Political Parties Part of Democracy by Dr.

Joseph Diescho

Political parties are a very recent phenomenon in history with many writers still
grappling with the exact meaning. Many writers on statehood did not even
mention political parties. Political parties started in Europe and the United States
in the 19th century where people were discontented with the absolute rule of
kings or queens or even the Pope. People were not citizens but subjects of the
ruler. Political parties emerged when people wanted a better form of
government, from (by) the people, for the people.

However, one of the founding fathers of the United States and its fourth
president, James Madison, was against political parties claiming they caused
division. One of the big differences between die American Independence
Declaration and the Namibian Constitution is the different directions it chooses.
In the preamble of the American Bill of rights it is stated: “When in the course of
human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature
and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind
requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.” According to Prof. Diescho this is an example of a forward looking
view, as compared to with preamble of the Constitution which seems to be
looking towards the past, emphasizing “freedom from” rather than “freedom to”.

As was the case with in many countries in Africa, at Namibia’s birth the emphasis
was to be free from colonialism and oppression. Prof. Diescho went on to explain
that Africans to a large extent are their own worst enemies, continuing to vilify
and nullify their own achievements, unlike countries in the East like Korea, Japan
and Singapore where the indigenous cultures are celebrated and a cause of
pride. He emphasized that political parties are less important than nations. He
says he is not convinced that Namibia has political parties per se but rather
vehicles to deliver people to power and wealth. Political parties face another
psychological dilemma as explaining concepts like “opposition” and “politics”
become difficult in the local languages. Words like “opposition” in the local
languages do not necessarily mean to oppose, but rather emphasize “taking
over”. With little ideological differences between parties these days, the only
conclusion is that they all want to come to power and thus create employment
for their members. Not much is being done to influence policy or provide a new
vision for the future. Prof. Diescho gave the example of Pres. Obama who was a
virtual unknown when on 20 April 2007 he announced he was going to run for
president of the United States. The vast majority of Americans had not heard of
him and less than two years later he was elected after a campaign run on hope,
the wish for a better future and the possibility of change.

Prof. Diescho finds it sad that in Namibia’s current political climate, voices of
opposition members are often shouted down with jeers of “where were you in the
liberation struggle” while they try to make valuable contributions to political
debates. Another impressive feature about the American system that differs from
the Namibian scenario is that Pres. Obama’s victory was not announced by an
election commission, but by his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain; he said
that he telephoned Sen. Obama to congratulate him, accepting him as his
president. African liberation leaders like Julius Nyere, Seko Tore, Kenneth Kaunda,
Adbul Nasser and others have set an example of staying on forever, after their
countries have been liberated. Prof. Diescho compares this to tribal practices
where the chief remains a chief for life. In the case where two brothers contest a
chieftainship, one will either die or leave, than bow to the successor.

“Can Africa recover from this mindset?” I don’t expect so, but I fervently wish
the answer is yes.It should all start with our education system. Democracy
should be part of our curriculum, so that children can learn that no disagreement
needs to end in the throwing of stones. “When I visit the Rundu Training College,
I am happy to see that there are Damara speaking students. It should be a policy
that all educational institutions should at least have ten percent students from
other regions. This is the best way to actually stimulate nationhood.” He says
one of the unintentional consequences of apartheid was the detribalization of the
people who through migrant work, living in hostels far from their homes, they
became a nation. He says Namibians can only overcome their difficulties if they
pay attention to how the origin of the problems can be undone. Referring back to
the United States, Prof. Diescho pointed out that it is not general knowledge who
the chairman of either the Democratic or the Republican Parties are. These
people are not automatically the party’s candidates in a presidential election. On
the contrary, the parties look within themselves for the best possible candidates
by means of a series of primaries until the best person is determined.

He does not think Namibia is on the right track as far as political parties are
concerned as they lack ideological orientation, they very essence of what a
political party should be about. Politicians should rather learn how to mitigate
differences without breaking away and forming new parties. Namibia also lacks
the understanding that they are first and foremost Namibians. With reference to
Pres. Obama, Prof. Diescho said not once in his acceptance speech was the word
“Democratic Party” used, but the term “America” and “Americans” were used
eight times. No reference was made to the “mighty” party. “No party is mighty,
only God is mighty” Prof. Diescho stressed.
Fundamental Rights and Freedoms by Prof. Horn

NAMIBIA is a constitutional democracy. This means that the Constitution is our

supreme law and all other legislation is subjected to the Constitution. If a law or
the common law contradicts any article of the Constitution, the High or the
Supreme Court will declare that act or common law rule unconstitutional and the
law will be given an opportunity to remove the unconstitutional elements. All
Namibian institutions are also subjected to the Constitution. This includes
Parliament. In a Parliamentary democracy Parliament is sovereign. This means
Parliament can make any law it wishes to make, even immoral and
discriminatory laws. In Namibia, Parliament can only make laws that are in line
with the Constitution. At the Constituent Assembly shortly before Independence
the elected representative of the Namibian nation agreed on the values and
norms that will govern us.

