People, Politics and Power: Towards a Just Society

“That a nation should be so valorous and courageous to win their liberty in the field, and when they have won it, should be so heartless and unwise in their counsels, as not to know how to use it, value it, what to do with it, or with themselves – John Milton ” * THE above quotation, from the collected works of John Milton, a staunch republican who wrote with James Harrington and Algernon Sidney on republicanism in 17th Century England, was informed by the notion that republicanism was a moral ideal based on the abstract ground of natural right and justice.

Of all Milton’s tracts the most memorable is the ‘Areopagitica’ (1644), his defence of freedom of publication. Though it apparently received little notice when it was written, it has become, together with John Stuart Mill’s essay ‘On Liberty’, the classic argument for free speech in the English language.Milton stated once for all the faith of intellectual liberalism, that truth will prevail over error when both may be freely tested by investigation and discussion.When there are avenues for rational disputation.Milton was also important for another reason.His argument in substance does nothing more than assert the principle that resistance to a tyrant or the abuse of public power, is a natural right.In the ‘Tenure’ he argued that humans are born free and set up governments for the sake of mutual defence and in service of the public or the common good.The latter, the principle of the public or the common good, derives from Aristotle and is one of the foundations of his political writings.Like other principles in politics, it is of course contested.What constitutes the public or the common good? Who defines it, in whose interest? For Milton, the law is there to limit and control public authority.The magistrate’s power is derived from the people for the public good, and hence the right to protect the common good against a tyrant and unaccountable rule must always reside in the people.No person or party can know that he/she or it is perfectly right and hence neither a magistrate nor a party should enforce belief in a particular interpretation.The above brief excursion into some of the ideas of John Milton is useful not only because Milton by and large failed to see that individual liberty is an impracticable ideal if citizens are unfit to be trusted with a voice in government.In this, he followed Plato who privileged rule by the guardians.There is an even more ominous reason why we need to read Milton; his idealisation of a revolution as a new dawn of liberty, dignity and constructive politics.Transposing his logic to present-day Namibia, one cannot but recognise the tendency of some individuals and parties to construct their politics almost exclusively around liberation and to present it as the way to the New Jerusalem – the final act in the drama of our politics.Akin to a misplaced ‘end of history thesis’ that fails to realise that ultimately democracy always believes in the value of dialogue amongst communities not as constellations of impersonal forces-either racial or ethnic-but as a complex of human beings and of human interests and needs.Philosophically, democracy has been designed to mediate disagreement and not agreement, for if we were to agree on everything all the time, there would be no need for democracy.Democracy recognises human agency; it represents the human face of politics.FREE AND EQUAL AGENCY There is another domain idea embedded in democratic thought – at the very least since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights – and that is on the political level human beings have to meet as free agents and equals.Politically speaking liberty and equality are not intrinsic aids to happiness, but can reasonably be regarded as moral attitudes without which dialogue become in any complete sense of the word impossible.How can a meeting of minds take place if all parties in interest do not concede to the other parties, at least as an initial assumption, that their points of view and interests are not merely vicious and divisive? Without that attitude understanding, let alone agreement, will almost certainly not result.Agreement and understanding, the latter is grounded in respect, may follow when all sides or parties can speak their minds freely without fear of reprisal.Of course, in practical politics there are no guarantees that the process will succeed (for it depends on trust, catalytic leadership, good faith and good will) but its absence is a guarantee that it will fail.The philosophy, as distinct from the politics and institutions of a democratic society is, therefore, as its critics have said a form of intellectualism.It is rather an intellectualism which, in the words of Sabine and Thorson (1973: 846) “assumes that understanding is not beyond the range of possibility and that it not only depends on but extends good will and tolerance”.Considering, how some of our politicians, party functionaries and intellectuals engage in cultures of derision, in the name of “dialogue”, one cannot but wonder how much of the philosophy of democracy they truly understand? Also, does the chorus of adulators, for example, realise what their utterances mean for the philosophy of democracy? Do they care? Who are putting our nascent democracy at risk? Have material interests and the tyranny of political correctness overtaken democracy as a moral value and a political praxis? Regrettably also at our institutions of higher learning? I, like so many other Namibians, have witnessed how the collective destiny according to the direction of one person or party, has led to profound failure and discontent in our own SADC sub-region and elsewhere.How such an attitude and approach to the conduct of politics inevitably results in the making of a country’s nightmare.Often this happens when persistent adulators proclaim one person or party as the one and only.Once our country ran this very risk with one person and one party imposing its/their vision upon our destiny; now, there are disquieting signs that the scriptwriters again make individuals and