Political Identity and Conflict in Central Angola, 1975–2002

Abstract

This book examines the internal politics of the war that divided Angola for more than a quarter-century after its independence. It emphasises the Angolan people's relationship to the rival political forces that prevented the development of a united nation, an aspect of the conflict that has received little attention in earlier studies. Drawing upon interviews with farmers, town dwellers, soldiers and politicians in Central Angola, Justin Pearce examines the ideologies about nation and state that elites deployed in pursuit of hegemony and traces how people responded to these attempts at politicisation. The book not only demonstrates the potency of the rival conceptions of state and nation in shaping perceptions of self-interest and determining political loyalty, but also shows the ways in which allegiances could and did change for much of the Angolan population in response to the experience of military force.

Intimate Encounters with the State in Post-War Luanda, Angola

“…For this reason, I will not provide exact details about 3 Although the civil war that opposed the socialist regime of Luanda to the United States backed guerrillas in the interior is better described as a proxy for the Cold War, historians note how ethnic categories were used to naturalise the conflict. As a result, being Kimbundu is associated with supporting the MPLA (Pearce, 2016).…”

Historicising nationalism in Africa

“…In a small number of cases where secessionist conflict had occured previously, it enabled its legitimation, as with the independence of Eritrea from Ethiopia in 1993, which provided an example for others to follow. The survival of UNITA's nationalist challenge to MPLA rule in Angola proved that this had not simply been a Cold War phenomenon as previously thought (Pearce 2015). Throughout the 1990s, East and Central African states harboured and armed regionalist or irredentist movements as a way of undermining or threatening their neighbours, movements over which they had only limited control (Lemarchand 2009;Reyntjens 2009).…”

“…In analysing the national history of the Ndebele, he has demonstrated the continuing centrality of this ‘… rich history that constitutes a resource that reinforces their memories and sense of a particularistic identity and distinctive nation within a predominantly Shona speaking nation.’ (Ndlovu‐Gatsheni , iii). For Angola, Pearce () has shown how contrasting visions of nationhood underwrote the competing political projects of the MPLA and UNITA, in which the former used its authority to define the nation via the state and delegitimise its opponents through the prism of ethnicity, while Larmer, finally, has explored how similar forms of contestation play out in largely peaceful circumstances in Zambia () and more violently in the DR Congo (Kennes and Larmer ).…”

“…(Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2009b, iii). For Angola, Pearce (2015) has shown how contrasting visions of nationhood underwrote the competing political projects of the MPLA and UNITA, in which the former used its authority to define the nation via the state and delegitimise its opponents through the prism of ethnicity, while Larmer, finally, has explored how similar forms of contestation play out in largely peaceful circumstances in Zambia (2011) and more violently in the DR Congo (Kennes and Larmer 2016).…”

Aesthetic Dissent: Urban Redevelopment and Political Belonging in Luanda, Angola

“…The narrative of a Lusophone coastal elite at odds with an autochthonous interior African population, particularly characterized the discourses of UNITA's civil war leader, Jonas Savimbi. This included framing the MPLA as the puppet of foreign powers due to its affiliations with Cuba and the USSR, as “unAfrican” because of its socialist ideologies, and sometimes as anti‐Black (de Grassi ; Pearce ). He mobilized these points to suggest that the MPLA facilitated foreign interests at the expense of Angolans, and that he and UNITA were there to champion the cause of “real” Angolans.…”