In what appears to be winds of political change in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, the question on everyone’s mind is whether such winds will blow over Namibia and have the same chilling effect. We are justified to ask this question because history has taught us that political waves such as these can indeed sweep across the region, the continent and even the whole world, especially in an election year such as this where a whopping 64 countries will have headed to the polls by the end of this year. Namibia is one of the last countries to hold elections so all eyes will be on us come November 27. Could Namibia escape the winds of change or are we next in line?
Many people have weighed in on this question and provided insights, some saying that change will/could happen and others saying that the conditions in Namibia will/may not allow such sweeping changes to take place at this stage. These views are mostly from political and socio-economic perspectives. I am moved to weigh in on the question from a legal perspective and examine two related constitutional rights that will be at the centre of it all: the right to form political parties and the electorate’s right to vote, to illustrate how political rights will affect our choices on election day and our ‘democratic lives’ for the next five years.
It is a fact that Namibia, like many other Southern African countries, has been dominated by one party since independence. This dominance has been overwhelming, and although Namibia is a multi-party democracy, none of the opposition parties has been able to dislodge the dominant ruling party from power. I wish to examine why this has been the case. I believe it is not only about the opposition parties dislodging the ruling party, but it is also about having a democracy where the people can vote effectively. Effective voting here simply means the ability of people to vote for the change they want (should they indeed want said change). It is my submission that the political environment in general, and the party landscape in particular plays a major role in whether people can vote effectively or not. It can enable or disable that ability.
Effective voting calls for a political environment that makes it possible for citizens to exercise their right to bring forth change, not to vote for the sake of it. It is about political maturity where politicians and political parties serve only the interests of the electorate by making it possible for them to vote effectively. I submit that the absence of effective voting and people-oriented politics limits and possibly violates people’s constitutional rights to vote. This calls for balancing of the right to form political parties against the right to vote. If forming a political party will, directly or indirectly, do a disservice to the people, especially in respect of their ability to vote effectively, then such formation does not serve the people. In that sense, I submit that the right to form political parties is subject to the right to vote.
It is apposite to give a brief historical background to put matters in context. In their book Dominant Parties as Governments in Southern Africa, Blaauw et al (2023) defines dominant party systems as ‘polities where one party achieves electoral dominance for a prolonged period, even though the system allows free formation of political parties and regularly holds meaningful elections.’ In that book, Melber takes a closer look at Namibia – from liberation movement as government to government without liberation: Democracy under the governance of SWAPO (1990 – 2015) and provides figures of election results which clearly show one party dominance over the period. He states that during this period, ‘the diverse collection of opposition parties remained largely ineffective…the challenges to SWAPO’s rule, therefore, have remained few, inefficient, and isolated…had a very little effect on the distribution of votes among the electorate.’
This situation tells me that while we are observing the dominance of the one party, we need to also look at the opposition parties seriously. Whereas the dominance of SWAPO Party may be explained by their liberation struggle credentials and what they have done since independence, the ever-declining performance of the opposition parties poses more questions than answers. In this regard, Melber, at page 48 – 49 stated that:
‘The credibility of opposition parties was further eroded since they lacked proper alternative programme[s]. Opposition party leaders’ interest seemed instead to status and source of income. This is a realistic aspiration for the top-ranked candidates, even among smaller parties, given that the proportional electoral system allocates parliamentary representation with less than 1% of votes. In the end, parties managing to secure parliamentary representation often find themselves bogged down in internal squabbles over access to the associated financial contributions. These disappointing practices have weakened the opposition further…
As Kaapama et al. (2007:92) concluded, “a weak opposition has contributed significantly towards one party dominance” … Based on the lacklustre performance by opposition parties, Cooper (2014:127) concluded that “if the process of challenging and overcoming single-party dominance is a marathon, Namibia’s opposition parties have been given up at the starting line”. Given the disproportionality of the party landscape, findings of an Afrobarometer survey presented in March 2014 concluded that the “the political system seems to deliver more democracy than the population seems to demand (Lindeke, 2014:1) as a party-political culture had not yet been developed…’
I associate myself fully with the above passages, to which I add my own observations, starting with the latest demographic and electoral figures. The recent 2023 census conducted by the Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA) revealed that Namibia’s population stands at three million. When it comes to elections, the only relevant number is that of registered voters. According to the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN), the overall cumulative number of eligible Namibians registered as voters, both within the country and at Namibian Diplomatic Missions abroad, is 1,467,604. We must further take note that not all registered voters will cast their vote and there will be spoilt ballots. So, we are looking at a much lesser number of voters who must determine the democratic fate of this country for the next five years.
