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.

Succession In The Opposition: Time For Some To Make Way

IN less than four years Namibians will head back to the polling stations to elect a new president.

But too much time is spent on the Swapo succession race when there are other parties which need to get their houses in order.
The Rally for Democracy and Progress, DTA of Namibia, United Democratic Front of Namibia and the National Unity Democratic Organisation all need new leaders if they are to be agents of change in the coming elections.
Together with Swapo, the political parties need not only to look for a younger president but also involve youth in the country’s mainstream politics.
Currently Namibians are preoccupied with everyday worries from the scores of people flocking the rubbish dumpsites to make ends meet with what other people see as health-hazardous garbage, hundreds of thousands who don’t have jobs, or enough to eat, or clean water, or a roof over their heads, or access to quality education and safe neighbourhoods and access to healthcare.
So a debate about a presidential candidate, especially in the opposition political parties, will probably be eclipsed by concerns about these tough economic times and how people struggle just to hold on to what they have.
But politics is also a bread and butter issue.
Whoever takes office as a leader of the country, in most cases, decides the path the rest of the country takes in future.
Thus, even if, judging by the current political environment, it might not look like the opposition will take over State House in three years’ time, there is nevertheless a need for introspection for those parties.
Before I look at what’s available and throw in some younger names as possible options, I need to point out that opposition parties need to move away from ‘opposition politics’ which is built on statements and rallies focussed mainly on criticising Swapo rather than rallying the masses to provide change from grassroots.
That is also one of the main reasons why many parties are dying a slow and painful death. Most will look like the real ‘new kid on the block’ for a year, or at most three, but quickly start to fade away, giving voters very little, if any, optimism.
Thus, unless opposition parties get beyond the attitude of criticism to build an alternative that will resonate with the majority, Swapo might well rule until “Jesus comes back”, as one of the party leaders recently said.
At Independence the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance was Namibia’s main opposition with 21 seats in the National Assembly. Today they have only two.
The party went on a serious backwards slide.
Current leader Katuutire Kaura (70) took over in 1999 after Mishake Muyongo went into exile following the Caprivi secession.
Under Kaura the support base did not only gradually thin out but the National Unity Democratic Organisation and Republican Party left the DTA.
Kaura is a well-oiled speaker and someone with good ideas, but his time at the party’s helm is up.
In 2005 the young McHenry Venaani prematurely challenged him but Kaura managed to see him off in style.
In fact, Venaani’s challenge also cost him the party’s secretary general position and ultimately a seat in the National Assembly where he had made mature input during debates.
With the experience he picked up, Venaani could be a good candidate who will not only draw votes from his tribal background, but also from people, young and old, who want intelligent debate and action.
Another leader whose time is long up is Justus //Garoeb (69 year in December) who heads UDF since 1989.
//Garoeb is a respected politician by both friend and foe in the National Assembly but he is hardly there!
Also, under him the UDF has lost appeal – losing members of the alliance as well as a number of seats in Parliament.
UDF has a couple of leaders they can rely. Among them is Sebastian !Gobs (43) – the regional councillor for Khorixas and someone who has shown vigour.
Another candidate would be the Kamanjab constituency councillor Dudu Murorua (who will be 53 in a few days). The former governor of Kunene has shown the leadership required to rejuvenate the party. He is far from the truck driver and farm foreman that he was at some point during his youth.
I also believe that the next ballot papers should not carry the image of Kuaima Riruako (76).
Not only is he the oldest Member of Parliament, but there is a need for the Nudo leader to follow his age-mate President Hifikepunye Pohamba when he retires.
Even though Arnold Tjihuiko (61) is not so young anymore, he has been very vocal in the National Assembly and could push on for a few more years.
I am sure that, just as Nudo surprised us with Tjihuiko appearing second on their list in 2004, they have other candidates in the offing.
If Hidipo Hamutenya (72) harboured aspirations of forming an own party or leading an opposition party, the Rally for Democracy and Progress came a bit late for him.
The former Minister, with many years of experience in international diplomacy, was followed out of the party by a host of his supporters. Even before he left, Jesaya Nyamu (three years Hamutenya’s junior) became the first senior Swapo figure to be expelled since 1990.
Nyamu took the beatings for his former high school mate Hamutenya but the former Minister of Trade and also Mines, who defended Epupa and Ramatex vigorously, is not exactly young enough to take over the leadership.
Again, RDP also have scores of more youthful leaders waiting in the wings.
But the youngbloods can only emerge once others have made room.
It makes sense, and it is the right time, for the above leaders to make way.

