OPINIONS - EDITORIALS
| 2013-08-09A Flippant President?
Editorial
IF PRESIDENT Hifikepunye Pohamba cares about being respected well beyond his head of state title and into the hereafter, he must do more than simply summon “the powers vested in me by the Namibian Constitution”.
Announcing yesterday that he has decided to expand Namibia’s political and administrative demarcation from 13 to 14 regions and add 14 constituencies to the current 107, the President prefaced his pronouncements with interesting remarks that, sadly, he did not back with explanations.
“I am full aware that there are those who will analyse my decision in the context of cost. Remember those who complain that education is expensive; our standard response is that they should try ignorance. Equally, those who complain that democracy is expensive, I say to them they should try chaos, anarchy, instability and disharmony,” said the President [probably to chuckles from sycophants and other lackeys].
Pohamba also said: “I took into account the fact that one of the cardinal principals [sic] of our government is efficient service delivery. Our citizens who live in rural areas are entitled to government services just like our citizens who live in urban areas.”
These are lofty statements that fall flat because the President made no logical argument as to how, in practice, the creation of more regions and constituencies will get better services to parts of the population that need them most.
Mr President, the issue is not the mere cost of democracy. Actually, it’s about what economists call opportunity cost – the choice of foregoing one thing over the other simply because resources [money, for instance] are always limited. In the case at hand where you decided to increase the administrative and political cost to taxpayers, the choice of dividing Namibia into more constituencies and regions is not between democracy and chaos. The choice is instead between the actual amenities [schools, clinics, agriculture subsidies, water provision] and more bureaucracy [a regional governor, councillors, offices, vehicles and the operational costs associated with them]. What is more likely to lead to instability and disharmony in this instance?
We do not believe that the President is so naive as to think that the mere presence of politicians in an area will deliver services, let alone quality to the masses. The several decades since independence have proven across the entire country that the mere presence of politicians “on the ground” does not yield results. After all, elected councillors don’t even have a budget to decide what services to implement in their constituencies because the central government has refused to let go of that power.
Instead of truly bringing government to the people, the creation of more regions and more constituencies will only help to strengthen patronage, which ultimately lies in the control of one person, who lives in Auasblick on a hill that was once a popular rendezvous for lovers, together with a tiny inner circle, of course. The cost, opportunity cost, that is, is an illusion of “government being closer to the people” but less money for delivery of the actual services. Do the maths.
The President must have made his calculations. And this may account for him making vague and flippant remarks about such serious decisions as adding a higher administrative burden to the already strained tax coffers. Otherwise, he would have made a logical and practical argument for his decisions. After all his constitutionally “vested powers” come with responsibilities.
Without presenting a step-by-step explanation as to why people must follow him, President Pohamba runs the risk of not being taken seriously. Even children or pets need convincing why they should follow adults or their masters to traverse, say rivers, fires and other mammoth obstacles. So, why should a nation of more than two million people follow him blindly?
It is one thing to be elected and use those powers. It may be better, however, for people to disagree with well thought-through arguments as those would engender respect for the person and the manner of the decision-making, rather than make flippant remarks and expect people simply to swallow them.
“I am full aware that there are those who will analyse my decision in the context of cost. Remember those who complain that education is expensive; our standard response is that they should try ignorance. Equally, those who complain that democracy is expensive, I say to them they should try chaos, anarchy, instability and disharmony,” said the President [probably to chuckles from sycophants and other lackeys].
Pohamba also said: “I took into account the fact that one of the cardinal principals [sic] of our government is efficient service delivery. Our citizens who live in rural areas are entitled to government services just like our citizens who live in urban areas.”
These are lofty statements that fall flat because the President made no logical argument as to how, in practice, the creation of more regions and constituencies will get better services to parts of the population that need them most.
Mr President, the issue is not the mere cost of democracy. Actually, it’s about what economists call opportunity cost – the choice of foregoing one thing over the other simply because resources [money, for instance] are always limited. In the case at hand where you decided to increase the administrative and political cost to taxpayers, the choice of dividing Namibia into more constituencies and regions is not between democracy and chaos. The choice is instead between the actual amenities [schools, clinics, agriculture subsidies, water provision] and more bureaucracy [a regional governor, councillors, offices, vehicles and the operational costs associated with them]. What is more likely to lead to instability and disharmony in this instance?
We do not believe that the President is so naive as to think that the mere presence of politicians in an area will deliver services, let alone quality to the masses. The several decades since independence have proven across the entire country that the mere presence of politicians “on the ground” does not yield results. After all, elected councillors don’t even have a budget to decide what services to implement in their constituencies because the central government has refused to let go of that power.
Instead of truly bringing government to the people, the creation of more regions and more constituencies will only help to strengthen patronage, which ultimately lies in the control of one person, who lives in Auasblick on a hill that was once a popular rendezvous for lovers, together with a tiny inner circle, of course. The cost, opportunity cost, that is, is an illusion of “government being closer to the people” but less money for delivery of the actual services. Do the maths.
The President must have made his calculations. And this may account for him making vague and flippant remarks about such serious decisions as adding a higher administrative burden to the already strained tax coffers. Otherwise, he would have made a logical and practical argument for his decisions. After all his constitutionally “vested powers” come with responsibilities.
Without presenting a step-by-step explanation as to why people must follow him, President Pohamba runs the risk of not being taken seriously. Even children or pets need convincing why they should follow adults or their masters to traverse, say rivers, fires and other mammoth obstacles. So, why should a nation of more than two million people follow him blindly?
It is one thing to be elected and use those powers. It may be better, however, for people to disagree with well thought-through arguments as those would engender respect for the person and the manner of the decision-making, rather than make flippant remarks and expect people simply to swallow them.
Comments
