New Deal For Namibia
By: Jacqueline Helen PrinceKWAME Nkrumah once said: “We shall measure our progress by the improvement in the health of our people; by the number of children in school, and by the quality of their education; by the availability of water and electricity in our towns and villages.” By failing to meet this measure, we have no choice but to re-evaluate our efforts and ask if we are on the right path.
In the 1930s the USA [and most of the world] was experiencing a Great Depression. The country was in a state of despair because the banks had crashed, farms were drought stricken and houses were erected with any material people could lay their hands on.
It was a nation in which thousands of people were applying for the same job, where too many people went hungry and the gap between rich and poor was massive and growing. The list of inhumane living conditions was endless.
Addressing the plight of his people, the newly-elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt [FDR] made a pledge to the nation for a more equitable distribution of the wealth, which he called the New Deal.
We have far different circumstances and politics than the US but we also have similar problems: too many citizens out of work and too many who go to sleep at night with nothing in their bellies. We have in this country one of the largest divides between the rich and the poor that has ever existed in human history.
While there will always be rich and there will always be poor, just as there will always be rulers and those who are ruled, we must ask ourselves; what is the relationship between the rich and the poor?
Despite Namibia having achieved political independence, we still have a situation where we are not economically independent. We must not get caught by despondency and hopelessness but rather look aggressively for solutions which can help us narrow that wealth gap.
Roosevelt’s New Deal empowered unions, much to the fury of the owners of the means of production [excluding human capital] at the time. Where unions exist, working conditions are inevitably better and the standard of living is improved. While unions have multiple benefits, we must also acknowledge that we have some individuals who see the struggle for workers rights as a platform where they can elevate themselves economically rather than stay true to the cause.
Roosevelt put thousands of unemployed men and women to work on national projects which addressed environmental issues, such as deforestation and soil erosion. Our top-down methods of job creation, however, do not seem to be getting the desired results and therefore we must consider the possibility that we need a paradigm shift in how we tackle these issues. There are more ways to stimulate spending and growth instead of giving money to those who say they will create jobs, but frequently do not manage to do so. There are some policy examples which we could emulate from the New Deal.
This brings us to a social income grant. It may seem paradoxical to advocate a social grant as a way to bring about entrepreneurs and growth. The primary criticism of such an endeavour has been that giving money to the poor will be a disincentive, but yet we are told that the rich need to be given money [and tax rebates] in order to incentivise them to provide jobs. Why should money discourage the poor but incentivise the rich?
Another way to stimulate the growth of SMEs [small and medium enterprises] is to create an environment that is conducive to the emergence of entrepreneurs is another strategy worth considering. Think of those who can save up and leave their job to start their own small business. We need to make it easier for young people to start up their own businesses. SMEs provide jobs and foster innovation. We must cut the red tape and onerous procedures and encourage our youth to contribute in this meaningful way.
We need a minimum wage that will allow breadwinners to support themselves and that minimum wage needs to apply to all employers. Raising the minimum wage will be fiercely protested by those who will be required to dig deeper into their pockets but in a nation with one of the highest income gaps in the world their arguments simply do not hold water. Some people in this nation live with every luxury imaginable while others are forced to beg in the streets and eat from dumpsites.
One immediate remedy would be to have a consumer protection mechanism enshrined into the law as Namibian citizens are subject to numerous economic abuses. The preposterous price of commodities and services (including land) is a chief driver of the income gap in Namibia. For example, furniture stores lock people into contracts with interest rates and clauses which are downright usurious and would be illegal in many countries.
Corruption is something which plagues us here in Africa, in every sense of the word. We know that foreign nations, particularly in the West, like to paint Africa as being irredeemably corrupt while they have a plank in their own eye. We also know that the issue of corruption is put forth by those who lament for the return of the old regime. So while we dismiss the efforts of imperialists and white supremacists, we must also acknowledge that we have lost our way in some respects.
Strengthening the role and duties of Auditor-General’s Office will provide greater oversight into actual expenditures for development projects and ensure that state money is only used for bona fide purposes. Actions to the contrary should be treated as would any individual who has defrauded the state. Strengthening the oversight institutions also addresses many instances of abuse of office and power.
Let us consider the poorest of the poor in this country as we make decisions. Let us return to the philosophy of our ancestors, ‘Ubuntu’ as Nelson Mandela once said: “The first thing is to be honest with yourself. You can never have an impact on society if you have not changed yourself... Great peacemakers are all people of integrity, of honesty, but humility.”
* Jacqueline Helen Prince is the CEO of Labour Investment Holdings.