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.

RDP/RP Merger: A Marriage Of Convenience And Survival

IN the Damara and Nama cultures marriage is a family affair. You can be rich as a bridegroom-to-be but will never be allowed to organise and marry alone. In fact, whoever wants to marry a Damara or Nama woman is likely to be sent home to get his ‘parents’.

Family must have a say, no matter how poor or insignificant they might appear.
Towards the end of negotiations for a bride, the family of the bride-to-be are likely to ask for a ‘apa gomas’. Others refer to it as lobola. With Damaras and Namas, it is a cow which will be handed over to the mother or guardian of the wife-to-be and the idea is to keep it in the family kraal as the ‘seed’ for the couple’s new life as (part-time) farmers. Their children will one day live off it, the elders will say.
The recent political merger between the Rally for Democracy and Progress and the Republican Party represents a similar marriage.
As the Republican Party was formed in October 1977 when Dirk Mudge left the National Party, it is no longer a young bride. It has one divorce behind it after leaving (in 2003) a disastrous marriage – the DTA alliance.
That’s when Henk Mudge, son of founder Dirk Mudge, was entrusted to reactivate the party and target the lost white vote.
For me, the idea was to continue the Mudge political dynasty and it succeeded to an extent when the RP won seats in seven local authorities councils and one for Henk Mudge in the 2004 National Assembly elections.
Mudge made no secret that he was targeting the white vote, claiming that they were being “seriously discriminated against” but the pipe-smoking politician also targeted a section of Damaras through several pentecostal churches as well as people in and around Katima Mulilo.
Therefore, while progress was made in expanding the support base of the party in especially Khomas, Caprivi and Erongo regions in 2004, the scale was still decidedly almost non-existent, especially in the North where the biggest number of voters reside.
Their total number of votes in the 2004 National Assembly elections were 16 187 but because the Namibian democracy is unfortunately littered with a series of party infightings (which have resulted in some failed projects), the RP failed to overcome ego politics and become a strong opposition.
The results were very evident last year when the party collected only 6 541 votes throughout the country.
While they were able to get one seat in Katima in 2004, the RP only managed to collect 79 votes in November last year.
At Keetmans, where they also have a local councillor, only 293 people cast their votes for the party while their support in Khomas went down from 5 040 in 2004 to 1 812 last year.
It became clear that the RP membership was dwindling and that the party, if it continued on its own, would struggle to stay afloat.
The Mudges had to look towards Hidipo Hamutenya, with whom they had serious past animosities.
Interestingly, Mudge’s RP was the first political party which, when Hamutenya resigned from Swapo in 2007, issued a statement to welcome his decision. Maybe then already Henk Mudge had a vision and saw Hamutenya as a potential comrade.
There is no doubt that it is a marriage of survival for the Mudge family and one of convenience for Hamutenya.
As RP has been dwindling over the past couple of years, there is not much in it for RDP.
Yet, they seem to have paid the ‘apa gomas’ (lobola) as Henk Mudge first needed to consult and get the blessing of his parents before walking up the aisle.
In fact, last year’s election results indicated that the RDP benefitted big time from the support base of the likes of RP and the Congress of Democrats.
The majority of supporters whom Mudge claim to join RDP with, are already there! They saw the ship sinking and jumped some time ago.
Therefore, it will be interesting to see how the RDP will cope with demands by a few RP leaders and how long it will be before Hamutenya is served with divorce papers by the Mudges.
So at the end the merger is really much (read Mudge) ado about nothing.

Parties seem to have gone back to sleep

LAST year’s presidential and national elections had one thing in common – Caprivi and the two southern regions of Namibia seemed to be rethinking their allegiance to Swapo.

The performance of the opposition in several constituencies of the three regions gave some the impression that a shift in political power was emerging, while Swapo apparatchiks perhaps sat up to take note of their fading influence in those parts.

Political analysts were unanimous that Swapo’s performance in some constituencies of the Hardap and Karas regions was a clear indication that the voters were unhappy with either the local leadership or what they were getting out of their membership to the party.

In fact, political infighting at local and regional authority level resulted in many casualties and a feeling that certain groups in the party were promoted at the expense of mainly indigenous people from the regions.

The high number of votes received by mainly the Rally for Democracy and Progress also signalled that the electorate has become aware that they can turf out those who try to lead them astray.

The impression created was that the electorate had shown those in high office that their positions came as a conditional gift – you keep them only as long as those who gave them to you allow you to keep them!

