21 March 1990 marked Namibia’s Independence Day. When celebrating the long awaited moment of our hard won independence twenty years ago, most Namibians shared similar hopes and expectations. Two decades later, while treasuring our achievements, some at the same time look at the limits to liberation in a more somber way. Taking stock of the last twenty years does not, on balance – as painful as it is to say this – give reasons for uncritical enthusiasm.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES

There is no reason to approve of the socio-economic situation and the pertaining class structures. Namibia is still one of the most unequal societies in the world. Poverty has not been reduced considerably. According to economists associated with the Namibia office of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), structurally embedded poverty has actually increased. Measured against the annual per capita income, Namibia has remained a lower middle income country. But it continues to have one of the highest discrepancies in the distribution of the economic wealth generated. Put differently, a minority shares the biggest part of the cake, while the majority remains hungry.

Although Namibia recorded positive economic growth rates for most of the years since independence, unemployment in 2010 has been estimated to be over 50 per cent for the first time. According to the annual UNDP human development report, Namibia is among the non-oil-producing countries with the biggest negative difference between its ranking in terms of per capita income and on the human development index. The latter measures, among others things, educational levels, health indicators and access to public goods such as water, electricity and other infrastructure. Due to the devastating effect of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and one of the highest prevalence rates in the world, the life expectancy of Namibians has dropped considerably since Independence.

Those who expected that independence would increase markedly the living standards of formerly marginalised people were disappointed. That goal is almost as remote as it was twenty years ago. There is little evidence of strong political will to change this as a matter of priority. For those who were privileged under settler colonial minority rule, in contrast, little has changed for the worse with respect to their material situation. Rather, ‘business as usual’ might, in their view, count in favour of the continued social stability.

The negotiated settlement between the liberation movement and the former colonial power as facilitated by external actors ended in a process of controlled change. It resulted in changed control. Decolonisation took the forms of an elite pact. National reconciliation was in the first place a reconciliation of class interests between the former haves and the nouveau riche of the new domestic order. The fat cats as the main beneficiaries of so-called affirmative action and black economic empowerment, were the parasites fed from the access to publicly controlled resources. The embezzlement of state funds for private enrichment schemes through quota allocation and concessions, excessive salaries, other fringe benefits and the awarding of tenders as political rewards has become almost chronic. Financial scandals and the misappropriation of other opportunities (such as stipends for studies) seem to have become the order of the day.

Redistribution of wealth does not seem to prioritise those most in need. The campaign for a Basic Income Grant (BIG) failed despite all noteworthy efforts and results in the pilot project to convince political office bearers that it was a necessary investment in social stability and peace, which might contribute to the emancipation of the needy by assisting them in their (self-)empowerment. The misery of the needy is not seen as a tragedy, requiring an urgent initiative from a responsible state and its political office bearers in a caring society with the welfare of the ordinary people as a guiding principle. During the struggle days we cultivated and benefited from a notion of solidarity. Twenty years into independence, such solidarity is only visible among the haves, aiming to protect their old and new privileges.

POLITICAL HEGEMONY

Those who gain from this aberration feel, without shame or fear, entitled to what they consider a legitimate compensation for their sacrifices and sufferings as activists during the struggle days. As if the struggle was about their individual career in the first place! The Johnny-come-latelys seek to compensate for their lack of struggle credentials with populist pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric, often bordering on hate speech. The self-service mentality thereby justified reflects the blatant class nature of the project called national sovereignty. It merges political control with economic gains from the declared liberators’ privileged access to the country’s public goods and resources.

While privatising public wealth, they feel entitled to such appetite – if not greed – given the continued political legitimacy bestowed by the overwhelming majority of voters upon the former liberation movement’s policy. Since independence, the political hegemony of the party executing political power and in control over the state apparatus has been consolidated and firmly entrenched in forms of a partocracy, which faces no fundamental challenges. But despite its claim to have liberated the people, it is a new form of rule, which does not translate into direct benefits for the majority of the people.

The fact that Swapo (the South West Africa People's Organisation) secured a two-third-majority of votes during the November 1994 elections for the second legislative period, and extended this popular endorsement of its political power to almost three-quarter of seats in the National Assembly since then, is in the first place evidence of the lack of alternatives – not testimony to its legitimacy based on achievements and performance. That disputes over election results have led to court cases after the last two national elections shows the increased contestation, but is not any reliable evidence for a lack of legitimacy for the party exercising exclusive political rule.

The obvious flaws in the conduct of the elections, however, offer no comfort. That the results of November 2009 were disputed in vain by a coalition of nine opposition parties testifies only to the incompetence of such political opposition. There was no verdict on the substance of the claimed irregularities as submitted to the court. The dismissal of the case, solely on the basis of a technical matter, should not be misunderstood as an endorsement of the results through a judgment based on examining the merits of the evidence presented. Hence the loser is not only a political opposition, which does not get its act together. The challenged Electoral Commission and the winning party have no reason to claim absolution, as the disputed results were not confirmed as proper and accurate. Triumphant celebrations are misplaced, especially since the biggest loser of all is Namibian democracy.

