Dr Tuhafeni Helao
It appears that not much has been done over the past 33 years to enhance, influence, direct and heighten the quality of debates and deliberations in parliament. Parliamentary structure seems to defeat the very purpose of equity and balanced governance.
As such, the one-party dominance has reduced the robustness of debates in parliament, particularly on socio-economic matters. Evidence of poverty, youth unemployment, skewed rural living standards and livelihoods stand testimony to these assertions. Yes, some might be quick to fling aside the atop statements and perhaps say; Ah, this is just another supposition. Notwithstanding rebutting these assertions, this article maintains that transformed society and realistic developmental directions have their roots in functional democracies and effective parliamentary settings.
Relatedly, progressive human-focused thinking and action bridge the ‘human divide’ and advance broad grassroots livelihoods. In this context, ‘human divide’ characterises a society alienated by socio-economic factors, stemming from some debatable laws and policies either enacted by parliament, or inherited from previous political dispensation and not repealed or amended to suit the present societal formation.
Parliament, as the cardinal organ of the State, exists to perform two critical functions only. This includes policy and law enactment, and carrying out oversight functions to promote empathetic application of policies and laws.
Therefore, parliament needs to shun political party patronage, and focus on key national issues to resolve poverty and unemployment in the country. Parliamentarians must be people of honour in searching for solutions to social predicaments perturbing society. Essentially, parliament should be a venue for issues interrogation, mutual understanding and consensus to influence representative-based outcomes.
Parliamentarians should not allow their respective political party differences to influence intended outcomes. In realising that, parliament ought to be separated from party politics and patronage. Putting aside this dividing line is crucial because Parliament does not exist for party politics glorification, but for strategic and citizen-focused objectives. These objectives should guide parliamentarians when sitting in the August House.
Parliament consists of public officials on government’s payroll, who are obliged by law to advance the interests of the general public. Therefore, those promoting party political interests in parliament have their priorities and roles misdirected.
It defeats democratic principles, and reduces the quality of parliamentary debates to insignificant decision-making. It creates an opportunity for important national issues to sail through without proper interrogation and consideration. It reduces parliament to a mere rubber-stamp platform. As suggested, a progressive developmental agenda may only benefit the citizens if democratic principles are central to those who are fortunate enough to represent and serve society in parliament.
Parliamentarians must be people-centred, innovative, research-oriented, issue-focused and considerate in the performance of this noble obligation. Parliament should underline its commitment to balanced decision-making, after robust debates and consideration of national issues, and must be seen doing such.
A caveat is drawn from the above assertions. Some parliamentarians are equal to the task, raising the bar, and amplifying the quality of debates in parliament. Certainly, they speak with authority, revealing that they do research before contributing to issues of national interest. Surely, key socio-economic issues find direction and expression in the legislature. Thus, parliament should translate them into human-focused policies and laws to improve the living standards of people, especially rural livelihoods. The parliament must embody the will, trust and hope of the people because parliamentarians represent wider society, irrespective of political affiliations.
By nature, the government ought to be apolitical. Hence, no political party or its patrons can claim ownership, or feel more entitled to state organs. Consequently, all three branches of government should serve as the last stop and hope for each citizen. In that line of argument, the legislature’s efficacy and outcomes should bring hope and confidence to society in need.
Research underscores the importance of the practical separation of power, confirming that parliament functions well in that environment, but not under the system in which parliament and the executive are both players and referees.
Notably, the executive drafts policies and laws, and tables, debates, defends and adopts the same in parliament, raising the unreciprocated question of objectivity of issues being considered and adopted in that House, thus, putting into question ‘checks and balances’, especially when one political party is in majority to swing outcomes in its sanctions.
The ambiguity underpinning the separation of powers makes the executive more powerful, and influences whatever is happening in both parliament and the executive. This is a constitutional challenge that should be addressed to remedy this governance disproportions. It reduces accountability and transparency due to unclear oversight mechanisms (who oversees who?), resulting in the snail’s pace and skewed implementation of government programmes. Rural areas’ livelihoods bear evidence of this state of affairs.
