An old saying goes: ‘We shall regret most not the things we did, but the things we did not do and should have done’. This week we shall have our sixth national elections to elect the next Head of State as well as the next assemblage of the members in our Legislative House. A good number of analysts have lamented the uneventfulness of the election campaign this year, and as being lackluster and underwhelming. True, there is not really much to write home about in terms of the differences between the sixteen political parties who have fielded candidates for this year and by extension the next five years. No issues of substance were punctuated and there is very little by way of alternative policies and programmes on which the parties stand. Swapo as the governing party almost does not have to do anything – its brand is very strong as it still stands for independence and the vast freedoms that we enjoy as a nation.
Swapo is still not an ordinary party. Its strength is in its history as a liberation movement – for now. The other parties battle to stamp their presence on the hearts of ordinary Namibians – for now. The leaders of the political parties this year will regret that they did not do enough along the following key performance indicators:
VISION STATEMENTS: With due respect to individual personages who are trying to serve Namibia better, all the parties have failed to articulate a vision for the future of this nation. A vision is a simple but clear statement of what a leader sees as an ideal and a desired future state, and to which he/she applies his persuasive gifts and skills to inspire others to go after that which has come into view for the leader. None of the parties have been able to paint a clear and inspirational picture of a future Namibia in such a way that the rest of us would want to be associated with that picture. It was much easier during the fight against colonial and apartheid rules to persuade people to stand up and work towards a free and independent Namibia. In all fairness, the leadership of the liberation struggle was clearer about what it saw as a future and better Namibia, so much so that the message was so strong that young people gave up their youth and went into exile to be part of that grand dream of freedom and independence. The commitment to the vision of freedom can only be equated with the evangelistic zeal missionaries had when they set out to leave their countries to ‘save souls for God’. Those who sacrificed for our independence were driven by something that the rest of us will never comprehend – something way beyond their own success, comfort and safety. They saw a free Namibia with people enjoying equality, peace and happiness with their dignity restored. After independence, the leaderships of all parties have not been able to articulate clearly a vision for the country apart from the intermittent platitudes uttered by leaders. Vision 2030 is a good political and development programme – not a vision per se.
It would appear that the vision political party leaders have today is that of themselves in the State House or possessing some official status or title – nothing more, nothing less. That is not visioning. It may be an ambition of some sort, which is very dangerous as it is focused on the person desiring power whereas a vision is about creating a better circumstance, a better space for other people. One would have expected the governing party, by virtue of its track record and experience, to have reinvented itself by now in order to craft a new vision for the nation based upon the accomplishments thus far and in the context of today’s Namibia, not the Namibia which needed to be liberated.
Part of the consternation that we saw with the Pot elections and the current marvellous militancy of the youth has exactly to do with the governing party’s inability to recast itself in the context of today and tomorrow. The language of the governing party remains fossilized in the idioms of yesterday and yesteryear and this unfortunate inertia can only lead to the weakening of the centre. For instance, the outcome of the last electoral college would look, at face value, like a rejection of the old leadership. In essence, the results were a statement that something new must be crafted with a new message carried by a new cadre of leaders that can take the country forward. Those who participated in that Pot Election are rational and informed Namibian citizens who are beginning to understand that their vote actually matters, for better or for worse. Further, the youth is asserting itself in a very awkward manner now in relation to land, corruption and elitism in our body politic. The youth are asking for change, the youth are yearning for meaningful roles for themselves. The talk about liberation politics is becoming more and more alienating to young people who have their own struggles to wage, even though they have not found their (legitimate) cause yet. We may get irritated, but the fact is that the leadership has not found its way to communicate with the youth of the country yet. We may dismiss the youth as hooligans and/or ignore their acts, at our own peril.
NATIONAL INTERESTS: One of the most immediate results of a lack of vision in any country is that a collective understanding of national interests does not exist. Perusing the political manifestos of the parties and listening to the speeches of leaders vying for power this year, one does not see or hear a coherent definition of what our country’s national interests are. It is most disappointing that our leaders who were exposed to the greater issues in the world have not come up with a discernment of what Namibia’s national interests are and around which we can always coalesce and which cannot be compromised even at times of legitimate disagreements. In fact, political disagreements should be about emphasis and methodologies, not what makes us cohere as a nation. The reality at the moment is that if an outsider visited any political party rally, he or she will be left with a dangerous perception that Namibia is still in a liberation struggle mode or does not have national symbols because all the parties are worshippers of their party symbols and colours so much so that even people who have taken the sacred oath to defend the Namibian Constitution and protect all of Namibia’s inhabitants appear to be more loyal to their parties instead of the nation. This is a very dangerous direct threat to two of our most vital national interests – namely peace and stability. These interests proceed from the liberation struggle that was for One Namibia One Nation. The country cannot stay united without champions of unity and equality of all Namibians at all times.
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES: In the context that we have been independent and self-governing for 25 years, one would have expected the political parties today to have matured such that we would be able to at least tell the differences between these various parties by way of their articulated policies with which they propose clear agendas for developing the country if they were voted into power. That is the purpose of political campaigning as an atmosphere through which leaders offer citizens and voters alternative options from which to choose. Our political parties today will regret not having expounded on the future challenges and opportunities and how best to create a conducive environment for the people to be the agents and agencies of change and sustainable development in their lifetime. The governing party has such a great narrative upon which it only has to expound and mortgage a better future. In the absence of this self-renewal process, the governing party renders itself vulnerable to dynamic opposition leaders with charisma and better articulation of issues. The governing party is fortunate today that most of the opposition still imitate Swapo and in the main want to become mini-Swapo with no alternative ideas for the country.
