Moral Hazard

Media, experts, politicians and similar exude a continuous stream of criticism exposing the failures of governments, institutions and public figures. It is their job; keep going. But only occasionally are practical solutions offered and when they are they are shallow and diluted.

Those criticised are equally guilty as their reactions are defensive, fact selective and laced with the old placebos of promise of action, promises that are becoming rather worn! Brave and positive reaction rarely happens; good men, constrained by history, their own fears and cultural dogma, fail to act.
I look at our President who is constantly barraged by his own and most of the media in all its forms for failing to act on serious matters and of more concern, that he is little more than an extension of his predecessor – a puppet! No wonder he becomes defensive as such comments are, to say the least, potentially insulting to a democratically elected leader. But, the embarrassing question has to be asked. What is different?
Namibia is now in it’s third phase of development. First the Independence Struggle, a complex mix of political and military action little restrained by law or human rights restraints; wars ignore such niceties. The second, post – Independence, the creation of a sovereign state and necessary institutions out of the colonial legacy; a time of learning, making understandable mistakes and payback to those people, organisations and countries who helped Swapo. Now we shift from despotic command to democratic realities as defined by Namibians.
These two phases were messy and confusing but strong guidance by the Founding President lead Namibia to a pleasant and peaceful place; a difficult job well done although history will no doubt extract multiple skeletons to modify this legacy! The peaceful transition to President Pohamba’s rule signalled the beginning of the third phase, the social and economic transition to ensure long term peace and stability through the rule of law and increasingly equitable distribution of national resources.
This third phase requires a different style of management. The initial phases could rely on compliance to presidential diktat as it had been the norm. Progressive growth of institutions and civil society has replaced this with democratic process; payback time is over, real performance is demanded by the electorate.This is the world that our President has to make his mark.
Thus his recently reported comments on the leaders (CEOs/PSes) of our Executive about being absent from office on S&T hunting trips (!) or shopping for the farm have relevance but are only symptomatic. The real problem is lack of performance and lack of political administrative action to correct such failures. This is where moral hazard enters the arena.
Moral hazard is where the failed are rewarded and the successful are, as a consequence, punished. On a global scale look at bad banks bailed out and good banks being penalised by increased regulatory intrusion! Or GM (Government Motors) that has been in freefall since 60’s! In Namibia we bail out bad administrations and inflict more controls on the well run; and SOEs!
The solution, even pre-election, for our President, is to openly act upon Namibian examples of failure, including corruption, to demonstrate his style. Hang a few notables out to dry.
Namibia’s early days had to tolerate many aberrations; this time is past. Performance and accountability measures exist in the budgetary process. They have become flabby and diluted by disuse and official sabotage but exist to rise from the ashes! The Pohamba legacy is there for the asking. Talk and Walk are history. Act decisively now, please.