Namibian sellouts: Cashing assets in for crumbs

Two decades into independence, too little has changed for most Namibians in terms of their socio-economic realities. Their society remains stigmatised as the world’s most unequal in terms of income distribution. In contrast, a new species of ‘fat cats’ has thrived. It prospers despite the sobering picture of an economy lacking meaningful transformation.[1] As a ‘Guide to the Namibian Economy 2009’ summarised in its introductory blurb: 'We need to do much better in future if we are to provide jobs and incomes for all the people rather than just the privileged few'.[2]

Some believe that a free-market gospel (meaning a largely unregulated environment for private capital operations with a minimum of state interference) would be the most opportune development path, provided that it offers newly created opportunities for the participation of members of the formerly colonised majority population (which against the strict logic of this argument does indeed require state interference). Others warn that this kind of laissez-faire approach is the surest way towards further disaster and adds to the problem. Even mainstream economists employed with local private financial institutions – and therefore who keep a low profile in terms of individual criticism – have their reservations concerning the current economic policy. To quote from the recent reference volume again: 'Government’s attempts to promote black Namibian business interests have taken place outside any overall coherent, transparent and accountable policy framework and [have] generally been highly discretionary and shrouded in secrecy. As a result, the lucky few close to power and influence have benefitted greatly, often at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer and consumer.'[3]

CASHING IN ON NATURAL ASSETS

In November 2009 the electorate will, almost 20 years into independence, vote for a fifth time to decide upon the composition of the National Assembly and elect the country’s head of state for the 2010–15 term. On both accounts it requires no prophetic talent to predict that it will be the former liberation movement of the South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAPO), which (despite a new political opposition party recruited mainly from a few former SWAPO officials who had lost out on an internal power struggle earlier on) will emerge again as the dominant party, while its nominated candidate and current officeholder Hifikepunye Pohamba will become Namibia’s president for a second term with an overwhelming number of votes. Given SWAPO’s hegemonic status it is difficult to explain why political officebearers seem to be in a state of denial when it comes to acknowledging the fact that the times are not the best in terms of the country’s socio-economic situation.

The global financial meltdown and the subsequent economic recession have as a kind of ‘collateral damage’ also affected the economies of resource-based African countries. After a short-lived bonanza based on the revenue income from some of its mining commodities with high world market prices (in particular diamonds and copper) as a result of their subsequent plummeting during 2008, Namibia, with its natural wealth, has entered into a critical stage of declining economic performance. It seeks to address this setback by increasing sales of other natural assets (such as the rapid expansion in exploration and mining of its huge uranium reserves), as if such a dubious substitution would provide more than just a temporary, improvised bridging for an ailing economy short of any sustainable social and economic reconstruction.

The Namibia Wildlife Resorts Company (NWR) is, as a state-owned enterprise, like so many other state-funded parastatals mandated to act in the public interest. This includes more than merely seeking economic gains, though being economically viable would be an integral part of the defined tasks. Unfortunately, economic viability has not been the main strength of many among these companies, such as Trans Namib and Air Namibia in the transport sector, who seem to be chronically dependent upon bailouts from taxpayers’ money through subsidies. To compensate for earlier losses – not least due to failed management and disastrous business practices – NWR has started to enter deals with private sector companies to develop, market and utilise the country’s natural assets (landscape, flora and wildlife) to attract more of a potentially international segment of clients willing to pay hefty rates for viewing the country’s beauty. This includes the main water supply for Windhoek (von Bach Dam) as a potential upper-market resort for the wealthy (some of whom already benefitted from the limited access to its shores in the past).

The von Bach Dam saga, as brought into the public domain by an investigative journalist,[4] is among the latest evidence illustrating that Namibia’s public goods – supposed to be in general possession and protected in the common interest – are turned into cash for a privileged few. The euphemism of ‘Namibianisation’ has since independence, along with Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and Affirmative Action (AA), served as a smokescreen to cover up the kleptocratic enterprises of a post-colonial parasitic elite. This elite collective usurps political offices and dishes out access to the country’s wealth in public hands to a few comrades in business claiming to be entitled to such benefits as a Previously Disadvantaged Group (PDG).

