Gangsterism, Selfishness, Killing RDP

AFTER attending public rallies of the Rally for Democracy and Progress in Windhoek and at Omuthiya following the party’s establishment a few years back, I told some of my newsroom colleagues that nothing about the RDP is different from Swapo.

And when some inquisitive minds picked my brain about the party’s chances in the first presidential and general elections they contested, I predicted that they would get between seven and nine seats in the National Assembly.
Recent events are proof that I was not far off the mark.
A lot of ink has already been spilled analysing the impact the recent divisions in the main opposition party will have on their future role in the country’s political arena.
Yet it is worth putting things into perspective because, as those who have long been around in Namibian politics will agree, the Rally for Democracy and Progress is actually repeating the same mistakes committed by the Congress of Democrats. And both parties were established primarily by people who had left Swapo.
It is important to note that politicians get in trouble when desire nixes their memory. Therefore the nitpicking and mudslinging, although not as public as happened at CoD, are clearly only a scramble for the party’s soul as those at the centre of it feed their own insatiable greed to take over leadership and not necessarily to lead the party to greater heights.
When it became clear that a new political party was on the horizon because of Swapo’s treatment of Hidipo Hamutenya and those who supported him during the 2004 election for Swapo candidacy, many decided to join that new party because of Hamutenya.
They felt that their hero had finally made the move and he would be the solution to many problems Namibia faced. But there were many others who joined because they hoped to get positions. Others also left Swapo not because they saw Hamutenya as the solution but because of their hatred for former Swapo leader Sam Nujoma.
Some of those who joined the party did so because they hoped to revive their political careers as their peers in Swapo started regarding them as spent forces.
There could be other categories, but a minority of genuinely concerned Namibians also joined RDP because they were looking for a viable alternative to Swapo. Their only goal was to break the two-thirds majority and to ensure that Namibia’s democracy remained vibrant.
But there was always the risk of a personality split because of how those who led the formation of RDP had operated when they were in Swapo. Many of them undermined the party leadership if they didn’t agree with how things were done.
In the last few years before they left Swapo the majority of them spent their energies to orchestrate conflicts and direct disorder in their quest to make it look like Swapo was a party full of divisions, backbiting and hatred among comrades.
I am not saying that it is all peace and happiness in Swapo. But I am emphasising the extent to which some people went about creating the impression that the new party they were about to establish was the solution to everything.
But now that they are in positions of responsibility, where they are required to   deploy the power given to them as leaders, some leaders are failing to deliver.
One of the reasons for this is because the trust of followers was based partially on the wrong reasons. There was a perception created that the RDP leadership would always remain united and able to fix the disunity problems which were being experienced in Swapo. Another perception was that they were better leaders than those in Swapo.
Thus the disarray and political gangsterism seen elsewhere in Namibian politics would have made way for unity in RDP.
However, selfish individual goals have overtaken the purpose for which the party might have been established and if Hamutenya had not acted with the recent suspension of three leaders he would have been seen as a lame leader.
But the RDP’s problems won’t be resolved by Hamutenya alone.
Others too should agree to let go of personal agendas. Already we have witnessed that since being elected to the National Assembly, the RDP has yet to play a  significant role. For instance, they have yet to propose a bill.
If personal issues continue to dominate the inner operations of the party, the RDP will become a disaster as a vehicle for people’s political hopes and as a parliamentary player. In fact it will not have any hope at all. They need not look further than those around them in the National Assembly.
There’s no fudging with unity in political parties as many in CoD will tell you. You win or you don’t.

Is The ECN Naive Or Simply Arrogant?

THERE is no logic behind the Electoral Commission of Namibia taking political parties challenging the 2009 general elections to the High Court in an effort to recover N$1,3 million they spent on staff overtime payments. The whole debacle which resulted in the challenge (like the one in 2004 and even previous years) was the making of the ECN itself.