The number of registered voters slightly increased this year, but so did the number of political parties and presidential candidates. Namibians are once again faced with the question of who to vote for. The question is who are the contenders? According to the ECN, twenty-one (21) political parties will participate in National Assembly elections and fifteen (15) presidential candidates have been nominated. The ballot papers were printed and delivered.
The ability of the electorate to usher in change will once again be tested. Given the political winds of change witnessed in other parts of the region, will things change in Namibia, or will they remain the same? Based on the above observations, it is my submission that as much as what happened in South Africa and Botswana may influence voting in Namibia, the party landscape poses serious challenges because there are far too many political parties vis-à-vis the voting population which could compromise the voters’ ability to change things. For effective voting to take place, I submit that either of the following two things must be present: a) a large voting population proportionate to the number of political parties, or b) few political parties proportionate to a small voting population.
Namibia has a high number of political parties disproportionate to the voting population and this presents a mathematical challenge in respect of distribution of votes. Whereas the dominant ruling party may retain a safe number of voters to secure a majority or just enough votes to lead and continue its dominance, the remainder of the votes will be shared by the remaining twenty political parties and fourteen presidential candidates. This scenario already tilts the numbers in favour of the one popular, dominant party or candidate, leaving the other parties or candidates to scramble for the remaining votes. I must say at this juncture that, even though voting is an individual choice, the options are already set in the form of the political parties and presidential candidates. Therefore, your individual choice will be determined by those options, and if there are too many options, the choices will be scattered all over.
It is my further submission that a disproportional party landscape perpetuates one party dominance because there are too many options that split the votes. This makes me question where the interests of opposition parties are. It would appear that their interests are first personal, and then the people, as Melber stated: ‘Opposition party leaders’ interest seemed instead to status and source of income. This is a realistic aspiration for the top-ranked candidates, even among smaller parties, given that the proportional electoral system allocates parliamentary representation with less than 1% of votes.’
And as Hopwood (2008) put it: ‘Instead of being accountable to voters in a direct and transparent manner, MPs in the NA are more likely to be accountable to their party. In addition, if they take an independent stance on issues or raise matters brought to their attention through lobbying from the public, they face the possibility of being missed off the party list for the next election. In Namibia where many MPs do not have alternative careers because of limited opportunities during apartheid era, the prospect of losing an MP’s salary is a serious one.’
This is the opposite of people-oriented politics where the interests of people come first. In my view, this explains the ever-growing number of political parties in the face of historically poor electoral performance. The performance of opposition parties in both Presidential and National Assembly elections since 1989 has been humbling and ever declining, yet this year, we have twenty-one political parties and fifteen presidential candidates all looking to get votes from an electorate of 1.4 million.
In my view, a unification of opposition parties would give the electorate a better chance to vote effectively but instead of uniting, new parties continue to be formed and registered. I understand and respect that forming political parties is a constitutional right, but that right should be exercised with due regard to people’s rights to vote because in the end, it’s all about the masses. Article 1(2) of the Namibian Constitution proclaims that all power vests in the people of Namibia who shall exercise their sovereignty through the democratic institutions of the State. Political parties are there to serve the people and they are enjoined by constitutional precepts and democratic principles to ensure that people vote effectively. Failure to do this, in my considered opinion, violates those precepts and principles in general, and disables people’s ability to vote effectively.
Be that as it may, politics, though informed by facts on the ground, is unpredictable. For example, the ruling party only lost its ⅔ majority for the first time since 1989, in 2019 when voter turnout was lowest, and Namibia’s very first independent presidential candidate managed to get more votes (29.4 %) than any other opposition party nominated presidential candidate before. Whether these were tell-tale signs remains to be seen in a few weeks’ time. I am curious to see what the cumulative effect of the winds of change will be, given the circumstances alluded to in this opinion piece. In this regard, I would like to encourage every eligible voter to go out and vote as this is the only way we all can have a say in the democratic future of this country.
Fedden Mainga Mukwata – Legal Pundit writes in his personal capacity to Educate the Nation, Transform the Profession and Inspire a Generation.
