By Joseph Diescho
Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
the falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Surely more revelation is at hand, surely the Second Coming is at hand.
– Famous Irish poet, W. B. Yeats
There comes a time when democracy can translate into demo-crazy! This is one of those times in the Namibian nation’s experience with democracy. The centre does not hold or so it seems, especially when the leadership of the SWAPO Party, now governing the country, exhibits a disturbing degree of intolerance and small mindedness at the expense of the hard-won price of freedom for all Namibians.
First, Namibia claims to have democracy under the tenets of Unity, Liberty and Justice. Yet at the same time those entrusted with the sacrosanct responsibility of safeguarding the liberties of all Namibians declare without compunction that the country belongs to the ruling party and that those, the lucky ones but hardly the best in the nation, can insult and vilify anyone who does not agree with them and be protected by the state.
When Tatekulu Lucas Hifikepunye Pohamba was sworn in as the second president of the Republic in March 2005, he made it clear to the nation that he does not have a government. He is part of a SWAPO Party Government. This is in spite of the fact that he was elected directly by the Namibian people, not only by SWAPO members, as President of the country. This is unlike the case in many African countries, such as South Africa where the President is not elected directly by the people but appointed by the party that wins elections.
Pohamba was elected as President by the nation, and can therefore not speak only for the interests of the party of which he happens to be a member. SWAPO does not own Namibia. Namibians own Namibia; and whoever is President must by the dictates of the Constitution of the Republic be above party political squabbles.
Second, as he closed his first address as the second President of the Republic on 21 March 2005, President Pohamba took the nation into confidence and pledged before the world: “I am convinced that we can live in peace and harmony, because the power of our common values and goals exceeds our differences. Our strength lies in the colourful diversity of the Namibian people, and in our different backgrounds, skills and knowledge.”
Solemn Pledge
It would appear that Pohamba has forgotten this solemn pledge. It is unfortunate that he now thinks that he can use state power and instruments to defend his predecessor and can even tell those Namibian citizens who hold a critical view of his mentor to leave the country.
Imagine how many Americans would have been expelled by the President if they had the same understanding that criticizing the president meant a one way exit ticket!
With due respect and in defence of the Namibian Constitution, the President abused his power by even mouthing those words.
In democratic nations, the National Assembly would hold a hearing to let the President know that he spoke against the spirit of democracy and liberties in the country and urge him to apologize to the nation.
Third, it would appear as if the centre, that is the President of the country, is not the real centre and that the forces setting the direction are emanating from elsewhere. It would appear as if Pohamba is not leading the country and that the country is leading itself or it is being misled from other quarters.
It is in this sense very dangerous to have the Head of State remote-controlled. This is even more perilous when militants have the hubris to dictate how the President should run the country by issuing thinly veiled threats to him so that he is coerced to defend the Founding President in a manner that is contrary to his own pledges to the nation and in contravention of the mandate he was given when he was elected.
The authoritarian conduct of the militants are overlooked by the leadership as these johnnies-come-lately are bent on sullying other Namibians’ names and continue to disregard the rules of decency with impunity.
All indications are that Pohamba was caused to speak under political duress as he made an ill-advised televised national address on 9 August 2007. More awkward was when he chose to come out with fire and smoke in his mouth at a SWAPO Youth League gathering on 19 August 2007. Both these occasions are to all intents and purposes unbecoming of an elected Head of State.
Pohamba Well Loved
What must be borne in mind is that Pohamba was not only elected with a margin bigger than Nujoma got at both times he was elected, but that he is also very well loved by the Namibian nation because of the promises he made. Chief amongst his promises are that he will fight against abuse of power, that he will tirelessly stamp out corruption, and that he is a president for all Namibians. His statements were clear and people accepted them for what they were and meant for them and the country.
Therefore if forces within SWAPO can bully the President so that he feels insecure, then who should not feel fearful about democracy in Namibia today?
The Namibian people are no fools. The war drums that are sounding now in the ruling party are totally unwarranted and a threat to democracy in the country.
Ordinary people who join political parties out of free will have a pretty good idea about what is going on and they have a strong hunch that Pohamba might be speaking these words of war with a knife in his neck. We do not need this kind of Rambo politics in Namibia.
