Poverty Elimination in Namibia

What can you expect from the third presidency of Namibia?

Namibia is a troubled nation. Before independence SWAPO was a Marxist- Leninist movement that wanted to establish the classless society. SWAPO still is a member of Socialist International. The first president promised land reform, education for all, common prosperity. His signature slogan was “reconciliation”. He didn't deliver. Contrary to his official title of 'Father of the Nation', I would call him the 'Godfather of Corruption'. He established a personality cult of Stalinist fashion, nepotism and cronyism which resulted in a factual one party state.

The second presidency of the Nujoma hand picked Pohamba started with the promise of relentless fight against corruption. The Anti Corruption Agency culled some small game, but the general principle stayed alive. He was called publicly a 'lame duck'. No major achievements.

The third president started with strong words to fight poverty. I argue this is another political ploy with no chance of actual results.

The history of the Namibian governments show a continuing deceit of the gullible population and a betrayal of the ideals of the struggle for independence. The old boys have totally lost their vision, have become intellectually corrupt and immersed into “Realpolitik” of preserving their power and privileges. Namibians are totally kaputt.

Elimination of Poverty

The Political Perspective column of Gwen Lister in the Namibian of 2. August 2015:http://www.namibian.com.na/indexx.php id=32310&page_type=story_detail&category_id=3#sthash.wey2BFgp.dpuf triggered my interest in this topic. I wrote a readers letter that the Namibian published on 9.Oct.  Following my readers letter:

It is obvious that most Namibians agree that poverty must be eliminated. I would like to add some thoughts to the excellent column of Gwen Lister from 2. October. As she observes there even are some setbacks since independence. This hints at the fact that not everybody is committed to poverty elimination – some are more committed to their enrichment.

The facts also show clearly: Namibia has one of the widest gaps in income and wealth in the world. We still remember that SWAPO before independence was promoting socialist ideas of common welfare. Now Namibia follows the neoliberal faith of 'free market' predatory capitalism. That means government rigged the system to favor a small elite instead of distributing the economic exploits for common welfare.

The president (and any one) who wants to change the system is in a difficult position: on one side is the majority of the impoverished population, on the other side is the powerful, rich elite that is willing to defend their privileges tooth and claw.

In a stalemate situation like this the essential factor is political will. Only a very strong political determination can redirect the economical output. The president made a strong bid to the nation and the international community and he established a government department.

But other activities allow skepticism. The complaint about the “casualty” of upper-middle income classification looks to me like he is searching for an excuse, like a lack of political will. He wants to eliminate poverty but he does't want to pay for it – somebody else please should pay. That demonstrates the national mentality of the sponger. Also the appointment of Zephania Kameeta says something (I wouldn't question his sincere intentions): as a religious leader he frames probably poverty elimination from a moral perspective, what is definitely relevant but not sufficient. The president knows quite well that morals fade quickly in the face of cold cash. If he had appointed an economist of the socialist school he would have set a mark.

Kameeta needs some hard nosed economists in his team that can convince the wealthy (in dollar figures) that it is not detrimental to their interest to transfer monies to the poor. The BIG will improve the whole society and economic development, reduce crime, gender based violence, public health and moral decay.

The vehement political opposition to BIG is rooted in fears (the rich suffer most from existential angst) that are based on plain false assumptions. The rich always purport their riches stem from their achievements and they deserve it. That is not true even in a capitalist economy that plays by the rules, least in a country crippled by corruption. The rules are man-made and not a 'natural' force of a 'free market'. They can be changed. The state has an obligation to care for the whole population and therefore help those who can't help themselves. The argument (Pohamba): 'we can not give out money for nothing' is a breach of the social contract.

The BIG is discussed all over the world and the positive outcome of the pilot in Namibia is encouraging (despite the ridiculous small amounts granted). The reason for Namibia's economic problems is poverty and government should hand out billions to the poor. That is the only way to finalize the struggle for independence or SWAPO will be a historic failure. The money is there.

I would like to add some more details to my reasoning:

Close to 30% of Namibians live beneath the poverty line, this is 690,000 people (the president claims 400,000). The local poverty line is set at US$ 1.25 per day (N$ 17.00). To free these people from poverty it would need a maximum of 11.7 m N$ per day or 4.3 billion N$ per year. This amount could be lower if the figure for children under the age of 14 would be set to 10 N$ per day. So everyone without an income could receive N$ 500 (children N$ 300) per month.

1. The money is there.

As you know from daily experience in Namibia nobody has money, never. You also know this is often a lie. That is exactly what the president does. The “casualty” he complains about in real world numbers: the Gross Domestic Product – per capita in purchasing power parity (GDP -per capita (PPP)) for 2014 is about 145.000 N$. That means every person, man, woman, baby, grandmother is contributing 145.000 N$ per year to the economic performance of the country.

The next question is: where does all the money go and from where could it be redirected into poverty elimination?

The 2015/16 military budget is 7.2 billions N$. This money is spend to defend the Namibian territory and interests. There are actually no threats of the Namibian territory from anyone. The “interests” must be understood as internal threats. Then one must ask what are the reasons of a threat from the Namibian population, what could lead to a revolt against law and order?