These new acronyms are a masquerade for a class-based cooptation strategy over the more de-racialised socio-economic structure basically already in existence prior to independence. Despite the populist anti-imperialist rhetoric of the new rulers, they perpetuate the exploitation of the common people and exclude them from the country’s wealth. Moeletsi Mbeki has critically dealt with this tendency from within the belly of the beast. In his essays he bemoans the lack of what one could call patriotism on behalf of those who after apartheid moved into political offices. Their self-enrichment strategy is based on an unproductive crony capitalism, which contributes to the perpetuation of a (neo)colonial status quo. It sells the national assets in return for some crumbs.[5]

Mind you, the privileged few make a good living from these crumbs, also in Namibia. A look at upper-market residential areas in Windhoek, Swakopmund, Walvis Bay and elsewhere (in particular further north), as well as the latest cars on the streets and other fancy status symbols of the nouveau riche suggest that they are in no need of social welfare. This is in marked contrast to the majority of the people, who are even denied the benefits of a Basic Income Grant (BIG). But those symbols of accumulated wealth are completely unproductive signs of a voluptuous lifestyle, instead of being invested into productive sectors of an economy to create employment opportunities for others.

PUBLIC GOODS AS PPP

Far from this, it is now the last of the ‘family silver’ Namibian authorities are seemingly willing to carelessly give away, as a sharp-minded and sharp-worded comment on the latest disclosure of the scuffle around the von Bach Dam diagnosed.[6] The ‘struggle aristocracy’, as it was so poignantly termed in the editorial of the same day’s paper,[7] cashes in on Namibia’s remaining natural and strategic resources. It testifies to an economic policy which suggests that the erstwhile liberators have turned into sellouts. ‘A luta continua’, the slogan of the struggle days, almost two decades into sovereignty now effectively translates into ‘the looting continues’.[8]

Iyaloo ya Nangolo offered a lengthy and wordy ideological Trojan Horse published in several local papers in response to the disclosure.[9] As one of the beneficiaries of a von Bach Dam deal, he not surprisingly sings the praise song of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). He suggests that the PPPs would be not adequately respected as an engine for economic growth and the benefits they offer by means of subsequent trickle-down effects in terms of general welfare. It is worthwhile to recollect (as even ya Nangolo does) that PPPs were originally promoted as part of the neoliberal project by corporate capitalism in the USA. It started its worldwide crusade since the late 1970s by Thatcherism, the Reagan administration and the international financial institutions (in countries such as Chile under Augusto Pinochet!). As of late PPPs were also part of the gospel by politically bankrupt social democratic governments.

As one of two directors of the BEE company Tungeni Africa Investments, ya Nangolo seeks to legitimise his business interests. Fair enough. Hence it is also only fair to engage with ya Nangolo’s arguments instead of simply dismissing them unexplained. As he proposes, PPP 'is driven by the need to fast track sustainable development while expediting service delivery and addressing [the] alleviation of poverty, ignorance and other social evils'. He fails to mention, however, how and in which way the planned von Bach Dam scheme would achieve such effects, which services will be delivered and how poverty alleviation would be achieved. Will Tungeni Africa Investments provide shelter for the homeless, or allow those living in shacks to move into decent housing at reasonable and affordable costs? Will the construction site employ a meaningful number of Namibian workers at minimum wages for a longer period of time instead of awarding tenders to Chinese construction companies notorious for offering best bids because of their negligence of the country’s labour laws?

The advocate of PPPs in general and the von Bach Dam scheme in particular suggests that PPP is 'an economic reform strategy to deliver high quality services in an initiative that leverages the innovations and efficiency of private sector within society'. He does not spell out which high-quality services the von Bach Dam scheme will provide and to whom. More to the point, however, he also states that 'PPP had been developed to de-risk developmental programme [sic!] to private sectors'. For potential investors this is indeed an incentive, as it minimises risks at the expense of state agencies. But who gains?

The von Bach Dam scheme, like other similar potential enterprises in collaboration with the NWR, aims 'to spur growth in the tourism sectors'. But even the most impressive success stories in tourism provide hardly any convincing evidence that a prosperous tourism industry benefits the majority of the local population with lasting structural effects towards an economy based on sustainable growth and welfare. Tourism is among the most vulnerable of money generating activities, highly dependent upon external factors, and its main beneficiaries are not those in – often temporary and seasonal – employment. Rather, these are the first ones to suffer from setbacks.

