By Catherine Sasman
WINDHOEK
Commentators have expressed worry over the ongoing purge of senior Swapo Party leaders from the list of delegates originally scheduled to attend next week’s party congress without apparently following due process.
The SWAPO Party is going to extraordinary lengths to rid its structures of delegates already selected to go to the congress but who are now suspected Hamutenya sympathisers.
There has been a rash of purges since the launch of the Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP), with Hidipo Hamutenya at the helm of the interim leadership of the party.
“What we see is a major test for inner party democracy,” said senior researcher at the Labour Research and Resource Institute (LaRRi), Herbert Jauch.
Speaking in his personal capacity, Jauch said some sort of disciplinary process or a fair hearing would usually be followed should any member of SWAPO – or any other party for that matter – be perceived to be guilty of any wrongdoing.
“From there, the perceived wrongdoer should be found guilty or not guilty,” said Jauch. “And in severe circumstances, people can be suspended but even then, a certain disciplinary process would be required.”
At the National Union of Namibian Workers (NUNW) congress of last year, Jauch came under fire when he refused to give in to party political pressure, arguing that workers unions should not be drawn into party political conflicts.
“That does not serve any purpose for workers,” said Jauch, adding, “Unions should stay clear from party conflicts, and unions should be united as workers on a class basis instead of along party political lines.”
Lecturer at UNAM and acting director of the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), Professor Bill Lindeke, took a similar view.
He said from the recent attempts to purge alleged Hamutenya supporters from SWAPO structures, it appeared that the party is not fully committed to democratic principles and due process when suspending or sidelining some of its members.
“The most important thing is that SWAPO is a private organisation governed by its own set of rules and presumably provides for due process proceedings, but I am not sure if this is always observed,” said Lindeke.
“The SWAPO Party is presumably a mature party with a lot of experience and one would assume that they should have a lot more confidence in their structures and procedures.
“What we see here is a knee-jerk reaction, and it would appear that the internal party mechanisms are not as democratic as expected,” said Lindeke.
Alternatively, Lindeke suggested, opportunistic party hopefuls see the purge as a chance for new openings in the party structure where “people are trying to get their 15 minutes of fame to be appointed to something”.
During the 2004 Extra-ordinary Congress of the party, Lindeke said, there were attempts to democratise the leadership choices.
“But we have also seen a lot of manipulation of the process where people tried to influence the outcome with less than clear motives. ”
Overall, said Lindeke, the long history of the SWAPO Party has seen a degree of intolerance – as well as a deep sense of tolerance at the same time.
Political scientist Henning Melber remarked flatly that the SWAPO Party lacks internal democracy.
This, he said, is partly as a result of the liberation struggle, during which a “rather authoritarian concept of politics, power and control socialised the comrades, particularly so in exile”.
The lack of internal democracy or – put differently – the absence of a capacity to absorb dissenting voices manifested itself in several internal revolts already in the 1960s with subsequent punishment of those not toeing the party line as defined by the centre of power, argued Melber.
This, he said, escalated ultimately into the dungeon saga as the most visible sign of a preference for coercion, intimidation and elimination against those who disagree with the leadership.
He said this mindset of the “struggle days” had to a large extent been perpetuated since Independence.
“In retrospect it seems even more so since the party secured a two-thirds majority in the 1994 elections. Instead of opening up and inviting critical, if not even dissenting views, the arrogance of power was strengthened – i.e. the notion that ‘if you are not with us you are against us’.
“Arguments over differing views on substantial policy matters – such as the third [presidential] term, the war in the DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo] and other matters of legitimate concern – were measured by the degree of support to the dominant view held in State House. A culture of fear was the result of intimidation and sanctioning of critical views expressed,” continued Melber.
This, he said, is a late example of so-called “democratic centralism” which guided the authoritarian Soviet Union, other states of the Eastern European bloc and other state-socialist regimes such as China and Albania.
“It has to do with centralism, but very little – if anything – with democracy,” concluded Melber.
The apparent purge of Hamutenya supporters from the ranks of the SWAPO Party, said Melber, seems to be at best based on “flimsy evidence”, saying the climate of “witch-hunt” allows people to “indiscriminately act against anyone who is for whatever reasons considered to be a ‘problem’.”
He ventured to say that the purge before the SWAPO congress is a “pre-selected ritual to confirm a planned outcome”.
“Unfortunately, it denies not only party members the opportunity to add value to policy by raising critical issues, but also denies the party the benefit of political loyalty, which criticises for the sake of improving policies.”