Thursday, June 14, 2012
Swapo Succession: Marching Left But Walking Right
IN Swapo not everything the party leaders say from the public podium is ‘the whole truth and nothing but the truth’. In many instances the word ‘party’ is used to achieve personal goals and also coerce members into a certain thinking or direction. Take, for instance, the decision taken by the party’s Politburo and rubber-stamped by the Central Committee that there should be a lid on the succession debate until ‘the party’ decides otherwise. It makes one wonder who ‘the party’ then is. Is the party the Politburo or is the party general membership at section, branch and regional level? It was decided that campaigning should not be allowed until ‘the party’ decides otherwise nearer to the congress. What that decision basically means is that ‘the party’ is the Politburo. It is the Politburo who decides when campaigning will start. But most importantly, it is also the Politburo which decides who should stand for election and in what position because the names will be first thrown in the hat at that level before being submitted to the Central Committee and later to the congress. It means that, first, someone who is not at Politburo level has almost a zero chance of being named as a candidate for a top four position. Not that I am arguing for a complete outsider as leader of the party but to point out the exclusiveness of the presidential race. Secondly, there has been no instance where the Politburo had invited nominations for the top four positions prior to deciding on the candidates. What it has done is to nominate and endorse them at Central Committee and congress level before elections take place. Therefore, the Politburo is in fact the ‘party’ which the leaders refer to when they talk about the succession debate, when people should start campaigning or who the candidates will be to stand for elections. I know that some will argue that the congress delegates still get a chance to nominate a candidate from the floor, but what chance does such a person have of being elected? When does such a person campaign? So the question really is whether it is truly a Swapo tradition, as many leaders claim, not to campaign before congress. To whose benefit is such a move? What impact, if any, do the continuous claims of availability of someone like Prime Minister Nahas Angula also have on the succession campaign? What about former minister Helmut Angula’s claim that the next president of Swapo must also come from the Tanganyika group? Am I wrong in concluding that the seniors in the party want the succession debate to continue on their terms and that they want to decide where and when it should be held? Is what is happening not to their advantage? Recently, my colleague Asser Ntinda wrote that “those who are pushing for a public debate on this crucial issue (of succession) outside (Swapo) Party’s structures are not necessarily members” and that it will be “a fatal mistake” if the party “plays into the hands of such elements” by discussing it publicly. According to him outsiders want to hijack the debate and should thus not be allowed to do it. Ntinda and many others in the party know that what happens in Swapo is of interest to Namibia because it is the ruling party. There is no way Namibians can pretend how Swapo runs its affairs has no effect on the country. In many things already our Government has become a reflection of who Swapo is. Therefore outsiders have the right to poke inquisitive noses into the party’s affairs even though Swapo evangelists like Ntinda might argue that what the party does is its business alone. If outsiders, especially those with genuine concern for the country, cannot help guide the democracy that we have the party’s flames of internal fires ultimately descend into energy-sapping but useless fights within the Government also. Therefore, there’s no fudging in politics. You win or you don’t even if you are a so-called outsider or onlooker and with Swapo’s succession debate publicly marching left but physically walking right, there is also a need for a debate both in and outside party structures.