As a result most observers believed that the 12 months leading up to the next election (local and regional ones in November this year) will be crucial.

In fact, I thought that political parties, especially Swapo and the RDP, would become involved in a battle for the soul of Karas, Hardap and some constituencies in Caprivi.

Yet, I get the impression that RDP is not much different to Swapo!

Both groups, as well as other opposition parties, including new ones, have gone back to sleep.

Since the December election hardly any political rally by the opposition has taken place in those areas to explain their intentions to the masses, yet, come November this year, they will scream to high heaven of impending danger if the ruling party continues to rule there.

It is a proven fact that successful political parties have a penchant for directly interacting with voting masses. The best time to improve your image as a political party is to campaign and reach out to the masses when everyone else is more distant or removed from the people.

Given the anxiety which political leaders went through as the results trickled in last December one would have thought that politicians had learnt something.

How wrong I was. The same flaws are still in play.

In fact, politicians continue to concentrate on minutiae of political contestation such as who should stand in which district and who are the hibernators in which party.

I would not be surprised if we have a below 30 per cent voter turn out in this year’s November elections because the purges happening in Swapo, coupled with the lacklustre approach from the opposition, is likely to discourage voter turnout.

For me, RDP has left in the streets the hundreds of votes they picked up in the South in last year’s election.

Not only are they absent in Parliament, despite being voted in, but they are also not seen as championing the aspirations and wishes of the people who voted for them.

There are so many issues out there which the political parties can use to jointly tackle with social movements (the Basic Income Grant and the land issue a case in point) but it seems none stand a snowball’s chance in hell to get the attention of the politicians until a month or two before elections.

Ultimately, it tells us a lot about the state of our political parties, doesn’t it?

* This column first appeared in The Namibian

All Want A Finger In The NBC Pie

THERE is tragedy in the fact some top current and former media professionals have decided not to apply for the post of Director General at the Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC).

Government’s interference and the Swapo infighting for positions are directly to blame for the sad scenario that has played itself out at the national broadcaster.
This is the same NBC, previously known as SWABC, which Hidipo Hamutenya, shortly after he was appointed Information Minister in March 1990, said had been operating as a propaganda machine for the South African government and he intended ensuring that “it serves the public”.
The present troubles started when Swapo – then still firmly controlled by its former President Sam Nujoma – ordered Cabinet to replace Nahum Gorelick (who had taken over from Piet Venter) with the former Deputy Minister of Information, Dan Tjongarero.
We have since had many DGs and acting DGs of the NBC.
The broadcaster has almost become a get-rich-quick scheme. Anyone getting the job is guaranteed a five-year contract which will end prematurely with a megabucks payout!
The end result negatively impacts the quality of news output as well as the potential of visionary leadership at the national broadcaster.
The NBC is in fact a lesson in how ill-conceived attempts at change can ruin a powerful institution.
Another example of Government interference at the NBC, especially with editorial policy, was in June 1995 when the then Chief of Protocol from the office of Nujoma, Martin Andjamba, entered the NBC newsroom and ‘ordered’ that unedited footage of a presidential press conference be played in full on the evening television news.
The NBC ended up carrying an edited version of the press conference on the news bulletin, which was followed by transmission of the unedited footage.
That set the tone for interference and the NBC reverting to a State propaganda tool as the SWABC had been before Independence. It also became a battleground for those aspiring to become Swapo Members of Parliament.
As time moved on what was initially an autonomous NBC board shortly after Namibia’s Independence in 1990 was replaced by people who were either active members of the ruling party and/or high-ranking civil servants in the Swapo-led Government.
Deploying party apparatchiks to boards such as that of NBC blur the boundaries between Government, these boards and their executive management.
Above all, only one of the current board members appears to have any broadcasting experience.
The NBC has become the mouthpiece of the Government, and allows little if any substantive criticism of Swapo in its reporting.
In fact, politicians from all sides want a finger in the NBC pie. That is why Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP) leaders heaped insults on NBC reporters during their recent campaign for the Okahandja constituency by-election.
This was not merely a skirmish in the vicious war between those who believe the NBC should be a servant of the Government of the day and those who believe it should serve the public.
All political parties trying to get a hold on the NBC is a dangerous and astonishingly stupid idea because it would make the Corporation directly beholden to them.
I know that I am on thin ice here but cowards are notorious for taking refuge in silence when trying times call upon the brave to risk the moral hazards of taking a public position.
That is why I call on the chattering classes in political parties that have developed a voyeuristic obsession with the NBC to distance themselves from the broadcaster and allow professionals to run its business.
Once that happens, the NBC will be inundated with applications for the DG position and won’t waste money on running adverts for weeks on end to get enough CVs in to justify an appointment of someone who was already earmarked for the job.
Until Government gives the NBC its autonomy back, we will continue to see qualified and able prospective candidates staying well clear of the corporation.
As for those appointed in the meantime, both the Board and the appointees will be taking a fat chance. So much so that they get a fat cheque within a few months!

