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
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.
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.
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.
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?