…the path to governing by truth and the will of the electorate
Lazarus Kwedhi
If “One Namibia, One Nation” means anything, then the government should function like a person with two hands. The right hand does not fight the left hand. They work together.
As our Oshiwambo elders say: “Omunue gume ihagu tompola ona”, meaning one finger cannot do without the other fingers.
Not as a “ruling party and opposition parties” government, where opposition parties are seen as inferior and their members are treated as second-class citizens in our democratic society.
Yet, 35 years after independence, we are still governing with one hand tied behind our back.
We have reduced the government to “ruling party” versus “opposition parties” — as if they are not all serving one body called the government of the Republic of Namibia. In this setup, the opposition is treated as the enemy of progress.
The problem is not “opposition” versus “ruling party”. The problem is whether our government reflects the will of the electorate, and whether decisions are made based on truth and facts, not on the tyranny of numbers and emotions.
The Flaw: Majority rule used to suppress truth and facts
Today, decisions in Parliament and Cabinet are made by majority, not by evidence. Because 51% can vote anything through, research and empirical studies are ignored.
We saw this in South Africa. The Constitutional Court dismissed Parliament’s vote to block President Ramaphosa’s impeachment because MPs used their majority to bury facts. The Court said that a majority cannot override a constitutional duty.
In Namibia, the same pattern repeats. Disagreement is not about policy. It is about party loyalty. The majority uses its numbers to suppress facts and calls it “majority rule”.
That is not governance. That is ruled by faction. And this is the fundamental reason why Namibian development and the economy remain stagnant.
In the current Parliament, the ruling party lost its two-thirds majority in the last National Assembly election. To date, no Bill has been passed.
SWAPO politicians and some sections of the public are shifting blame and scapegoating opposition parties.
But the truth is simple: for years, the ruling party used its majority to bulldoze any Bill without providing facts supported by research, empirical studies and scientific evidence on the pros and cons to Namibian sovereignty.
Today, the will of the electorate has spoken at the ballot and ended that abuse of numbers.
Scapegoating opposition parties will not help and will not survive in a decolonised, post-independent Namibia. The writing is clear on the wall: numbers cannot be used to suppress truth and facts.
The colonial root: The bifurcated State
This structure is not Namibian. It is inherited. Scholar Mahmood Mamdani called it the “bifurcated state”, created under Jan Smuts — a system of divide and rule meant to prevent unity of purpose and to enable colonial exploitation and the exclusion of others from decision-making that directly affects their lives.
Smuts created a dual system: one superior and one subordinate, built along racial lines, white and black.
Through the same lens, after independence, we created two systems of political parties: “ruling party” and “opposition party” — referring to the party whose candidate won the presidency and which held a two-thirds majority in Parliament. In some cases, it is even called the “Government of SWAPO”, implying that the Government of the Republic of Namibia belongs to the so-called ruling party.
In this system, opposition parties are not only seen as subordinate. They are seen as enemies of the nation and disruptors of government business, rather than as the other finger or hand — part of the same body that complements the other to complete the task.
In March 1990, we removed the colonial administrator, but we inherited their seats and kept the colonial design: a fused executive and legislature, winner-takes-all, and a government that excludes anyone who did not vote for the declared winning party.
We cannot blame anyone. “Kasipeli iniilongasha” — we can only blame ourselves for not learning the lesson from colonialism.
Colonialism stood for greed, which gave birth to monopoly and profit, which gave birth to exploitation and the exclusion of others — not only from political decision-making, but also from ownership of the means of production: economic emancipation.
The Solution: Three constitutional amendments
To decolonise our Constitution, we need three changes.
First: Amend Articles 32 and 35 — Separate the Executive from the Legislature
Ministers should no longer be appointed from Parliament, and not only from the President’s party. The President should also no longer appoint the additional eight non-MP ministers.
The President should appoint a Cabinet based on the proportional results of the presidential election, from recommended lists submitted by each political party.
It will then be up to each political party to recommend experts and technocrats from within their ranks — who are not members of Parliament — to serve in Cabinet.