Chapter three of our constitution gives Namibia a variety of fundamental rights

and freedoms. It is called a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects our dignity
and liberty. This means that no person nor any state organ such as the police or
army can torture a Namibian resident under any circumstances. Our Supreme
Court has ruled that corporal punishment by organs of the state is cruel and
inhumane. In Namibia the police, courts and school are not allowed to cane
anyone. And no one can be executed. Critics on the Namibian Constitution may
argue that Namibia is soft on crime. That, however, is not the case. Nothing in
the constitution prevents the courts to punish criminals once they have been
convicted. The constitution also makes provision for strong law enforcement
agencies to deal with crime in an efficient manner.

No one can be imprisoned without a trial. If someone is suspected of having

committed a crime, he or she has the right to a fair trial, to be defended by a
lawyer of his choice, not to give evidence against him- or herself, not to be
prosecuted more than once for the same offence and to be presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty. Some people may think that the constitution
protects criminals. But it protects innocent people against arbitrary arrests and
prosecutions. Lawyers are the checks and balances of the legal system. They
make sure that judges and magistrates uphold the Constitution and protect
Namibia against arbitrary actions by law enforcement agencies. Fundamental
freedoms were very important for our constitutional mothers and fathers. They
made sure that all Namibians can live as liberated individuals in a liberal
democratic society. Our Supreme Court interprets freedom of speech and
expressions, one of the important fundamental freedoms, very broadly. In the
well-known Kauesa case the court ruled that even a junior police officer may
criticize the leadership of the police force if such criticism will enhance public
debate on issues such as transformation and affirmative action. Today, thanks to
the constitution Namibian people are undoubtedly the best informed nation in
Africa with a free press second to none. With a population of less than two
million, we have three daily newspapers, several weekly newspapers (some of
the regional papers), at least six independent radio stations, an independent
television channel and access to at least ten international news networks!

Even if Government does not agree with critical newspapers, the days are
forever gone when newspapers could be closed by a presidential decree or some
obscure law limiting freedom of expression. Namibia is one of just a handful of
Nations that includes academic freedom in its constitution. Equality of its entire
people is another gem of the Namibian Constitution. It prohibits discrimination on
any ground, for example sex, race, ethnic origin, colour, religion, creed or social
economic status. Some people misunderstand this wonderful freedom to believe
whatever you wish to believe in and to be whoever you are without having to
persecution. They think that the secular Namibian constitution is against religion.
But that is not what it meant by a secular state.

The secular State is bound to serve the needs of its people. In a country where
the vast majority of its citizens are Christians, religious values and norms will
always be taken seriously. In one of our early constitutional cases the Supreme
Court expressly stated that the norms and values of the Namibian people are the
benchmarks when the Constitution is interpreted by the courts. The non-
discriminatory clause does not oppress religion, but it levels the playing field for
all religions and churches. The Constitution also guarantees our rights to join
workers union, to live and travel anywhere in Namibia, to form associations and
private schools and universities, to offer or withhold our labour, to assemble
peacefully and to practice any profession, trade or business.

In an election year it is important that we celebrate the diversity of political

thought. Our constitution gives us the right to subscribe to any political ideology
or principles. It is not unpatriotic to do so. In a free society such as Namibia we’re
obliged to allow politicians in established political parties and outside, to make
Namibia even more successful. If any of our constitutional rights are violated, we
can approach the High Court, or if we do not have the resources, we can also go
to the ombudsman, who has the mandate to protect our constitutional rights.