If they had done their work properly, no political party or politician in their right mind would have resorted to the steps taken by the All People’s Party (APP), Congress of Democrats (CoD), DTA, Republican Party (RP), Namibia Democratic Movement for Change (NDMC), Nudo, the Democratic Party of Namibia (DPN), Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP), and the United Democratic Party (UDF).
There is no doubt that there were too many logistical and organisational deficiencies in the ECN even before the voting started in December 2009.
The performance of many of the officials during the election was not up to standard, the voters’ roll was a real mess, there were just too many tendered ballots and the system for the counting and verification of ballots was hardly anything to write home about.
Among others, the above resulted in the announcement of the final election results a week after polls closed.
For a country of two million people of which between 900 000 to 1,3 million (depending on which official of the ECN you talk to) are eligible voters, taking seven days to count is nothing but incompetence and will always cast a shadow of doubt over the fairness of such elections.
A good example for Namibia is the recent elections in Zambia where more than 5,1 million people were registered to vote and it took less time to count and release the final result. Yet their voting population was around five times more than ours.
If everything was above board in the manner in which the ECN conducted the 2009 elections, the High Court would not have ruled that there is sufficient grounds to give the opposition parties access to a range of electoral materials used in the elections to audit them for six days.
But the court did so because the election was riddled with irregularities. There are no two questions about that fact.
The nature of discrepancies emerging from the auditing of ballots cast in the 2009 National Assembly election also only confirmed what everyone else either suspected or observed and the parties could never be in the wrong for auditing what they regard as a flawed process.
Naturally, the ECN is expected to see the whole election process through.
That is why the ECN staff could obviously not take leave during the period of the inspection.
In any case, how often do we have elections for the ECN to grumble over work done outside their working hours and non payment? Should anyone even take such complaints seriously?
If anything, the ECN senior staff should be hold accountable for the mess in which we were two years ago.
Which leads me to the question of what the Commissioners have done to rectify the mistakes made in the last election – apart from holding endless workshops that is?
For instance, before the 2009 election, ECN senior staff had travelled extensively to observe and learn from other nations on how to conduct elections as well as equipment they use for smooth polling. I am reminded of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) from India.
Talk about those EVMs started two to three years before the 2009 election when Philemon Kanime was still the Director of Elections but it only emerged a couple of months ago that they will now be purchased for N$22 million.
The ECN would probably argue that they did not get the money from their superiors in Cabinet, but the fact is they cannot even properly budget for an election.
Two months before the 2009 election, for instance, ECN needed a bail-out of N$26,5 million to cater for a shortfall. That was on top of the N$180 million they received as part of the annual budget. The reason was said to be ‘underestimation of funds’.
A year later, the ECN was again at it overspending during the regional and local elections by around N$40 million.
The above shows a clear lack of organisational skills and instead of trying to shift the blame or fighting the opposition parties over overtime payments, it is time for proper management by the ECN hierarchy.
My hope is that the new Commissioners will do just that and not get bogged down in unnecessary politicking.

My Dream Of An Election Every Other Year

WHILE Namibians were preparing to go to the polling stations in November 2009, South African streets were on fire as angry voters destroyed almost everything in their sight. Broken promises had sparked service delivery riots.

