Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro
The victory of the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) in the recently concluded Botswana national polls, which saw the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), also known as Domkrag, exit the corridors of governance after 58 years, would be the height of political naiveté for the Namibian so-called opposition political parties.
The UDC’s triumph has been a gradual process, not a sudden accomplishment. Determination, patience, resolve, principles, and a strong ideological disposition have all contributed to the UDC’s success. All these attributes and traits are in rare supply among all, if not most, Namibian political parties and/or formations. With the only resolve and determination being a blind and unguided one to unseat the Swapo Party of Namibia.
Which, for that matter, seems to be informed and driven by no more than pure craze, quest and hunger for power.
The ruling Swapo Party appears to be filled with hollow envy.
Hollow envy to be in the same position that Swapo has been since independence of having access to state power.
Not for any discernible reason, but to be able to, like Swapo and its cronies and those connected to it, poke their fingers on the national cake for self-enrichment.
For if there’s anything that seems to have been driving the other political parties in questing for state power, it is and has been, among many other artificial motivations, the prestige that comes with being called either honourable minister, honourable member of Parliament, or what-have-you. Titles stuck to them even when no longer in office or when some after office have gone on to denigrate the said titles through one or the other misdemeanour, including accusations of rape. Titles that many that have never been commensurate with the deeds and doings of those upon whom they have been bestowed. Making these titles and prestige bestowed upon them those upon whom such prestige but a misnomer and a mismatch for most, if not all. Not to mention the unpalatable fact for some, if not most, for the time that they have carried the said titles, about five years, few if any have contributed anything except slumbering their respective chambers.
With Namibian elections within a few days, it is just too late for these political parties to harbour any cooperation between and among them. What purpose does any cooperation serve if it is not founded on principles and ideology? If the only motivation is unseating the Swapo Party government, which cannot be spoken of as much of a principle other than an infatuation with and for power and everything that comes with it in an unethical society and its political principles. Whose only inspiration towards public office is the thirst and hunger for opulence and decadence such access to state power is perceived to entail?
Moreover, for the majority, if not all, of these political parties, the focus has never truly been on the people, the masses, or improving their material conditions.
Instead, it has been about self because the impediment has been about who is to lead any conceivable cooperation amongst them.
With the leader of each political party/formation being a political chief in his/her own right. Most literally, one-person shows and not a collective. Thus the concept and culture of collectivity being alien to most, if not all, of them.
The experience in Namibia so far with those political parties that have been able to forge any cooperation and/or conflation, however one may wish to characterise it, has ended at the end of the day in palace revolutions reaching courts of law. Simply because these have been unions not forged on principles and ideology but on pure power hunger. It’s also unclear whether these unions have been shaped by a convergence of ideologies, regardless of their specific nature. Meaning so far efforts among the various political parties at closeness before one even dares talk about cooperation and/or coalition have been at best half-hearted, if not delusional.
After November 27, all those who were unable to secure enough votes to enter Parliament would receive proportional seat distributions, resulting in the allocation of one or two seats each. Over the next five years, there will be minimal talk about forming a coalition or cooperating within the august house to ensure an effective lawmaking process. This may set the political parties in Namibia that have not been forming a government but are present in Parliament, and even out of it, apart from others, like in Botswana, whose victory its Namibian counterparts may wish to emulate, if not taking a leaf or two from.
Granted the deteriorating economic situation, impacting on the country’s reserves, played a pivotal part in letting the Batswana vote the way they did, the UDC’s has been doing its homework to bring the various political parties under one umbrella, hence its name. Most important, these constituent political parties of the UDC are not an eclectic and amorphous randomly assembled collective, unlike in Namibia, where it is hard to tell what any actual belief is, but have been brought together, first and foremost by the realisation that the trajectory Botswana has been taking since the ascendance of Mokgweetsi Masisi to governance has not been a progressive one. Second, their concern goes beyond Botswana’s political and economic situation. The ideological makeup of Botswana’s constituents prevents its economic development from being the best. But in need of a shakeup, if not ultimately an overhaul.
Behind the scenes lurks a party like the Botswana National Front (BNF), the creation of Botswana’s foremost ideologue of note, the late Goabamang Kenneth Koma.
“Many people will ask the question—does not the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the socialist community of nations mean that socialism is dead and buried and that socialism has failed?” The answer is that the case for socialism is still as valid as ever. What has failed is not socialism as such, but the Soviet model of socialism… The debate should be only about the model.”