The events of the past few weeks show a rather frightening picture of President Pohamba’s understanding of his role as an elected president as opposed to being the defender of the Founding President or the SWAPO Party.
To Pohamba it seems that the name of the Founding President is synonymous with Namibia and that Nujoma is perfect, infallible as it were and thus above reproach or criticism.
THE COURT ISSUE
The furore around the matter between the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) under the leadership of a human rights activist Phil Ya Nangoloh on the one hand and President Nujoma (and now the entire SWAPO structures) on the other, needs to be looked at with seriousness as a test of what Namibians understand as the workings of a democratic system.
The NSHR has submitted papers for the ICC’s consideration, chronicling cases prior to and after independence that point to culpability on the part of Nujoma as President of SWAPO.
The intended outcome is to see Nujoma being called to answer for these alleged human rights violations that occurred under his watch as President of SWAPO and later of the country.
Together with Nujoma are a few names of significant personages who were associated with the defence of Namibians but who turned out to be hurtful to the very people who they were meant to protect.
This submission to the ICC has led to leadership structures of the mighty SWAPO getting out their war machines against an individual who chose to exercise his right to speak.
It resembles a whole family bringing out their shotguns because there is a mouse in the house. Is this an indication that structures have little else to rally around?
Yet the nation is confronted with diseases and other unprecedented problems needing urgent attention. Where are the heroes while Rome burns?
Those who joined SWAPO after independence and do not know who Phil Ya Nangoloh is need to be reminded that Ya Nangoloh was a PLAN fighter who risked his life and limb in the fight for the liberation of Namibia.
Ya Nangoloh was sent by SWAPO to train as a military intelligence official in Russia. Things happened to him and his family under SWAPO’s watch that he believes ought not to be silenced and thus he wants the truth to be told.
He is thus not one who just woke up with a wild idea that he is now going to take on the Father of the Nation. Those who joined SWAPO later and for their own convenience need to be careful how they vilify others.
Now the SWAPO influenced labour unions, women’s league, and the youth league have entered the fray, or were instructed to join in. The Bible warns that danger befalls a community when the elders stop to dream and the youth have no vision.
The anger on the part of these formations in the context of the ICC matter cannot be justified. The ICC is a court of international law, thus it has the necessary expertise to deal with a matter before it in accordance with international law.
Phil Ya Nangoloh did not sign the treaty that brought into existence this court; the Namibian Government is a signatory.
The ICC does not act on the basis of the allegations of an individual or an organization: it investigates in order to establish whether there is merit in the allegation placed before it.
What the ICC has in its possession is a document from the NSHR that awaits investigation. This should not be seen as an outright condemnation of Nujoma or whoever else is mentioned in those documents.
No Merit
The ICC may well conclude very early in the investigation that there is no merit in the NSHR submission. It is understandable that ‘peace-loving’ Namibians would feel awkward about the mere mention of hauling Nujoma to court. Many would have preferred that the NSHR did not go to the ICC at all.
However, in its reading of the situation as a human rights organization, there is a case for consideration by an independent tribunal. After all the NSHR and other entities in Namibia failed in their attempts to have SWAPO give some accounting of what happened during the struggle when many Namibians’ lives melted away in those dreaded dungeons in Angola, and to a lesser extent the abuse of political power after independence.
For instance, in 1996, the SWAPO Party published the book ‘Their Blood Waters Our Freedom’ declaring all those who died during the struggle as heroes. This was in fact SWAPO’s attempt at setting the record straight on the issues of those who died or disappeared.
Instead of giving an explanation once and for all on what happened, SWAPO gave an account that reads like similar to those that used to be given by the South African security forces in the apartheid days when most deaths in prison and detention were caused by suicide or hunger strike. In that book all the deaths accounted for were in combat or natural.
Those who are affronted by this state of affairs need their explanations to be watertight and beyond reproach. They should be convincing in their arguments so as to vindicate Nujoma and others.
They should not base their defence on emotions and a romanticized notion of the past and the founders of the nation.
Yet to defend the side that has not even been offered borders on foolhardiness, unless, once again, those marching the streets of Otjomuise know more than the rest of us of the extent of abuse and that they fear that they too or their families may be implicated in the fall-out that follows such unveiling.