* This article first appeared in The Namibian.

Tough Union Choices Still To Be Made

Tough Union Choices Still To Be Made


LABOUR analyst Herbert Jauch, pondering the destiny of the National Union of Namibian Workers (NUNW) 10 years ago, wrote that there were “some tough choices to be made by Namibia’s trade unions”.

Indeed true and very urgent, I thought at the time. But how wrong I was.
The umbrella federation has cruised through the last century at the expense of the workers.
The ‘best’ the unions have done is to expose hibernators, fight over leadership and churn out candidates for the Swapo Party parliamentary list.
They continue to lose more and more of their cadres to influential Government positions but they stick to the whims of the ruling party instead of using their positions to the workers’ advantage.
The majority of those leaders have so far been guilty of conflation of political and worker interests.
Each year they contribute to the ‘zombification’ of the working class as they have lost many of their rights through compromises by their leaders.
Last week the new National Assembly has, once again, seen two union stalwarts, NUNW president Alpheus Muheua and Namibia Public Workers Union’s Eliphas Dingara, in the quicksand of Swapo politics.
They are lost to union politics.
In the case of Muheua anyone but a blind man could have seen the writing on the wall.
Like many others before him he has sacrificed his position as a union leader in the party over the past couple of years.
The most significant of his roles was when he sat on the Government negotiating team while he was president of NUNW, and told workers that they were not entitled to their demands.
Muheua was also among the first people who badmouthed the new Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP) in 2007 when he addressed a workers’ leadership retreat.
At that meeting he also reminded all and sundry that NUNW would remain in Swapo.
He had adopted the same tactic used by others before him who gunned for the opposition and at the speed of light ended up in Parliament.
Unions have thus lost many a firebrand leader who have become spokespersons of the ruling party and Government.
The recipe is the same for every union leader. Make the loudest noise against the ‘enemies’ of the State like ‘Boers’, imperialists, confused opposition; chant for land grabs and foreign-owned media and you get the ticket to the ruling party’s parliamentary list. This constitutes very cheap politicking at the expense of union business.
One of the first signs of the unions’ precipitous descent into the world of Swapo was in 1994 when Bernhardt Esau was the General Secretary and announced that the NUNW was considering forming its own political party. This caused consternation in the unions as well as among Swapo and state security circles.
Soon Esau was summoned to Swapo headquarters and quickly retracted his statement.
By late the same year he, John Shaetonhodi and late Walter Kemba, were on former President Sam Nujoma’s choice of 32 of Swapo candidates for the 1994 parliamentary elections. Today he is the Minister of Fisheries.
The new Deputy Minister of Agriculture Petrus Iilonga controversially remained Secretary General of Napwu while he was in Parliament.
In October 1999 former President Sam Nujoma appointed the late Gabes Shihepo as Deputy Minister of Information. A month before that he was the president of the Namibia National Farmers’ Union (NNFU) and organised the biggest demonstration of communal farmers calling for land reform to be speeded up.
A year later we saw NUNW president late Ponhele ya France threatening with a Zimbabwe-style land grab during a May Day rally and rapping “Namibians of European origin” for being unwilling to co-operate to redress the discrepancies brought about by colonialism.
He was subsequently rewarded with a seat in Parliament.
The million-dollar question is whether the workers actually benefit from the elevation of their leaders.
Unions have become powerless in their negotiations with, for example, the Government.
Workers continue to suffer with low wages, unreasonable dismissals, unabated retrenchments and general disregard of basic human rights as the unions affiliated to Swapo continuously fail to influence policies.
As they are on a Swapo ticket, the union leaders seem more accountable to the party than the working masses and cannot even be recalled by members.
In short, they are Swapo MPs and not unionists.
It is time for the workers to reassert the benefits, if at all, that they get from representation in Parliament. The tough choices Jauch referred to 10 years ago are now more urgent than before.
As it is now, change is a distant reality as long as union leaders are unable to extricate themselves from the quagmire called Swapo.

* This article first appeared in The Namibian

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