ECONOMIC PROGRAMMES: It is very sad to note that the political parties running for leadership today have not offered how they propose to tackle the economy of the country taking into account its geographic location as a small sized population sandwiched between two strong economies, Angola in the north and South Africa in the south, both of which are unstable. There is fussy talk about a mixed economy and no party is clear in explaining it in a manner that galvanizes the agricultural community, manufacturing, and small enterprises to take their fair share of responsibility to propel the economy forward along the logic of self-interests. It is not enough to sing the old refrain that the previously disadvantaged are not in charge of the economy. This logic is tired. After all, masses are never in charge of any country’s economy. The masses are always carried by the few that take bold decisions. It is for political parties to figure out and develop programmes on how to change the reality that tax collected from a small ‘rich’ minority and employed citizens carry the burden for the masses that depend on grants from the state. Where were the voices of renewed energy and eagerness to create jobs for the greatest number of able-bodied men and women in the land? It is for parties to demonstrate by word and deed how they will tackle the terrible property prices in the country generally and in Windhoek in particular. Homes are becoming more unaffordable and there seems to be no leadership to regulate the property market and come to the aid of the struggling middle class and young families who desire to own homes in the capital. Property prices seem to be pegged against what foreign money owners can buy and not in the interest of the voting citizens of the country. The continuously widening gap between the poor and the rich – with the rich getting richer and the poor poorer ought to have been essential in the debates amongst political parties. What is political leadership for if it is not to alleviate the plight of citizens?
EDUCATION: In all modern systems, leaderships’ education policies are one of the yardsticks for running for office. It is the education enterprise that determines and moulds the future generations for their own roles and participation in the lives of their societies. The governing party has done an exceptional job by declaring primary education free. What is lacking is an elaboration that primary education, for which the taxpayers pay by the way, must be free and compulsory so that the children loitering in the streets and villages are kept busy in classrooms. The opposition ought to have congratulated the governing party on that progressive step in the right direction and augment it with new forward-looking policies and programmes. All of us should support the Government in this direction and not allow certain developments to frustrate such efforts and create room for instability in this country. For instance, a school like the Windhoek International School that is charging beginner learners over N$95 000.00 (Ninety-Five Thousand Namibian Dollars) per year (Eight Thousand per month) for classroom tuition only should be called to order. This arrangement definitely is for Angolans and foreign diplomatic families at the exclusion of Namibians! Political leaders seem oblivious to this kind of unfairness even if it is a private school as all schools must comply with the laws of the state. Is it not surprising that no party made the critical subject of vocational training to combat joblessness, teenage pregnancies, alcohol abuse and related ills amongst the young in our land a campaign issue? How else will we prepare Namibians to become meaningful participants in the development of their own communities? Instead, political leaders want the youth to be at their political rallies. This is a false consciousness of the highest order.
DECENTRALIZATION: Political parties should have been heard on what they are proposing in terms of taking government and services closer to the people. It would appear that it is the governing party alone that is thinking about these things, and when the governing party does not, nothing happens and the opposition does not suggest constructively what the government can do to strengthen democracy and improve service delivery to the people. The signs are that what is happening is the opposite of decentralization. For instance, the national government’s policy to appoint regional governors who do not represent the regions but listen in for the President is contrary to democracy and decentralization. All political leaders must be elected by the people to whom they remain accountable at all times.
RESOURCE UTILIZATION: Resources are meager, and even with the odd international description that it is a middle-income country, Namibia is a developing country. It is incumbent upon us to learn to do more with less. A culture of financial frugality is what keeps better democracies working whereas uncontrolled and wasteful expenditure of meager resources is what kills development in our Afrika. Our political leaders have inherited models of government expenditure from bad experiences in Afrika. For instance, the practice of expecting cabinet ministers and heads of diplomatic missions to accompany the President to the airport when he travels and receive him upon his return is both uneconomic and unintelligent in the context of dwindling resources that need to utilized to serve the nation. In fact, it makes us in Afrika a laughing stock in countries where we go to beg for financial assistance and they do not have these practices because the understanding there is that whatever resources are available must be utilized to help the needy. Coupled to this is the business of printing and hanging photos of visiting Heads of State on lamp posts in the city as part of protocol. In countries where the concept of head of state evolved, these things are not done because the citizens will revolt against their leaders who indulged in such meaningless and costly habits. As we mature and want to become a model nation on the Afrikan continent, it becomes more and more difficult to countenance these practices when our hospitals, our schools, our township roads, our military and police facilities are in the state and shapes they are.
These are only a few issues I highlighted. There is more. One would have hoped to hear conversations about how to streamline the size of cabinet such that it is commensurate with the size of our population, uncouple the executive from the legislature and such important issues during the campaigns. At this point in time in our trajectory of self-governance, we ought to be thinking about doing everything possible to make sure that we leave Namibia in a better state than the one we found it in. Our business is not to hate or be destructive towards what we have established thus far. It is not even about liking one another. Our business is to support those whose shoulders are at the wheel, relieve them from what we can do where we are so that together the bus can move forward faster and steadier – with all of us in it. Our political leaders will one day regret that they did not prepare the citizens to have options and choices. We shall have a free and fair election – but I am afraid, without choice. Democracy without choices is as good as having a traditional regime which rules forever. There is more we can do with our peace and stability and while we are still a small nation. We shall regret the things we are not doing right, rather than the things we are doing from which we derive temporary joy and satisfaction in these fleeting moments.
By joseph diescho