Ed note: recently there has been the formation of a new party here in Namibia that looks poised to challenge the existing rule. Because this is still in flux and the true impact wont be know for another year or so it was not included in this treatment. Hopefully I will get a post or two up about it in the future on the main page.
Chezlaw Mizlosz writes in the preface to his book The Captive Mind, “in the West one also experiences the pressure to conform –to conform, that is, with a system which is the opposite of the one I have escaped from. The difference is that in the West one may resist such pressure without being guilty of a mortal sin.”
In many ways I find that this is the simplest explanation of what freedom and democracy stand for and what defines the nature of freedom. People can argue that this pressure to conform restricts freedom but the fact of the matter is that in any society or group there is pressure to conform to the norms of that group. The difference then between a free society and one that is not is the ability of members of that society to disagree with those norms and speak out without retribution. This also illustrates the link between freedom and democracy as it is thought of in the West. Without the freedom to dissent what we generally believe to be democracy does not exist. This difference is illustrated by any of the repressive regimes of the past hundred years in the Western world as they have nearly all been elected by the people; the difference being that the people were not free in any real sense to vote for anyone else.
When we look at Namibia we find then that for the most part it is a free democracy. While I have not been here for an election, nothing I have heard about the past elections leads me to believe that there is any kind of systematic manipulation of the process that renders anything but what is the will of the majority of the population. There problem and the reason that some people believe the system here is broken is that the vast majority of the people vote for the same party meaning that while there is opposition it is for the most part impotent.
There are of course many reasons that SWAPO has the vast majority of support here in Namibia. SWAPO is the movement/party that was the main opposition to the South African rule and it was SWAPO members who led the fight diplomatically and militarily that freed Namibia. Furthermore, due to the tribalism issues here most political parties are defined along tribal lines and SWAPO is the party of the Ovambos who are the majority in the country. This of course leads to more tribal issues as the other tribes feel the government does not represent their needs and issues. But for the most part those issues are far beyond the scope of this analysis except in noting that they exist. For this analysis we will just look at how in practice the current make up of the system here tends to promote some decisions that are not in keeping with a free democracy.
Because the is mostly one party rule here there are at times decisions made which on the surface seem to be undemocratic. Since I have been here there have been many discussions in the press about the nature of democracy in Namibia and the future of this country as a free democracy. And there have been a number of statements and ideas put forth by the government that out of context seem very undemocratic. I have forgotten the exact language of the quote by a member of the government when there was an issue brought forth about the freedom of the press but the sense of the quote was that he believed that for a democracy to function there needed to be restrictions on the press. For an American such as myself this seems quite an anathema. But in fact I imagine that if there was one party rule in the United States you would see more of the same as the party sought to maintain control and power and resist the opposition. Furthermore, there have recently been debates about how the candidates from SWAPO are selected. In the past it seems that a slate of candidates for the party leadership have been selected and then approved with little dissent within the party. Then, in 2004 there were multiple candidates put forth that were seeking the nomination and it caused some fractures in the party. Now there are calls by at least one of the more powerful groups within SWAPO to once again simply have a slate of candidates that they can approve to prevent further fractures in the unity of the party. Again since there is little to no chance that the SWAPO candidates will not win what you have is a small group of party elders selecting the people who will run the country. This is in many people’s eyes quite undemocratic.
But in many ways this is just emblematic of the nature of a fledgling democracy such as Namibia where there is one party rule. For the most part the basic freedoms that allow for opposition to the state are still intact and while there may be some undemocratic forces at work, for the most part these can be viewed as merely the growing pains of a young state. One comment about the 200 elections in America that I have heard is that people looked and saw that it is possible for one party to lose power when the people are unhappy with the system. While the American system is incomprehensible to many inside and outside America, specifically as it relates to presidential elections and the electoral college, the example of peaceful and orderly transitions in power even when there are disputes should not be overlooked. Many people here still don’t understand that President Bush cannot run for a third term and I think it will be an instructive example when the 2008 elections come to pass and there is a new president who takes office peacefully and orderly that the true nature of democracy is not about one person but the will of the nation as a whole. This will be even more instructive if Senator Clinton or Senator Obama were to prevail. In many ways this is one of the reasons that I am at the moment supporting the campaign of Senator Obama. Sadly, I am not sure that America as a whole is ready to elect a black president and I think there will be many people who will publically support the notion of a black president but when it comes time to cast their ballot they will not. In this respect I hope I am wrong as the election of Barak Obama would send a powerful message out to the world, especially here in Africa. It is for this reason that he has my vote at the moment even though I do not agree with most of his social or economic issues.
Overall, democracy can be a fickle thing, especially in a country where it is a new concept and there are powerful historical forces that are against it, such as in a country like Namibia. But on the whole democracy seems to be doing alright here for the moment and with a new generation coming to age that has never known the oppression of apartheid and who have spent their whole lives in a free and democratic state things seem to be moving in the right direction. However, this is no guarantee that this will last as the effects of HIV/AIDS and poverty become even more apparent in the coming years. With infection rates still around 20% and the life expectancy falling from the lower sixties to the mid forties since independence because of HIV/AIDS, tribalism and the lack of development, there will continue to be forces promising solutions through undemocratic means. Hopefully there will be some sort of split or the emergence of a viable second or third party in the coming years that will provide an effective check to SWAPOs power even if they are able to maintain power.