The only answer is poverty. So why spend money on a military that should contain the poor masses instead of eliminating the threat by eliminating poverty.

Of course having a Defense Force has some other aspects to it, especially in a country imbued with martial legends like the 'Land of the Brave', it is a question of national pride. Here the question is if Namibia should take pride in dignified living conditions of the population or in a useless military? That leads to other endeavours of national pride. While the military must not be abandoned totally, money-wasting SOEs like Air Namibia or the NAC could be sold.

A further money generating field is taxation. Namibia has very low corporate taxes and tax collection is weak. Not only Namibian businesses pay low (if any) taxes, but also foreign companies (mining) which send their profits home. Nobody likes to pay taxes, therefore there is a whole industry of tax avoidance that is better armed than the taxman. There is a golden well of income for government (you know the guy with 5.000 head of cattle who never paid a dollar of taxes). A moderate raise of the VAT could be used to fill the remaining gap.

2. “Poverty is a structural legacy of apartheid”

This is what the Namibian government always uses as an excuse for its failures (as reiterated in the keynote address HE Geingob gave on 14.08.2015 at Nampower Convention Centre). This is plain nonsense. If they were not able to change the legacy of colonialism within 25 year it is a confession of incompetence or the admission of deliberately rigging the system. Or should I say they kept the system of colonialism and only exchanged the beneficiaries from boers to SWAPO cronies? I may quote myself from a readers letter in The Namibian of 14. August 2015 about BEE and AA:

Inequality, not Colour, Sustains Apartheid Practices

YOUR editorial of 7 August 2015 addresses an important question of post-colonial politics in Namibia, but it misses out on an essential aspect of rectifying the discrimination of colonialism. The main reason that “the effects of apartheid and colonialism won't disappear soon, after all” is inequality.

Inequality is the continuation of apartheid and colonialism, which is at the centre of African economic problems. In this sense the colonial legacy still determines policies today.

The statistics published by the Employment Equity Commission must be complemented by the findings of the New World Wealth report about the high net worth individuals (HNW) in Africa. (see:http://uk.), with the heading “Africa's millionaire explosion: The 16 countries where the ultra-wealthy are booming.”

Namibia is ranked number six in Africa with 3 100 HNW individuals, a 244% rise compared to 15 years ago. This means Namibia had 3100 ultra wealthy individuals (each worth more than N$12,6 million) in 2014 and about 2 200 have become rich since 1999. The report does not specify skin colour, but I suppose there were not many black ultra wealthy individuals before 1999. It is also not clear how many whites have become very wealthy after 1999.

But these figures allow some speculation about a correlation of the accumulation of wealth and BEE (black economic empowerment).

What I want to hint at is that BEE and AA (affirmative action) may have effected more the enrichment of a small black elite than the intended rectification of colonial discrimination.

Therefore the emphasis of economic policies should turn to reduce inequality instead of focusing on skin colour. I guess for the poor it doesn't make a big difference if they are exploited by blacks or whites.

3. The upper-middle income classification logic

The president complains the income classification is not justified because Namibia is a special case. Who else is in this group: Angola, Botswana, South Africa, Cuba, Jamaica, China. At the current growth rate Namibia could slip into the high income group (from US$ 12,736). One speciality of Namibia is the skewed distribution that is not a natural disaster like the scarce rainfall in the Namib desert or the fault of the colonisers, but it is a deliberate making of the ruling class. Same with the lower school enrolment. Evidently the president begs for handouts from the international community. He behaves like a man who was drinking all night and has no money left for food for his family.

4. The “handout” scare

I do not really understand why the Namibian leaders are so scared about 'handouts'. What are the usual arguments against handouts? One reason could be based on the warning against idleness from Paulus (Tess. 3:6-10): “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”, which is not applicable here, because it is directed to the early Christians not to live on their host's expense. Others might fear that the people will become lazy drunkards not being motivated to work. Or that is simply unfair that some people get money for free while they themselves work for it. I guess most people would like to work, but the society failed to create enough labor and will fail to do so in the future.

When the president is serious about the “Namibian house”, then I think it is a good African tradition that anybody in the house has something to eat and a place to sleep.

Besides that, in the 'Industrialised Nations' the welfare state is a generally accepted model of social order.

5. Advantages and Gains

SWAPO would secure its stronghold on the country for generations and HE Geingob would become a Messiah (worshipped beyond S.D.S. Nujoma). Namibia would gain a lot of respect and admiration from the international community. Support and promotion will flood the nation. This way Namibia will achieve more than with a degraded income classification.

The economy would make a big leap forward: imagine a warm rain of 4.3 billion N$ spending power on local businesses. It would create several thousands jobs, a building boom, establishment of new companies and investment opportunities. Millions of dollars would flood the pockets of the already rich and compensate them nicely for potential tax losses. People would start to pay their bills, payment moral would go up. Municipalities, Water-, Electricity suppliers could reduce their arrears. Poverty related crime would diminish. Gender relationships will improve. Education will flourish.

Shortly, I can not see why anybody could oppose handouts or a BIG. If government would only start conceptualise the 'Namibian house' instead of the stupid neo-con market economy ideology it could move mountains. Will individual greed always trump collective reason?