The late Etienne Mureinik once referred to a Constitution as a bridge from a

culture of justification. The bridge has taken us in the last twenty years from
oppression and division to freedom and equality. And the bridge is a one way
street. As long as the Namibian Constitution is alive, we will never return to an
oppressive society!
Democracy: In Defense of Difference by Prof. André du Pisani

DEMOCRACY in its various forms- representative, liberal, social, development-all

hold certain virtues such as liberty, dignity, public participation, the right to
assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of choice, and the notion of limited
government- in high regard. It is true, however, that in a liberal democracy (such
as ours) individual liberty weighs heavier than say the virtues of tolerance and
equality. Liberal democracies are also more procedural than developmental
democracy and cast the state in a more minimalist role. In all variants of
democracy there is always the possibility of conflict between private and public
duties-arguably, more so in the case of liberal democracy. The idea of social
causes and blind patriotic loyalty to country and party sites sits uncomfortably
within the liberal corset. Since the freedom and dignity of an individual counts
more in a liberal democracy, than say loyalty to a cause, a country and a party,
the duty to obey has at its mirror image to disobey.

This dilemma is always there, not just for liberal democrats, but also for
Christians. In the words of Rosa Luxemburg, ‘freedom is there for those who
think differently.’ Democracy has been designed precisely because people differ
over values, means and end states. If we were to agree on everything, there
would be no need for democracy! So, without passing judgment on the intrinsic
merits of political or ideological attachments, or loyalist, I argue for their
legitimacy in principal- for the legitimacy of differences and otherness.

Doing democracy

Indifference and disloyalty are defensible; their defense must accompany by in

the ways in which a society works: its institutions and social and political
practices must make it safe to be different. In the real world of Namibian politics
we encounter not only differences over ideas and means, of course, but
differences which may be thought dangerous to the hegemonic bloc – as the
recent founding of a breakaway party from the governing party seems to suggest
– but there is a world of differences between making a presumption in favour of
our differences in the first place, or ruling it out from the start. In a democracy,
the accommodation of difference in social and political practice should nowhere
be more evident than in the contestation of power through legitimate and
transparent electoral campaigns. It is not just the actual vote that counts, but the
entire process of electoral competition and management – pre – and post-voting.
That is the intellectual tradition and political practices on which a mature
democracy draws.

Difference certainly does not rule out commitment. The best judge of democratic
is not the politician or the academic, but the person who has to live with the
results: the best judge of building-design is not the architect but the person who
lives and works in the building, the diner not the cook must judge the meal. In
many democracies, also in Namibia, electoral systems have been designed to
create space for different voices. In our particular case, a system of proportional
representation based on a party list, for National Assembly elections, has in
theory the potential to represent a wide range of interest and persuasions. This
however, is contingent upon vibrant inner-party democracy, transparent
procedures for nominating party candidates, while experience elsewhere has
shown the value of having a Code of Conduct for political parties, a truly
independent Electoral Commission and an electoral process that can bring out
the best in both the candidates and the electorate. Centrally determined the
party list often defeats the very purpose for which they have been designed.

On tolerance

Tolerance is certainly one of the important virtues in a democracy, it might not

be the most important value, simply because democracy does not require
universal tolerance. It is not possible to tolerate the condition that would render
democratic politics impossible. Violence has no place in a democracy, for as
Thomas Hobbes, that great defender of order wrote in his celebrated work
Levithian on what he called the ‘stature of nature’: “Whatsoever therefore is
consequent to a time of war, where everyman is an enemy to every man; the
same is consequent of time, wherein men live without other security, than what
their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such
conditions, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain;
and consequently no culture of the earth; no knowledge of face of the earth; no
arts; no letters; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent
death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. These words
from one of the most celebrated passages in Western Political writing have
resonance for us in Namibia. Order marks the beginning of freedom; freedom
from arbitrary power. Ultimately, law must be backed by forces, so that mere
force, can be brought under the control of law. In a democracy, however, order
has to lose to liberty. This is one of the central paradoxes; its greatest strength
and weakness.

For democracy to exist and to flower there has to be at least some tolerance of
differing truths, some recognition that government is possible, indeed best
conducted, amid the open and peaceful canvassing of rival interests. Like the
British political philosopher, Bernard Crick, the French philosopher and legal
theorist, Montesquieu, believed that freedom must be found in and through
diversity. Rousseau and many others, including many Namibians, believe that
freedom must be found in and through unity. In a democracy, power checks
power- hence the intrinsic value of meaningful opposition-and interest checks
interest – hence the importance of vibrant associational life and civil society. Our
challenge is to make Namibia great. Our risk is to make Namibians small. It is
only through our collective ability to enter into, to understand beliefs, feelings,
attitudes which are alien or even opposed to one’s own that the freedom for
otherness can be cultivated. We need sympathetic imagination – for imagination
flows from freedom, and we need generous hearts.