The African National Congress, which had campaigned relentlessly on service delivery, and pointed out during the election campaigns that it had given homes to once marginalised thousands as well as access to water and electricity, had to answer why service delivery was slow and, in many cases, not happening at all.
Impatient voters went on a serious rampage.
The bedrock of any political party's election success is the promise of service delivery. They come up with manifestos and hold political rallies where voters and supporters are promised better lives.
Resources permitting, I want Namibia to have an election every second year. It keeps politicians on their toes on the promises they make.
It is a fact that politicians only act when they fear loss and the loss they fear is related to nothing other than their income. They see voters as the avenue to thousands of dollars on which they will lay their hands until the next election and the value of not only those voters but also service delivery is degraded in the quest for that money.
That is why during election campaigns such politicians can call each other snakes, dogs, and use all other manner of colourful language but a few days later mingle with one another in the comfort of the Parliament restaurant.
After the elections our politicians become mere celebrities, throwing dollars at one another as they sip expensive wine while the voting masses starve.
In the meantime they sell the country down the road to becoming a banana republic while voters go back to being nothing more than an inconvenience to the politician!
Not many of these politicians will agree that they are public servants put there by the electorate to act on behalf of those that put them there.
This is what needs to change in Namibia.
Before writing this piece, I revisited the 2009 manifestos of political parties and also checked on what they had been up to since the last national election. Only one or two had been active in one or other form since then!
This despite the fact that all who took part in the election made promises.
Although their manifesto was carefully-worded, Swapo made many promises about improved service delivery and so did the Congress of Democrats who declared that 'now is the time for change'. Their manifesto concentrated on youth; skills development and employment; housing; poverty and welfare; corruption and poor governance; and women. All of the above needed change "now" but the urgency was gone as soon as the last voter put his or her cross on paper.
Similarly the Rally for Democracy and Progress used two slogans in ‘It’s time for change’ and ‘Together, we can do better’.
I have yet to hear some of their leaders speak in Parliament!
As for DTA, their website was last updated in November 2009 but their slogan ‘You Deserve Better’ was thrown right out of the window as soon as the results were announced. Likewise with the National Unity Democratic Organisation whose website remains dormant. If you click on their political activities button it says ‘coming soon’. It’s been coming for the last two years!
Makes you wonder whether manifestos do have any significance, not only on the voting outcome but also on accountability of parties. But that’s a topic on its own.
It is easy for the opposition to be defensive with the fact that they are not the ruling party and thus do not have the resources to deliver.
But there is a lot they can do. For instance, when last did any come up with a position paper on or propose and draft a policy on topical issues such as the current heated debate around mining.
Even though not in Government, they can bring about change in various ways.
When parties fail to deliver on promises, the people’s trust in democratic processes and institutions are severely damaged. Those are also times when the most loyal voters may not defect to other parties in droves, but will probably vote by staying away.
The silence and inactivity of political parties, mostly the opposition, also puts a question mark around party funding from Government.
If the parties are as inactive as they are right now, there is a need to make the availability of such funds conditional on satisfactory accounting and auditing and they must also be tasked to raise a certain part of the money from members. I am sure that supporters will be asking questions before giving!
I hope that voters will, in the future, demand that political parties come up with alternative manifestos of what they will do as opposition if they fail to win elections.
I also dream of a day we will have an election every other year to keep the lazy politicians on their toes.

Let the ‘Battle of Okahandja’ start

Let the ‘Battle of Okahandja’ start

By: CHRISTOF MALETSKY

TOMORROW the traditional hope of the oppressed, Swapo, will come up against a coalition of the wounded as Okahandja residents decide on a new regional councillor for the ‘garden town’.

It will be an historic election in many respects.
Although coalition politics has become an almost inevitable practice in many parliamentary democracies in the world, Namibian politicians have evaded it for some time now. This was mainly because of historical reasons as some parties certainly had a hand in the oppression of the people before Independence.
Tomorrow an alliance of diametrically opposed parties will square up against Swapo to try and wrestle the constituency away from the ruling party and send a message out that they are ready to mount a serious challenge come the November regional elections.
It seems that the opposition in the coalition have found a hero and saviour in Rally for Democracy and Progress leader, Hidipo Hamutenya. In fact, Congress of Democrats’ MP Elma Dienda called him their messiah at the weekend’s rally.
Hamutenya himself made no secret of the fact that the main goal was to capture power throughout Namibia and shape the direction the country will take over the coming years.
Although the RDP, at formation, had proclaimed that they (as a party) would defeat Swapo and run the country, anyone but a blind man could have seen the writing on the wall about them taking a u-turn and approaching others to form a coalition.
For now, only a coalition can put up a meaningful challenge to Swapo.
From attending their last rally, I have noticed that the language and tactics of the alliance partners have already become virtually indistinguishable - CoD leaders called their counterparts in RDP and UDF ‘comrades’.
A vibrant multi-party opposition is crucial for Namibia’s democracy but I wonder how long it will take before cracks appear over the selection of candidates, the level of the playing field (platform), various political tactics and approaches to issues.
For instance, although the coalition agreed on putting up the RDP person as their candidate, the posters branded around down were more RDP than anything else. There was no way a Republican Party member could identify with the candidate by looking at the poster.
In addition, the way in which the candidate was decided on - apparently her name was announced while some other parties were still busy with internal consultations - could also be a stumbling block in the future.
RDP must take care not to be seen to be pushing their agenda or being bullish in their approach on this one.
The coalition needs to identify the best candidate in a constituency based on merit and not on the basis of the party such a person belongs to, or the financial muscle of the political party in question. In the process they could also even involve ‘apoliticals’ who have proven to be good administrators and, in the process, avoid independents splitting their vote as will happen tomorrow.
Soon the new National Assembly will (hopefully) be sworn in and as new brooms clean the best, we expect heated debates!
It will be interesting to see how the opposition will handle some debates because, while they may have united in their campaign to dethrone Swapo during the November elections, they could also differ on some fundamental issues during such debates. And they’ll be watched with an eagle’s eye in this regard!
While the coalition still needs to iron out finer details about their approach to the November election, there was hardly any time for elaborate preparations for tomorrow’s battle in Okahandja.
With four candidates in the line-up for tomorrow and the opposition still split (Swanu have their own candidate also), I expect Swapo to stroll the last 30 metres of the 100 metre sprint to the finish line.

