However much one might have been trying to make sense and find rational for the recently touted changes to the Constitution, such has simply been hard to come by. In the meantime the National Council has approved the changes.
Thus it may be too late for one to add one’s voice to the matter, but, as they say better late than never.
Over the last couple of weeks, I like many others who have been trying to make sense out of the proposed Constitutional changes, have also been doing my utmost to muddle through the hosts of writings and explanations to rationalise and counter-rationalise the changes.
But still I have not been able to really get the gist of the essence of the changes.
Interestingly while the matter somehow seems a fait accompli having been steam-rolled through the National Assembly and the National Council, the Law Reform and Development Commission (LRDC) is still on the road, to what end one does not know with the Amendment Bill already having sailed Parliament.
As part of this road show, one understands a team from LRDC was in Okakarara yesterday to explain this.
Would any further explanations while the matter is a fait accompli as it seems really make any sense?
One cannot but muse and wonder.
Honestly the more one tries to make sense of the rationale for the Constitutional Amendment Bill, the more confused or more less convinced one gets about the logic, both in terms of enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the government, or the Namibian parliamentary system, let alone the country’s democratic dispensation.
In terms of enhancing democracy one cannot but fail to understand how in a nascent democracy like Namibia, one could reconcile the principle of an elected President appointing a Vice-President.
In the least, granted such a position may be necessary and in view of the democratic principles we avowedly espouse, why can the voters also not directly elect such a Vice President, if genuinely and honestly there is a need for such an Office of the Vice Presidency?
For the sake, if anything at all, enhancing the Office of the Presidency and not the powers and/or personal influence of the President?
It really does not make democratic sense other than appetising the cravings for power of its advocates and would-be proponents, if not assuaging their schizophrenic and euphoric fears once in charge.
If the essence of the Office of the Vice President is legitimately and honestly to enhance and assist the President, thereby enhance the work of the Office of the Presidency, and thus the executive wing of the State, it is only appropriate for such an office to have direct legitimacy from the electorate.
Ordinarily the Vice President should be the automatic caretaker of the affairs of the State in the absence of the President, temporary or permanently due to one of the other mishaps.
One cannot also but fail to see the rational of the Office of the Vice President, and appointed one for that matter with the retention of the Office of the Prime Minister. Except for the major difference between the two offices in terms of powers, the Vice President being imbued with more executive powers as opposed to the Prime Minister who currently does not have executive powers and whose functions, “leader of government business in parliament” has been no more than the definition thereof.
To say the least the Office of the Prime Minister given an Executive Vice President cannot be anything but dubious and superfluous.
It has been pretended and pretexted in certain quarters that the Office of the Vice Presidency, and that of the Prime Minister may be necessary evils, and the top top-heaviness they bring to the top structure of government necessary for the sake of nation building.
But such even has been anything else but convincing. One cannot but become worried and enamoured that 24 years after independence, reconstruction and development, the only way now seemingly workable and prudent in which we can foster progress and unity, and nation building for that matter, is by creating positions for individuals, individuals who may necessarily not enhance efficiency and effectiveness in governance. Are we not in this way continuing with a system of cronies where people are appointed for their yes-man or yes-woman mentality instead of their integrity and competence?
One cannot but also be amazed at this juncture when and where we should be strengthening the check and balances of our democratic dispensation, by especially enhancing the role of Parliament, we are focussing on giving the executive arm of the State near to arbitrary powers of appointing people in high executive positions.
This is as if currently the government has been lacking the necessary powers to bring about the necessary upliftment in the lives of the people?
Granted that the executive arm of government needs some beefing up, if only to enhance its efficiency and effectiveness, one cannot ignore and should not lose sight of the important tenet of the Namibian democratic dispensation, which is the separation of powers, and checks and balances. In this regard the role of Parliament of scrutiny and debating is no doubt the most important aspect of the separation of powers.
One only wonders to what extent ,and if due regard is ordinarily paid to this, as should and should have been?