It appears that the masterminds behind “independent candidate politics” in Namibia are gradually gaining a lot of ground in the national political game.
How? They have probably created an effective illusion of “rescuing and reviving” the “parent organization” in the minds of those dissatisfied people who are loyal to the “parent organization.”
Why? Past experience has shown that open and absolute detachment from the “parent organization” was a recipe for disaster for those who tried, both before and after independence. It was Sun Tzu who once made a few smart statements about deception. To the untrained observer, there is certainly no deception about “independent” people insisting that they are “still” genuine members of the “parent organization,” and are only taking a different approach in trying to attain what is best for the “parent organization,” and by extension the country.
Consider the following analogy: How on earth does one aim to become the “independent” driver of a passenger bus that is already in motion on the road?
Underline the words “in motion.” Common logic dictates that the passenger bus “in motion” will first have to stop for the current driver to exchange seats with the potential driver before the journey can continue.
However, when one believes that the passengers on that bus are ignorant to safety precautions, one can attempt to pull off such theatrics.
Open-minded Namibians must, therefore, guard against becoming the unquestioning fanatics of some possibly deceptive political actors. Central to the process of creating political fanatics is the constant brainwashing of the target populace.
The indoctrination is achieved through carefully crafted populist communiqués that firstly seek to convert skeptical people into embracing the “proper” political stance and attitude, and further seek to reinforce the beliefs of the already converted followers. Back in the 20th century, economic hardships in Germany after World War I, coupled with the alleged injustices of the treaty of Versailles, were effectively used to propel the socialist Nazi party to power by the likes of the ruthlessly deceptive Joseph Goebbels, who was at that time regarded as having the best interests of the German people at heart.
The rest is history. Fast-forward to the twenty first century in the Namibian context, economic hardships and the alleged injustices of some of the national policies are effectively being used to try and propel notable youth backed socialist leaders to power.
There is nothing wrong with youth or anyone seeking to hold power.
However, the danger with far-left radical socialism is that it builds a huge political base on mostly unattainable and unsustainable grandiose promises.
This radicalised political base, desperate and brainwashed as it is, might one day install its socialist leadership into power in blind expectation of the long overdue promised “milk and honey.” as soon as it comes to power, however, the mostly inexperienced socialist leadership will immediately be hard struck with the realities of macroeconomics (i.e. scare resources, inflation, unemployment, and the like).
Upon reflection, these realities will then force the socialist leadership to either adopt a moderate or a radical approach in its national policies.
The moderate approach will force cool-headedness in the socialist leadership to discard its initial grandiose promises, and adopt moderate mixed-economy policies that will maintain but gradually improve the prevailing socio-economic status quo in one form or another, albeit with a number of reasonable and obvious changes and twists here and there.
This moderate mixed-economy approach will, however, be perceived by the fanatical political base as a failure on the part of its leadership, and here is where the fanatical political base is inevitably bound to turn on the leadership with accusations of being political “sell-outs” and “cowards.” on the other hand, the hot-headedness of the radical approach will require that the socialist leadership adopts “transformational” economic and land redistribution policies more or less similar to those that brought the Zimbabwe of “comrade” Mugabe near to absolute ruin (one fellow reasons that in order for the oppressed African people to fully emancipate themselves, the situation apparently “needs to get worse before it gets better.”). Fear of the Zimbabwe-like consequences does not, however, mean that the people do not urgently need more land for farming and decent housing nor does it mean that the people should not get the aforementioned sooner. There are less radical ways by which the people can get access to more land for farming and decent housing, it is all essentially a question of improved restructuring, getting the national priorities right and implementing strict governance measures that greatly minimizes waste and squander in the allocation of state resources (i.e. there is a need to move towards optimal efficiency). It is, therefore, apparent that as the November 2019 Presidential and National Assembly elections inch closer and closer, we as Namibians must critically reflect on these matters to ensure that we do not end up making distorted decisions in the process of exercising our democratic rights. “Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it” (anonymous).
*Abednego Katuushii Ekandjo writes in his private capacity.