“Poverty breeds frustration, and frustration has the capacity to undermine legitimacy” (Ismail Davids) By Ulrich Freyer The relevance of the Liquor Act, 1998 (Act 6 of 1998), is at the heart of the current debate on shebeens. The shebeen owners were up in arms over the relevance of the legislation to the realities in both urban and rural areas. The issue is not the (il) legality of the shebeens, but rather the relevance of the requirements people/applicants need to meet to legitimize their operations. As academics, politicians, members of civil society et al, we ought to promote the principle of the rule of law. At no point during the ongoing debate did the protesters allude to the promotion of illegal shebeens, thus, it would be unfortunate (from all points of view) to conclude that the protesters are contemplating to undermine the rule of law or a promotion of the legitimization of illegality. Much has been said about the issue on illegal shebeens. The phenomenon that prevails is but an indication of failures in the other areas of public policy formulation. It will be imperative to look at the bigger picture. The investigations around the relevance of social policy to the matters it needs to address can be viewed as a lack of (limited) proper consultation from those that are responsible to drive the consultation process. For example, respondents in an urban area might not necessarily echo the sentiments of the rural poor. In many instances do these “consultative committees” have a presupposition of what such policy should include. Deductively, such consultations are thus a mere formality. Complaints such as the irrelevance of the requirements to the situation it needs to deal with, are issues that should have been dealt with during the consultation phase of the policy making process. Being a Namibian, one has learned that we are a very tolerant society. (Please do not interpret the statement as me promoting intolerance). With that there is a sense of complacency on the side of those that are particularly tasked with the role of consulting society on issues affecting them. Many of the social uprisings are about the irrelevance of legislation/policy on the matters it ought to address. Namibia is not yet threatened by delegitimization from the poor majority, but given the legacy of civic activism among the poor and their demonstrated unwillingness to accept injustices indefinitely, the state may at some point start living on borrowed time. The National Council for example is composed of individuals representing the interest of society (supposedly). The question is: Were the subjects consulted during the period prior to the formulation of the Act? If they were, to what extent are their views incorporated in the legislation? This question is relevant to all the other structures of political and interest group representation e.g. political parties, religious groups, trade unions etc. Experience shows that leadership in virtually all these sectors believe that they are familiar with what people want, deciding in the comfort of their offices what should (not) be included in a particular policy or piece of legislation. Views On Consultation Reich (1998) holds that “the core responsibility of those who deal in public policy formulation – elected officials, administrators, policy analysts – is not simply to discover as objectively as possible what people want for themselves and then to determine and implement the best means of satisfying these wants. It is also to provide the public with alternative visions of what is desirable and possible, to stimulate deliberation about them, provoke a reexamination of premises and values, and thus to broaden the range of potential responses and deepen society’s understanding of itself. I personally agree with the notion that there should be opportunity “to stimulate deliberation about issues of relevance”. With the introduction of the Local Authorities Act, the decentralization policy and other legislation, one can sense a commitment to bring government “closer to the people”. The election of councillors to serve the interest of those voting them into power is an indication of the commitment to this noble cause. The unfortunate reality is that communities “see” councillors before elections and surely again if they campaign for re-election. The political parties are not seriously taking to task councillors that are not performing. There needs to be rationalism in the policy-making process. Rationalism in policy making should not be narrowly understood as the dollar implications of the policy, but the gains on the political, economic and social fronts. Rational policymaking is where the policy achieves maximum social gain. This is merely a cost benefit analysis of anticipated policy results. Therefore, governments are encouraged to choose policies that are affordable in cost, but are beneficial in gains. People and communities do not necessarily strike for the pleasure thereof. One of the criticisms government has is the lack of capacity to annually looking at policies and to align them to relevance. Therefore, the assertion by Lindblom in Dye (1995:30) that “decision makers do not annually review the whole range of existing and proposed policies, identify societal goals, research the benefits and cost of alternative polices in achieving these goals, rank order of preferences for each policy alternative in terms of the maximum net benefits and then make a selection on the basis of all relevant information” holds water. Opportunities for participation do not end with elections. Legislation requires that development planning be participatory, that is, a process that structurally incorporates the voices of communities affected by planning. It is ideally not to be a consultative process, but a fully participatory one. Thus, the stakes are high; it can have a direct impact on the quality of life of Namibian citizens in the short to medium term, and may influence the longevity and eventual consolidation of democracy in the long term. Views On Consultation “any recommendation to increase the participation of people must pass the empowerment test: Does it increase or decrease people’s power to control their own lives?” There is a growing recognition that obtaining feedback from users is a fundamental and integral part of measuring effectiveness and without such a perspective, policy implementation will have limited legitimacy. It goes without saying that the ongoing “shebeen issue” is an assessment of whether the liquor legislation has achieved its stated objective, and whether the intervention had the requisite impact (positively or negatively). The incorporation of end user views in public policy making cannot be overemphasized. Otherwise, policy results will have what is called in social sciences the “perversity thesis” effect. The results/ outcomes are the opposite of what is intended. In an abstract sense, every citizen, taxpayer, actual, potential or future user has an inherent interest in the outcome of the relevance of public policy. The experience with the shebeen owners allows for a deductive inference that existing and future policy should maintain their legitimacy, by consulting broadly the beneficiaries/end-users of a specific policy and been legitimized by such consultations. Whether the drafting of the liquor legislation adopted the principles of rational policy-making is a question to be answered by those who are comfortable with that. Political parties are another means of enhancing the effect of public opinion. Like pressure groups, they serve as intermediaries between citizens and policy makers. Party platforms on which elections are fought form a basis for the party leadership when, as government, it engages in the making of the public policy. Political parties are thus regarded as important agents for establishing popular control over government and public policy. To generate new knowledge and improve current practice, I recommend that public policy formulators think through and consider possible responses to the following questions on public participation: – Who has the right to act as the “voice of the excluded”? – How does one manage and maintain community participation? – Participation towards what end? To address whose agenda? – How can we assure that participatory processes ultimately have a redistributive effect, and do not put power in the hands of already empowered groups in the community, thus increasing disparities in the community? – How can we ensure that participatory processes promote social solidarity amongst the poor? – If the door to structured participation is always open, what happens to those who choose not to enter – do they get discredited as “trouble-makers”, “ultra leftist” and “enemies of democracy”? Lastly, there needs to be a political and professional commitment to redefine recipients of public services as customers or consumers. Such nomenclature carries with it the implication that the producer-oriented nature of public service provision has been modified to a consumer-driven approach. The aim of this approach is not merely to please the recipients, but to empower them. The user is entitled not just to “good”/relevant policies but to respect, knowledge of and about decisions, and perhaps most importantly, the right to be heard and to be listened to. In the end, it is only the public or target group for whom the policy is intended who can judge performance or relevance of such legislation. The political leadership (regardless of the level) should constantly be reminded that they are in a social contract with the electorate, and the expectation to deliver is a legitimate one. * Ulrich Freyer is a Lecturer: Department of Public Management, Polytechnic of Namibia