ARROGANCE OF POWER

Spectacular decisions by court testify to the independent judiciary as a fundamental ingredient to checks and balances. These verdicts aren’t always as welcome by those executing the political power of definition, as in the most recent case on the elections. One only needs to recollect the attacks on the Supreme Court ruling in the labour hire case, against the particular legislation as being unconstitutional. Representatives of the dominant political order did not shy away from abusive language, bordering on a dismissal of the judicial authority over legal affairs. But the rule of law is not supposed to be the law of the ruler. It is of no comfort that their disrespect for the authority vested in the independent judiciary as a necessary third pillar of a democratic, plural and accountable society was never rebuked or called to order by those representing the government and state.

Lack of internalised democratic rules, values and norms is also reflected in the absence of inner-party democracy among most, if not all, political organisations. There are factional divides not only within Swapo, but inside many other smaller parties too, an indication that it is less identification with the political programme than personal interest that guides political commitment and activity. The formation of a new party challenging the dominance of Swapo was the result of a power struggle over the succession to Nujoma, not over programmatic political issues. That the marginalised group, led by Nyamu and Hamutenya – and all suspected of being supporters and hibernators – were the victims of a political vendetta seeking to eliminate their influence in dominant politics does not make them a political alternative, or turn them into proponents of a different mindset.

The resulting polarisation during the last two years was indicative of the lack of plural democracy and its instilled values. Hate speech became the order of the day. Political contestation culminated in physical violence, harassment and the violation of fundamental democratic rules. Individuals were purged for the views ascribed to them and willingly exposed to all sorts of insults. Intolerance towards dissenting voices escalated and bordered on defamation campaigns. Name-calling substituted for political arguments.

Under such repressive circumstances, civil society remains fragile and is denied a constructive role in the consolidation of a legitimate political and social order. Those not guided by blind loyalty to the dominant party are accused of eroding stability and betraying the nation. As if a nation could be identical with one political organisation alone! Such a totalitarian view does not bode well for nation building guided by mutual respect and based on the slogan ‘unity in diversity’.

For many victims, national reconciliation has remained a hollow lip service. The several hundred returning Namibians, who as so-called ex-detainees survived the dungeons in Southern Angola, have demanded rehabilitation for twenty years in vain. No acknowledgement that they were exposed to suffering while not proven guilty, no support in their efforts to come to terms with their traumatic experiences, no other form of apology whatsoever and no remorse shown by those who were responsible for their ordeals.

Nor is there any sign of mercy to those who, as a result of the failed secessionist attempt in the Caprivi, have been incarcerated for the past decade. Despite constitutional demands for a trial without delays, they were under arrest for years before being brought to court for high treason. They were denied their fundamental rights, exposed to torture and left without legal representation. Most of them are not even implicated in the acts of violence and the murder of several people during the futile coup attempt in early August 1999. In the meantime, more of those not yet convicted of any crime have died during the ten years behind bars than there were victims as a result of the violent encounters. Namibia has more than a hundred political prisoners, suffering in custody for the last ten years.

Self-righteousness – as manifested by an arrogance of power – guides many of the political decisions. Foreign policy preferences are an indication. The new bonds of friendship with China, Russia, North Korea and Iran among others reveals the mindset of the ruling elite, through the foreign allies they feel comfortable with. The Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha hosted Namibia’s head of state for an official state visit at a time when his regime was already in complete isolation due to its ruthless violation of fundamental human rights. Namibia was one of the last countries visited by Indonesian dictator Suharto before he was ousted from office by the people. The friendship with Zimbabwe’s state terrorist Robert Mugabe is reaffirmed at every occasion. The Legal Assistance Centre’s director had to remind Namibia’s government only last year that its declaration that the Sudanese president Al-Bashir remains a welcome guest despite his indictment by the International Criminal Court is in contravention of the country’s ratification of the Rome Treaties.

While all these foreign policy elements are claimed to be at the genuine discretion of the elected government and not subject to any criticism, deviating policy orientations by others are dubbed as illegitimate efforts for regime change and part of an imperialist conspiracy. Contesting political party leaders are accused of suffering from a ‘Unita’ syndrome. Their contact with a German political foundation is considered as illegitimate subversion, tantamount to a plot. The foundation’s resident representative is singled out as a threat of political stability in the country. If this stability was indeed be at stake, it would be a serious reason for concern – not because of a single representative of a foreign organisation, but rather because of its seemingly fragile state.

Prime Minister Nahas Angua, who had made these accusations in February, shared more self-critical thoughts in early March, during a public lecture at the University of Namibia . He asked if progress had been sufficient since Independence. Depending on the viewer’s perspective, he suggested, the cup may be either half full or half empty and that Namibians might not agree on the level of progress made. Indeed not all might have reasons to celebrate when Namibia turns twenty.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Dr Henning Melber is executive director of The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in Uppsala, Sweden. He joined Swapo in 1974. This article has been written for an Independence Supplement of the Windhoek-based daily The Namibian.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.