By today the voting by teachers on the motion to strike would have come to an end. This is an internal procedure to the teachers themselves in terms of the country’s labour law, which prescribes that for any industrial action to be legal, the correct procedures must have been followed. One of these is balloting.
One of the most important pillars – if not the most important – of the push by Dr Hage Geingob’s administration towards prosperity and the wellbeing of the Namibian people is the concept of Harambee.
Harambee is just what it is literally says: in Kiswahili it means ‘people should pull together’.
In the Namibian developmental context this is simply a clarion call for the people of the country to rally behind government’s push towards prosperity.
Not just this, but it is for each one of us, in her or his special way – according to her or his ability – to do something, not only for ourselves, but also for our fellow compatriots.
That’s why in view of the ongoing dispute between government and the teachers, represented by their union, Nantu, one cannot but revisit the concept of Harambee, because the issue at hand provides government with a litmus test to determine whether we’ve embraced and internalised the concept of Harambee as a country.
Underlying the concept in terms of the whole society pulling together in one direction is another attendant concept, which from an egalitarian stance suggests a socialist outlook: from each (including government and teachers) according to their ability and to each according to their needs.
As government is the employer in this case, responsible for availing the requisite resources to fulfill its contractual obligations to the teachers – including their deserved remuneration – it is expected of government to be at all times informed and guided by its commitment to Harambee, particularly the dictum: “from each according to her or his ability and to each according to her or his needs”.
In this regard the matter of salary increases for teachers is not only about whether teachers are getting what they deserve, but whether government is in a position at the present historical juncture to meet the demand.
It cannot just be a matter of government’s discretion to decide what is affordable in its view, but the question is what the country can afford, all things being equal, as the economists would have it.
Whether the country can afford it is not a question for debate: it is an unending matter without limit.
Also, as a financial and thus an economic issue it can be elastic or inelastic, meaning affordability in this instance can only be relative.
There’s no way that the government can say it cannot afford the increment. Period!
If government is not able to afford it for of one or other reason, such reasons must be explained, honestly and in good faith to all, especially the immediate stakeholders – in this case the teachers and their representative union, Nantu.
It’s not over until it’s over. It is not immediately clear whether negotiations have broken down completely, but what government has done so far is to propose a five percent increase. This is just a proposal, subject of course to approval and further negotiations between the two parties, as has indeed been happening, with Nantu making a counter-proposal asking for an eight percent increase, raising government’s offer by demanding an extra three percent.
There are thus a proposal and a counter-proposal on the table, which are still subject to negotiations until a compromise is reached.
So, it cannot be good faith for the government to side-step the union, its negotiating partner, and try to dissuade its members from taking whatever action they are contemplating, especially not when such action is legal and within the democratic framework.
The ballot whether to strike or not should not be seen as the alpha and the omega – whichever way it goes – as long as the parties remain committed to a negotiated settlement.
Nor can one really understand – whatever the ballot says – how Nantu can resort to strike action, while still negotiating with the employer, the government.
Whatever the outcome of the ballot, ordinarily one cannot see Nantu and the teachers going on strike without having considered all the alternatives, with the welfare of the children foremost in their considerations in this regard.
If there are people who should be well aware of the broader mission of the teaching profession, in which the welfare and future of the learners reign supreme, it cannot be anyone other than our teachers.
That is why one can trust that whatever action they embark on post-ballot, it will be in the broader national interest.