What must be known to all Namibians is that the truths of the reality about those who died or disappeared are complex and manifold.
First, there was a time when the South African regime was hell bent on destroying SWAPO by any means necessary. A large number of Namibians, motivated by various reasons, signed up to pretend to go into exile and joined the struggle with unholy motives.
Their real purpose was to hurt SWAPO in general and the SWAPO leadership in particular. Denying or ignoring this fact would be dishonest.
After a few people were caught, SWAPO became paranoid, and in ‘self-defence’ did things that were hurtful to many innocent Namibians.
More Educated
Second, the complexity that after 1974, more educated Namibians joined the struggle legitimately, but had a questioning attitude that was not a norm in SWAPO. Because of their critical stance they were accused of being agents or spies and sent to the dungeons.
Third, there were also those SWAPO exiles that genuinely wanted to return to Namibia, and were inspired by the news that there was progress internally towards a settlement for the country’s independence with less bloodshed.
After the Turnhalle declared its own disagreement with South Africa and wished to enter into dialogue with SWAPO, there was a growing number of Namibians in exile who thought it was Nujoma who was too adamant in refusing to talk.
Those natural and human disagreements fueled the paranoia in the movement so that suspicions about others became commonplace. T
he SWAPO leadership reacted and with time the situation became one where the security establishment in the movement called the shots, and rumour mongering, blackmailing and sheer paranoia ruled.
There is reason to believe that the implementation of UN Resolution 435 came at the right time, otherwise SWAPO would have imploded. This is the difficult background!
In this sense, it was very difficult for Nujoma as President to know the full details of what was going on, and thus it may well be that he cannot account for those horrendous things that happened.
He was too busy convincing the world to help Namibians in their fight for independence. There are sufficient rumours to justify the assertion that had independence not happened at the time it did, many more people who are national leaders today, including Nujoma himself, could have ended up in the dungeons.
After all his own wife, Kovambo Nujoma, was in the dungeon – that cannot be the act of someone who had all the powers to make things happen or stop them from happening!
It is against this background that one has to understand and appreciate the anxiety within the ruling party about the issues of detainees who died, who disappeared and even those who survived and are still alive today and are forced to conduct themselves as if nothing had happened to them.
It is rather humbling to meet great men and women in Namibia today who know, remember and even work with those who tortured them and treat them as fellow Namibians. That is the spirit that should never be forgotten when talking about reconciliation, not that to forgive has meant to forget.
Under the Carpet
Unpleasant though the present situation is, SWAPO has consistently swept the matter under the carpet for too long. Under this carpet are stories filled with the bones and voices of the dead. These too are the truths of our nation’s realities that need to be conveyed so that we do not forget.
Certainly as a country as this debate is opened, we need to tread with care, as the intention should not be to humiliate Nujoma and/or the SWAPO leadership as a liberation movement. They have done so much to bring the country to where it is today and this appreciation should accompany the legitimate frustrations that are still there in the body of the nation.
Whilst one understands Ya Nangoloh’s historical hurt and frowns at the continuous insults hurled at him by Nujoma specifically, and whilst appreciating his hitting back at Nujoma, both Nujoma and Ya Nangoloh run the risk of focusing on their own hurt more than the interests of the nation.
In this sense, it must be stated that Nujoma as the leader with more resources at his disposal went too far in demonizing certain persons by using the language not befitting of his stature.
It is not only Ya Nangoloh here, but many who fell victim to Nujoma’s ill-considered political statesmanship which became more punitive than considerate, more divisive than uniting, more bellicose than peaceful, and more vengeful than reconciling, more individualistic than collective, especially in the last years of his rule when he made more enemies than he needs in order to retain his name and legacy in the history of Namibia and Africa.
This is indeed very unfortunate. The fault, however, is not only with Nujoma, but also with all those around him who for many years denied him the right to err.
Throughout the history of the struggle as it was executed by SWAPO, and more so after independence as people fell prey to the politics of patronage, Nujoma was allowed to get his way. It is very unfortunate that people speak out about his high-handedness only after he had ejected them, not when they are inside and comfortable.
In the same vein, one ought to regret the contents of the communiqu???_?_’???_?’???_?