Silencing The People’s Voice
IT seems that regional and local domestic accountability does not feature high on the ruling party fs priority list. How can regional governors in future be appointed by the Head of State?
This law also empowers the President to appoint governors in regions where the ruling party does not have majority representation. If giving the head of state powers to appoint governors is premised as a key to enhance performance and accountability or as a means to avoid political cat fights, then we are in for more chaos. We know that a government starts to degenerate into chaos when appointments of even regional political heads are now entrusted to the rulers of the people alone. The ideal situation for the promotion of democracy and good governance is that regional governors must be elected at least by fellow councillors who represent the local people they serve.
This issue will also undermine decentralisation efforts because it defeats the very essence of having a people fs government. We are left with no reason to conclude that regional electoral democracy in our political regions will never fulfil its aim that is greater regional political accountability and better performance in regional developmental challenges. This is a sign of insufficient corrective measures to tackle regional development challenges. It is just a neo-patrimonial political tendency that mocks regional electoral freedom and thus undermines grassroots democracy. Worse still, it will not generate improvements in better economic and social policies, but will just reinforce this deep rooted culture of political patronage that has destroyed other African countries. What we will witness are lower levels of voter turnout in regional elections because voters will soon realize that their efforts to vote for a person they believe in are in vain because they cannot do anything about his or her appointment after all that person is imposed on them. This scenario then gives ample room for regional politicians to act opportunistically and to ignore the needs or preferences of the local citizenry because they are appointed by the head of state.
The current system where the governor is elected by fellow councillors at least accords voters an opportunity to select higher quality politicians and hold poorly performing ones accountable through intense debate in regional political circles. Letting opposition parties appoint their own councillors as governors in areas when the ruling party does not have the mandate helps to allow these other political parties to share power. It also assures them and their supporters that even though they are poorly represented on the national level they at least still have access to state power and resources. Instead of seeing Namibia moving away from the highly centralised form of government common in other corrupt African countries, we see a strong wave of centralisation of power which is a feature of a patrimonial state and is fast likened to the personalisation of power.
Allowing local communities to appoint their governor speaks to the aspirations of people and communities by making these leaders closer and more responsive to the needs of their immediate voters. We know that when government is closer to the people, it is more likely to be held accountable by the people for its successes and failures in the provision of basic service and resolution of local development challenges. The current law on appointing governors allows the appointment of new political leaders, including women and young people who might not have had previously had a role in political life or a strong tie with the ruling party but yet
there are an asset to their communities. It also provides a more accessible means to the local citizens to become active in public affairs because local people deal with these councillors on a day to day basis, they question their local officials, they monitor what they do, and they gauge how their interests and concerns are addressed. We know that it is difficult if not impossible for most citizens and organized groups that are not politically inclined to get access to the head of state when they have issues.
Allowing local people have a say in the appointment of regional political heads is a sure and safe act that assures the people themselves that they have a say in the affairs of regional development. I will not be surprised to consider this new power as tactic that is geared towards manoeuvring weak political parties or excluding them totally. Experience has taught us that manipulating state laws to retain power in subsequent areas that enjoy support from other political parties led to frustration, which in turn led people not to see any significant differences between the old colonial government and the new political system. In such cases, voters have opted to stay away from the election polling stations, because they feel no sense of empowerment.
Once again we see a tendency of the ruling party into become an authoritarian and neo-patrimonial political movement that is marked by their ever strong desire to control power through a patronage system instead of letting the voice of the people be heard.
Sinvula Shanini
Via e-mail