What makes the von Bach Dam a sensitive issue is the fact that it is the main water supply to Namibia’s capital. Who owes and controls this fundamental public good if the utilisation of its territory is leased for generations to a private company? To what extent is this private investor loyal to the protection of a most precious public good, on which a population depends even if many among those cannot afford to pay the ever-increasing prices for water supply? The latest scandalously flawed budget by the Windhoek municipality (which mocks any ‘pro-poor’ concerns by ultimately scrapping all budgetary items in favour of improving facilities and infrastructure for the ghetto population with reference to the difficult economic times, while at the same time maintaining all expenditure in benefit of the better-off and those employed by the municipality) is of no comfort when it comes to its ordinary residents. In combination with the emerging plans at the von Bach Dam, this is surely reason enough to be worried about the future potential scenarios of such PPP.

PUBLIC VS. CLASS INTEREST

Ya Nangolo suggests that the perception of PPPs as privatisation is a misconstruction and a source of media-wrangling. This covers up the fact that it indeed is a kind of ‘outsourcing’ which allows private capital to generate long-term profits with public property, while the ordinary citizens – as taxpayers, users of privately-operated ‘public’ utilities or in any other way dependent on commercially-traded commodities for their daily life – have to foot the bill. In the end, a few rich are richer, and the poor are poorer, while the state and its administration, as well as the politically responsible officebearers, have failed in their duty to protect and act in the general interest of all members of society (not least the weakest). What is presented as a ‘media-wrangle’, highlights in fact a dimension of class interests.

The just-released 2nd Millennium Development Goals Report for Namibia, which paints a rather rosy picture, cannot help but summarise that 'a segment of the society is very wealthy even by international standards' and that the richest 10 per cent of households consumes 20 times more than the poorest 10 per cent.[10] A background paper on trends in human development and human poverty compiled in 2007 by an economist with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) office in Windhoek points to the fact that 'contrary to the objectives of Vision 2030, human development in Namibia appears to be on a long-term decline' and that 'the administrative regions with the greatest needs are under-prioritised in the development budget'.[11] One does not need to be a brain surgeon to find out where – socio-economically and regionally – the beneficiaries of a von Bach Dam resort scheme will be.

Moeletsi Mbeki (himself a beneficiary of new business opportunities provided to the so-called previously disadvantaged) ended his deliberations on the ‘architects of poverty’ with the conclusion that African elites are with few exceptions a rentier class. They appropriate wealth through access to national assets they are selling to others and 'have no sense of ownership of their country and are not interested in its development. They view the country primarily as a cash cow that enables them to live extravagantly … as they attempt to mimic the lifestyles of the colonialists… With the lack of ownership goes the pillaging of resources, neglect of the welfare of the people, corruption, capital flight and, ultimately, brutality against dissenting voices.'[12] Sadly enough, there is nothing more positive to add from a Namibian perspective.

* Henning Melber is the executive director of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in Uppsala, Sweden. Melber joined the South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAPO) in 1974.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/.

NOTES

[1] See several contributions to Henning Melber (ed.), Transitions in Namibia. Which changes for whom? Uppsala: The Nordic Africa Institute 2006.
[2] Robin Sherbourne, Guide to the Namibian Economy 2009. Windhoek: Institute for Public Policy Research 2009.
[3] Ibid., p. 359.
[4] See the several reports by John Grobler in the local daily The Namibian during June 2009.
[5] Moeletsi Mbeki, Architects of Poverty. Why African Capitalism Needs Changing. Johannesburg: Picador Africa 2009.
[6] Alexactus T. Kaure, Selling The Family Silver. NWR Joins The Pack. The Namibian, Windhoek, 26 June 2009.
[7] Let’s Start Asking The Right Questions. Ibid.
[8] I owe this brilliantly catchy and to the point interpretation to Firoze Manji, who shared it during a critical debate on the limits to liberation in Southern Africa with the participants in a seminar in Windhoek a couple of years ago.
[9] Iyaloo ya Nangolo, Misconstructing of PPP to privatisation a source of media ‘wrangle’. The Namibian, Windhoek, 25 June 2009 and New Era, Windhoek, 26 June 2009. All following quotes are from this text.
[10] Republic of Namibia, 2nd Millennium Development Goals Report Namibia 2008. Windhoek: National Planning Commission 2008 (launched June 2009), p. XIV.
[11] Sebastian Levine, Trends in Human Development and Human Poverty in Namibia. Background paper to the Namibia Human Development Report. Windhoek: UNDP Namibia, October 2007, summary page.
[12] Moeletsi Mbeki, op. cit., p. 174.