
languages have hindered this approach. In the DRC, the cancellation of a digital ID project has meant
that the use of African names has yet to be tested.
The Pitfalls of the Name Game
The nomenclature surrounding AI-powered digital ID
technologies has often backfired when the public recognizes detrimental effects
these innovations have on human rights and societal well-being. Merely renaming
a technology does not inherently address its underlying ethical challenges or
cultural implications. Like the romanticized myth of Africa's New Eldorado, such semantic shifts can be superficial,
obscuring the substantive issues at the core of technological development and
its human impact.
Besides being superficial, the African heritage names of
digital ID projects in Eastern African countries could mask deeper
technological and political complexities. In Uganda and Kenya, the simplistic
branding of ‘identity cards’ and ‘Huduma cards’ deliberately obscures the
intricate AI technologies underlying these systems. By using such reductive
terminology, authorities seek to minimize potential resistance and increase
public acceptance. In Tanzania, with its historical socialist background of Ujamaa, the project’s nomenclature of ‘Jamii’ strategically
invokes nationalist sentiments, creating an opportunity to leverage political
populism as a means of establishing legitimacy.
Conclusion
The true legitimacy of digital projects emerges from deep
engagement. That is listening intently
to people, comprehending their genuine challenges, and constructing digital
solutions that meaningfully address their needs. Mere nomenclature can be
deceptive - like an attractive package concealing a substandard product.
Renaming initiatives often serves as a cosmetic intervention, masking systemic failures and strategic shortcomings. As African states increasingly navigate the complex landscape of AI regulation, the imperative is clear. States must prioritize substantive progress over symbolic gestures. The vision of ‘the Africa we want’ transcends nominal rhetoric. It demands authentic, people-centered transformation.
Comments
Post a Comment