This ends the conflict of interest where one person makes laws in the morning and implements them in the afternoon.
It was the case in the amendment of the Marine Resources Act, where the then minister of fisheries and marine resources, Bernard Esau, tabled the amendment in Parliament to give himself power to allocate fishing quotas as an MP, defended it as a minister, and implemented it as a Cabinet member.
That concentration of power led to the Fishrot scandal and the loss of jobs for fishermen, as well as the dishing out of fishing quotas to comrades and politically connected individuals.
Amending these articles will restore the true principle of separation of powers and prevent the abuse and concentration of power in one individual who acts as legislator, executive and businessman.
Second: Cabinet must reflect the will of the people
Because Namibians elect the President directly, the Cabinet must reflect the proportion of votes received in the presidential election. If, for example, SWAPO receives 58%, IPC 26%, and other parties receive 5% and 11%, respectively, then the Cabinet should reflect that.
It makes no sense that we have two independent elections: presidential and National Assembly, yet Cabinet is appointed from Parliament rather than from the proportional results of the presidential election.
One can understand winner-takes-all for the Presidency because we only need one President. But appointing Cabinet from Parliament undermines separation of powers and the will of the electorate.
In this proposal, the President still appoints and leads, but governs with both hands — the “ruling party and opposition parties” in Cabinet. All three organs of state will perform their duties independently without interference.
Cabinet members will no longer perform under the pressure of the President, but under the pressure of the Namibian state sovereignty threshold.
This is nation-building, not party politics. It rejects the colonial dual system that promotes apartheid-style divide and rule, and instead promotes unity of purpose.
Third: Add a right to evidence-based governance in Chapter 3: The Bill of Rights
We must entrench a new fundamental right:
“Every person has the right to have public decisions made on the basis of verifiable facts, empirical research and scientific evidence. No law or policy shall be adopted without an independent impact assessment on Namibian sovereignty.”
By placing this in Chapter 3, it becomes justiciable. If the government ignores facts, citizens can take it to court. This forces the Legislature and Executive to argue with data — “truth with facts” — not with numbers and emotions.
This is a consensus Cabinet. If all parties are in Cabinet, you cannot just outvote them or fire them. You must convince them with truth and facts — data that is correct, right and accurate.
Technocratic checks must also be strengthened: the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Namibia Statistics Agency must report to Cabinet and Parliament, and their findings must be debated before any vote.
Why this matters: One body, one purpose
If Namibia is truly “One Namibia, One Nation”, then we must treat the government of Namibia as a single human body. The heart does not oppose the lungs. All organs serve one body. We must abolish the “ruling party and opposition parties” mindset.
Health, education, finance, agriculture, marine resources and wildlife — these are organs of one Namibia. When we divide them into “government” and “opposition”, the whole nation gets sick.
True accountability is not shouting from outside. It is sitting at the same table, testing evidence, and deciding together what is true and what works for all.
The process should be: Evidence first, vote last.
Evidence first: Before any Bill, the Ministry must table research, cost-benefit analysis and an impact study.
Vote last: Only after the facts are on the table do you vote. And if you still disagree, you must explain why the facts are wrong.
Parliamentary committees, universities and CSOs must test the evidence.
Articles 32 and 35 were written with liberation-struggle logic. SWAPO saw itself as the movement that delivered independence; therefore, sharing power with the “opposition” felt like betraying the struggle.
But the bottom line is that SWAPO survived because of the will of the people inside and in exile. PLAN fighters, supporters and sympathisers — all hands built the liberation.
Today, Article 21 of our Constitution protects the right to association. The will expressed by Namibians at the ballot must also be reflected in the Cabinet.
Conclusion
To amend Articles 32 and 35, and to add a new right in Chapter 3, is to decolonise the Namibian Constitution.
It moves us from minority rule and blind majority rule to rule by truth and facts. As Deng Xiaoping said: “Seek truth from facts.” There is no truth without facts.
Namibia cannot be built with one hand. Let us amend our Constitution so that all hands, all minds and all evidence build this nation together.
Because “omunue gume ihagu tompola ona” — one finger or hand is good for nothing without the others.
