Editorial: Marking Our Founding Constitution

THERE appears to be good argument for what has been proposed as Constitution Day – namely, February 9 each year – the day on which, in 1990, Namibia’s Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly, and which paved the way for Independence on March 21 that same year.

It is perhaps one of the most underrated historic days in our calendar, and yet deserves to be marked, not as a public holiday, for we have enough of those, but as a day on which we commemorate the basis on which our democracy was founded. As some people have pointed out, we have national holidays on which we remember sad and tragic events, such as Cassinga Day on May 4 and on December 10, Old Location Day (although it is no longer known by this name), and so it would be good for us to also commemorate those days that have united rather than divided the nation.’Constitution Day’ would be one of those few occasions.Former Prime Minister Hage Geingob, also notably the Chairperson of the former Constituent Assembly, which multi-party grouping led by Swapo hammered out a Constitution for the new Namibia, is one of those campaigning for more formal recognition of this day in our history.The Constituent Assembly managed to draw up a Constitution for Namibia in a remarkably short time and with a large measure of consensus, given that it was composed of a variety of political parties which had been at war with one another not long before it commenced its work.Geingob said at the launch of his thesis on the drafting of this important document in booklet form this week that he concentrated the efforts of the Constituent Assembly and the various parties represented there on issues on which the parties disagreed.Thus the discussions of the Constituent Assembly boiled down to three pertinent points of difference: the powers of the executive, the question of bicameral or unicameral parliament, and finally, the electoral system.We are aware that compromise played a very important role in the outcome on these three topics and the outcome was that the powers of the executive were diluted, and a bicameral parliamentary system and a system of proportional representation were decided upon.In its holistic form, the Constitution was a very progressive one, and the inalienable Bill of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms probably the most important aspect of all.But it has been raised by Geingob and others that there are few academic critiques of our Constitution.Many have written about it in its various aspects, and while many changes have been proposed, only one has ever been made and this was in relation to the very crucial and contentious issue of a fourth term of office for former President Sam Nujoma.Perhaps it is because of a general lack of understanding that debate hasn’t been as vibrant as it should be around this important document, and that is why the proposed ‘Constitution Day’ could be used to focus attention on this issue.There is a lack of understanding about what can and what cannot be changed in the Constitution.The Bill of Rights is designed to be, and should remain, untouchable, but there are other aspects which, as Geingob himself pointed out, are in urgent need of review.These include some of the key aspects upon which the Constituent Assembly deliberations concentrated, namely the bicameral parliamentary system (to all intents and purposes in our view constituting an unnecessary duplication of functions and without a clear mandate given to the second chamber) and of course, the system of proportional representation, which has increasingly come under fire of late.In this regard, Geingob himself proposed review, primarily by academics.What he did not acknowledge was the fact that the media have taken up the need for this on various occasions but have been largely ignored.Geingob repeated what has been said before: that while proportional representation largely means every vote counts, and allows voices of minority parties to be heard; it also militates against accountability, for it is the Party rather than the person that is elected to power.Our Constitution is essentially a good one, but Namibians need to debate and perhaps even review some of the issues contained therein in changing times.As some people have pointed out, we have national holidays on which we remember sad and tragic events, such as Cassinga Day on May 4 and on December 10, Old Location Day (although it is no longer known by this name), and so it would be good for us to also commemorate those days that have united rather than divided the nation.’Constitution Day’ would be one of those few occasions.Former Prime Minister Hage Geingob, also notably the Chairperson of the former Constituent Assembly, which multi-party grouping led by Swapo hammered out a Constitution for the new Namibia, is one of those campaigning for more formal recognition of this day in our history.The Constituent Assembly managed to draw up a Constitution for Namibia in a remarkably short time and with a large measure of consensus, given that it was composed of a variety of political parties which had been at war with one another not long before it commenced its work.Geingob said at the launch of his thesis on the drafting of this important document in booklet form this week that he concentrated the efforts of the Constituent Assembly and the various parties represented there on issues on which the parties disagreed.Thus the discussions of the Constituent Assembly boiled down to three pertinent points of difference: the powers of the executive, the question of bicameral or unicameral parliament, and finally, the electoral system.We are aware that compromise played a very important role in the outcome on these three topics and the outcome was that the powers of the executive were diluted, and a bicameral parliamentary system and a system of proportional representation were decided upon.In its holistic form, the Constitution was a very progressive one, and the inalienable Bill of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms probably the most important aspect of all.But it has been raised by Geingob and others that there are few academic critiques of our Constitution.Many have written about it in its various aspects, and while many changes have been proposed, only one has ever been made and this was in relation to the very crucial and contentious issue of a fourth term of office for former President Sam Nujoma.Perhaps it is because of a general lack of understanding that debate hasn’t been as vibrant as it should be around this important document, and that is why the proposed ‘Constitution Day’ could be used to focus attention on this issue.There is a lack of understanding about what can and what cannot be changed in the Constitution.The Bill of Rights is designed to be, and should remain, untouchable, but there are other aspects which, as Geingob himself pointed out, are in urgent need of review.These include some of the key aspects upon which the Constituent Assembly deliberations concentrated, namely the bicameral parliamentary system (to all intents and purposes in our view constituting an unnecessary duplication of functions and without a clear mandate given to the second chamber) and of course, the system of proportional representation, which has increasingly come under fire of late.In this regard, Geingob himself proposed review, primarily by academics.What he did not acknowledge was the fact that the media have taken up the need for this on various occasions but have been largely ignored.Geingob repeated what has been said before: that while proportional representation largely means every vote counts, and allows voices of minority parties to be heard; it also militates against accountability, for it is the Party rather than the person that is elected to power.Our Constitution is essentially a good one, but Namibians need to debate and perhaps even review some of the issues contained therein in changing times.