Namibian Democracy : Consolidated?

Chapter 1 Introduction One dog cannot kill an elephant and one finger cannot squash a flea. (Herero proverb) 2 1. Introduction The word “democracy” is one of the most misinterpreted words in all of history. It has been used to describe dictatorships and the most stifling autocratic governments in history, most notoriously by the Nazis or Communist governments. Therefore it is important to steer the discussion in the right direction from the beginning; what we actually mean by democracy when discussing the word. Oxford Dictionary defines democracy as “a state of government by all the people, direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views.” Interestingly since we are talking about democracy in Namibia, the dictionary also defines the word democratic as, “practising, advocating, constituting democracy; favouring social equality.” For us democracy is a system of governance where the people hold power, the government is elected and held accountable by the people, and democratic institutions are in place. Consolidated democracy is realised when this system endures, the institutions of democracy hold up and they ensure that ultimately the powers of the state, whether the people elected good or bad governments, remain accountable to the people. But rather than entering the often dichotomous debate about the definition of democracy, we rather approach the issue by excluding factors how democracy could not exist. Breytenbach (2002, pp. 87- 88) writes, For definition of democracy, three assumptions were made. First, that without appropriate state institutions (and freedoms) democracy is not possible (“no state, no democracy”); second, without favourable socio-economic conditions, democratic institutions are unlikely to endure and consolidate (“once a country has a democratic regime, its level of economic development has a very strong effect on the probability that democracy will survive”); and third, that there are degrees of democracy (“Therefore it might be sensible to establish a category of semi-democracies to separate democracies from non-democracies”). Therefore institutions of democracy are necessary to consolidate democracy. Without free and fair elections, rule of law, checks and balances in government, various government institutions representing the people, political parties and civil society all in place and enduring there cannot be consolidation of democracy. Accordingly, we will first seek to find out whether Namibian democratic institutions have endured the test of time, whether Namibia has consolidated it’s democratic institutions, and if it hasn’t, why not? Furthermore, we study whether certain socio-economic conditions must be in place to consolidate democracy. Democracies do not statistically endure and consolidate, if socio-economic conditions are too unfavourable. Hence, we will also seek to find out what kind of impact socio-economic conditions in Namibia have on the consolidation of democracy. Thirdly, direction matters, too. We seek to determine the direction in which Namibia is going with its socio-economic conditions, state institutions and freedoms, especially in the respect of democratic consolidation. 3 The purpose of this study is to establish what democracy is; what consolidated democracy is; what the criteria for these two are; and finally, how Namibia measures up. Namibia sets an example that is of particular academic and political interest for at least four main reasons. First, it was described as the last struggle for pan-africanism and for many the last colony in Africa, which gained its independence only as late as 1990. The majority of Namibians had been excluded from ruling the country before.1 Therefore, due to the late arrival to the community of free African countries it had also the benefit of hindsight while drafting its transition to democracy. Many failed efforts for lasting and enduring democracy in other African countries made Namibians and the international community supporting it determined for a better result. Lessons learned gave Namibia the basis for to gaining its progressive Constitution. Secondly, the strong involvement of both the Western and Eastern World in the anti-apartheid struggle (not to say that all Western countries would have been involved, because some were in fact supporting the apartheid regime) and the end of the Cold War gave Namibia a favourable international climate to democratise in. The negotiated common ground found that having a one- man-one-vote system installed to Namibia gave the country better a standpoint from which to democratise than perhaps other African countries had had before. Thirdly, Namibia is an interesting experiment in global conflict prevention and conflict management where Namibians themselves were not involved with the signing of the actual peace accord of the war of liberation. Though Namibians and the SWAPO in particular had been heavily involved in drafting the various resolutions in peace, through their official Embassies in the United Nations and several key countries and of course the UN Namibia Institute in Zambia, they were not invited to the negotiations where the peace accord and transition to democracy was agreed on. The involved parties at that crucial negotiation for Namibians were South Africa, Cuba, Angola, Soviet Union and the United States. Fourth, Namibia gained its independence and had its first free and fair multiparty elections four years before the first democratic elections were held in South Africa. Namibia, a country 25 times smaller in population than South Africa and with several socio-economic, historical and cultural similarities with it, could be seen as the test case for transition from apartheid system to democracy. Thus, of course, the endurance of Namibian democratic institutions 15 years after the first elections should be of particular interest to South Africans too. The First democratic elections in South Africa were held five years after the first elections in Namibia. 1.1. Problem statement In this study we will attempt to understand the democratic development of Namibia from the dawn of independence until the general elections of 2004. Through a comparative study based on visits to Namibia, interviews and library studies on several authors, we will attempt to find whether Namibia is deepening or eroding its democratic consolidation. The timeframe is limited to the first 15 years of independence, because it is the first clearly defined era in Namibian politics. The post-Nujoma era is still very unclear and only time will tell how 1 Turnhalle government was seen as window dressing for South African rule in South West Africa. SWAPO and its representatives in exile were considered by the UN as the “only representatives of the Namibian people”. 4 power is going to be shared in Namibian government during the Pohamba Presidency (Melber 2005, p. 12). The problem statement of this study is first to establish whether Namibia has consolidated it’s democracy and then if it hasn’t, what is preventing the proper consolidation of democracy in Namibia – inappropriate institutions or insufficient socio-economic conditions, or both? The attempt is to determine the direction in which Namibian democracy is going, and what the favourable or unfavourable conditions for democratic consolidation in Namibia are. It is common knowledge that there are regular free and fair elections and some other democratic institution in place, but a closer look is needed to determine whether Namibia is enduring or consolidating toward a government that is ruled and held accountable by the people. Elections are necessary, but not sufficient to consolidate democracy (Breytenbach 2002, p. 87). All institutions of democracy need not only to be in place, but also to endure in order to consolidate democracy. What is the state of democratic institutions in Namibia? Larry Diamond (1996, p. 31) argues, in line with Breytenbach, that multiparty system and regular elections are not necessarily enough to create “liberal” democracies as they could also be seen as either “pseudo” or merely “electoral” democracies where authoritarian trends are still pervasive. Is Namibia not a liberal democracy, if the democratic institutions are not enduring? The study will concentrate especially on four institutions of democracy: the presidential system (a.), the electoral system (b.), the independence of judiciary (c.), and, finally, on the centralisation and decentralisation of state institutions (d.). We study freedoms, the land issue, the elections and the effectiveness of the Namibian Constitution in protecting the Namibian citizens. We ask whether the checks and balances embedded into the Constitution e.g. still protect Namibians from bad governance and centralisation of government power that easily leads to corruption. By observing, for example, the extent to which the power of the president reaches the legislative or Judicial branch of government, and whether the separation of powers still exists, we can draw conclusions whether Namibia still is a rechstaat, a constitutional democracy. Therefore we will evaluate whether some of Namibia’s democratic institutions have crumbled or whether they were inappropriate in the fist place. For if extensive presidential powers over the other branches of government, for example, are seen as destructive or stagnating for Namibian democratic consolidation, it is important to know whether the constitution allows this. Are we dealing with a poorly designed constitution,

Load more