Namibia’s evolving governance architecture

METUSALEM NEIB WRITES:

The Democracy Trust of Democracy (DTN) researches the country’s evolving governance architecture.

Good governance is an exercise of administration of the state. DTN defines this as a system of administration that is democratic, efficient and development oriented. This has remained illusive in Namibia.

If the state knows a country, cares for its people and make sure there is enough food for every household and no hunger, then its economy can prosper.

Namibia’s current government promised citizens five years ago to accommodate everyone, in democracy and education, by using diversity, pluralism and multiculturalism in building the Namibian house. Dr. Hage Geingob reaffirmed his commitment to build a Namibian house for all.

Now the citizens are looking around and see no roof or walls for this house.

Government can emphasize a greater and more active involvement of citizens in politics in order to reach a more inclusive and democratic Namibia.

The aim is poverty eradication and social welfare, solving the land and housing crises and keeping the promise to provide housing to all. No-one should feel left out...

This will achieve more legitimacy for the Namibian democracy through greater citizen participation.

Democracy cannot exist without participation and more active citizens will fill the often-mentioned democracy deficit in the country.

This is crucial to call a political entity a democracy and more fundamentally, is there a true constitutional democracy on the Namibia level at all?

The term ”democracy” has become familiar to everyone’s ears. But there are different perspectives on constitutional democracy, and there is no question about the fact that the underlying conditions for democracy have changed. Modern democratic theory and practice was constructed upon national, territorial foundations, presupposing that political communities could control their destinies and identify enough with each other to have an agreement about the best policies.

Before and even after independence some citizens had no formal or informal education about democracy, gender, equality, respect for each other and polite communication with each other. People are eager to learn and know.

Democracy education must focus on the Namibian house, eradicate poverty, create social welfare, end violence against women and children, and provide land and housing to all.

The government must address social issues in all the 14 regions. Modernization has made voters more informed, with rising expectations and demands for services. MPs need to be empower in this arena to enable them to challenge ministers.

Namibia is a country where no clear boundary exists between the ruling party and the government. Has democratic politics and practices really taken significant leaps during the past 31 years?

Must politicians rather be analyst-bureaucrats than striving for their personal advancement, being more attuned to the politics than analysis?

Is it democratic that the Chinese seemingly have more access than local bidders to state tenders? But strategic policy planning must necessarily take into account the current global political and business environment.

Many problems remain unresolved and the state lacks problem solving and decision made skills. The state issues laws, but does not disrupt social and cultural relations successful to transform an ethnic nation to a civic nation.

To sum up my point of view, the ambitious speeches about poverty eradication and social welfare, the Namibian house, land, housing and no-one should feel left out, can be criticized in two ways. First, the public sphere is hard to reach with the vague measures that poverty eradication and social welfare entails. Second, the goal of true democratic, public discussions as the Namibian house about land and housing is not really changing the primary power relations towards a more democratic division.