* This article first appeared in The Namibian

The Not-So-Democratic Opposition Parties

The Not-So-Democratic Opposition Parties

By: CHRISTOF MALETSKY

YOU can say whatever you want about Swapo but give them thumbs up for having internal elections when it comes to choosing candidates, even though the process may be manipulated at times.

I can’t say the same about some of the so-called democratic opposition parties in Namibia.
Take, for example, last year’s national and presidential elections and how some of them denied their members the right to elect leaders of their choice.
Small groups of leaders in the DTA, the Congress of Democrats and the United Democratic Front to an extent came together to draw up a list of their candidates – presumably to represent the people.
They placed the candidates – meaning that if I was in favour with some of the top leaders, I could end up in the top echelons of the pack (although, of course, not above them).
How members of those parties could act so undemocratically is a mystery to me.
Their voices, through the party ballot, were silent yet they shouted “viva” when their leaders stood in front of them and accused others of being undemocratic.
Why was there no outrage while your voices were being pummelled from all sides? How do you know that the same people will practice democracy if they take over Government and have to lead a whole nation?
I am raising the issue now because elections are over and hopefully people will reflect on it without emotions boiling over to the extent that we will resort to name-calling or slander.
Every voter or member of a political party has the right to decide who must represent them. You can’t leave that to small oligarchies with ‘big men’ mentalities who only think about their big bellies, flashy lifestyles, underhand deals and their kin.
Many of the opposition parties have young, vibrant people who have been silenced through the undemocratic manipulation by people who have been around for ages yet have not produced the goods when it comes to the people they claim to represent.
Some of the opposition parties lack a culture of open and sensible debate where candidates are given a chance to sell themselves or share their ideas on how to lead the people in their constituencies.
In fact, those who speak out or share different sentiments to certain leaders are often sidelined to the extent that they do not feel welcome. Ultimately they abandon their aspirations.
One of the excuses why some of the opposition political parties did not hold proper congresses to elect their candidates was that they do not want to go the Congress of Democrats’ route.
They claim that the CoD ended up in disarray because they held a congress. What a load of rubbish coming from people who claim to be democratic!
The CoD’s problems had nothing to do with having elections but all about the processes followed during the infamous and controversial Keetmanshoop congress which ultimately ended in court.
But the deafening silence from members of parties who stifled their voices concerns me.
I am almost certain that their silence has set a precedent, which will be difficult to correct because they ‘legalised’ it the first time around.
Above all, can those candidates continue to claim that they represent the masses in their party?
There is a saying: “if you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones”.
How freely will such opposition parties be able to hurl criticism about lack of democracy at Swapo or any other party for that matter?
It is sad and tragic because no one other than the members of the parties can speak out for themselves. Their silence is equal to condoning undemocratic principles.
The actions by those opposition parties, or their leaders, have clearly weakened their case on democracy.
* This article first appeared in The Namibian