In her motion in February 2022 on the impact of the executive on the separation of powers, Elma Dienda stated: “The vacuum in the Constitution to make explicit the relationship between ministers and the Parliament has facilitated executive dominance. Power has become skewed in the executive’s favour, replacing Parliament as the primary forum for decision-making... The large dual membership of ministers to the executive and legislative branches of government as well as their proportionately large number have resulted in decreased parliamentary oversight capacity. Sadly, Parliament primarily became a reactive institution rather than a proactive one, largely unable to respond sufficiently to emerging challenges, opportunities and national emergencies”. She observed that “under the current scheme, Parliament is effectively rendered a rubber-stamp legislature, which could not have been the intention of the constitutional drafters”. Thus, “the question how Parliament - as the representative institution and voice of the citizenry - be strengthened and the principle of separation of powers be better observed”.
To enhance the quality of debates and parliamentary efficacy, this motion needed earnest consideration, and perhaps ends in revisiting the constitutional provision, particularly Article 35(1), to give practical effect to the separation of powers’ conundrum.
Currently, the system being practised appears to be a mixture of the USA, France and British system of governance. Though the powers that be may not see anything wrong with the present parliamentary system, the fact remains that it is ineffective in resolving rural community livelihoods.
The domineering executive does not have a complete picture of the rural dilemma, while the National Council (regional councillors) only review what has already been sanctioned by the National Assembly... and ends in concurrence.
In reality, the system is located far away from the people, and cannot allow space for grassroots voice operationalisation. Parliament’s equivocal nature reduces its role to insignificant deliberations because executive dominance always prevails.
As stated earlier, this complex governance system is provided for in the Namibian Constitution, which is rated as one of the best in the world. Being aware that there was some degree of pressure and influence by international communities, particularly the Western Contact Group in the adoption of the Constitution, the article assumes that Namibia was indirectly coerced to concede and adopt the 1982 Constitutional principles, which is the cause of the current quandaries.
In his PhD thesis, President Hage Geingob acknowledges that “… various parties involved in addressing the Namibian question, South Africa, the Western Contact Group, ethnic parties and the liberation movement, tried to influence the ultimate outcome of the nature of the Namibian state to suit their own vision or interests. The important provisions of the constitution, the constitutional principles, were ‘imposed’ on the Constituent Assembly because the West wanted to ensure that the liberation movement did not opt for socialism that might compromise the interests of the settlers”. Therefore, “…instead, Swapo pulled the rug from under their feet by adopting the Constitutional principles” - enumerated on page 123 of the thesis.
These principles, among others, include three branches of government, and their unclear demarcated responsibilities. The main question that should be answered is: if the ’constitutional principles were imposed’ and perhaps accepted as compromise, why has that error not been rectified, 33 years on? To this date, this principle exists and directs the government’s approach to policy-making and governance. Therefore, this article argues that the adoption of this principle and ostensibly its separated roles was unfortunate and, thus contributed to and compromised the quality of parliamentary debates, as the ultimate outcomes are always predictable. The assumption may be made that the high rating of the Constitution globally seemed blindfolded, and diverted our attention from real issues affecting vulnerable society today, making the country a milking cow for those with financial muscle. The Namibian parliament ought to come to the party and address this ‘constitutional dilemma’. It should direct key socio-economic matters through amending and repealing laws and policies which are not compatible with contemporary societal considerations and advancement.
Parliament must take the forefront in shaping the direction of the political, economic and social benefits of the country to improve poor people’s living standards and livelihoods. As a legislative mainstay, parliament should ensure that no provision of the constitution contradicts the intended developmental agenda, vision and mission, and should not allow laws which seem to legislate away the rights of citizens.
A Sine qua non approach concept may heighten parliamentary debates and approach to focus and commit undivided attention to details, particularly those constitutional provisions that conflict with good governance and acceptable livelihoods’ enhancement.
*Dr Tuhafeni Helao is a retired academic. This article reflects his own opinion.