parties big and Namibians small.This is a tendency that has to be avoided if we were to preserve the philosophy of democracy; if we wish to celebrate and value multiple truths and multiple voices.The above, however worrying, is not new.Michel Foucault one of the leading post-modernists thinkers together with Lyotard and Derrida, as well as critical theorists – Cox and Linklater among others – have long argued for a power-knowledge relationship.Unlike rationalists and positivists, these scholars have shown that power in fact produces knowledge.All power requires knowledge and all knowledge relies on and reinforces existing power relations.Thus, there is no such thing as ‘truth’ existing outside of power.Truth is not something external to social settings but instead part of them.Accordingly, post-modernists examine what power relations are supported by ‘truth’ and knowledge practices.The central message of post-modernists is that various ‘regimes of truth’ merely reflect the ways in which through history both power and truth develop together in a mutually sustaining relationship.The way to uncover the inner workings of power is to undertake a detailed historical analysis of how the practices and statements about the social and political world are only ‘true’ within specific discourses.It is from such a perspective that some of the more recent political outpourings and writings have to be viewed.No less a notable than the Rt.Hon.Prime Minister Nahas Angula (writing as “Citizen Nahas Angula”) 1] lamented the rise of “ethnic political entrepreneurship” and the threat it poses to hard-won unity and the public good.One can agree with much of his reflective writing – in a certain sense Namibia is at the political crossroads – for citizenship and dialogue lie at the very heart of inclusive, fair and just politics, not only in Namibia.What ‘citizen Angula’ fails to recognise is that his ‘truth’ is a reflection of his position within the power construct of post-colonial Namibia.FORMAL AND SUBSTANTIVE CITIZENSHIP Both the philosophy and the praxis of democracy require that the political society address both formal and substantive citizenship.Government and the society at large need to meaningfully address the formal or explicit exclusion of women and other minorities from full and equal citizenship status; transforming gender inequalities in property relations; gender inequalities in family relations; ensuring women’s and the poorer section of the populace’s access to justice; recognising and protecting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women, and ensuring gender justice in the economy.While a contested concept ‘gender justice’ means fair treatment of women and men, where fairness is evaluated on the basis of substantive outcomes and not on the basis of a notion of formal equality that uses an implied ‘sameness’ standard.This means that in some cases, (that need to be empirically determined) different treatment may be what is needed for a just outcome.Fairness should also be at the level of interpersonal relations and at the level of institutions that mediate these relations and offer redress of wrongs.Gender justice also implies transforming the gender hierarchy that has disadvantaged women.There is a growing body of critical scholarship that questions a narrow and linear definition of citizenship that simply sees it as the relationship between state and citizen.The literature argues for conceptions of citizenship that take into account the fact that one’s experience of citizenship is mediated by other markers of belonging.For instance, such factors as race, ethnicity, family connections, region, or socio-economic status should be considered.Feminist and gender studies have emphasised the importance of such a situated understanding of citizenship for women, and how crucial it is that such an analysis proceeds from an understanding of women’s lived experiences.SPATIALLY ENABLED GOVERNMENT There is another more practical requirement to a more inclusive, service driven and just political order, and that is the idea of spatially enabled government.The key idea is that of using spatial information for public decision-making in planning, service delivery and the optimal allocation of resources.Provided that applicable spatial information is shared and utilised across levels of government and regions, this could greatly improve policy and governance coherence.Ideally, Government and other role players should develop an integrated Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI).Such a SDI exploits the sciences and technologies associated with Geographical Information Science (GIS) and sustainable development.A SDI is the basis of an integrated National Integrated Geo-spatial Data Infrastructure (IGIS).The advantages of such geo-information frameworks and technologies – some of which Namibia has in place – are numerous.For example, an IGIS will greatly support and facilitate research and development (notably Q-squared research on poverty); focus the strategic management of natural resources such as water and marine resources; facilitate the management of decision information and services for spatially enabled government; respond to the needs of data and information sharing in emergency management and disaster relief (one existing example is DEPHA – Data Exchange Platform For the Horn of Africa); strengthen governmental and social accountability and enable government to set-up national inventories such as a national forest inventory.Namibia does have various databases that could serve as the foundation for a National Integrated Geo-spatial Data Infrastructure (IGIS).Local Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) is more problematic, especially for local and regional authorities.Considerably more work will have to be done, inclusive of legal and regulatory frameworks.The National Information Technology Policy and the E-Government Policy, for example may have to be revisited.There is also the issue of local capacity building and the current reality of IT infrastructure in local and regional authorities.Ideally, an integrated IGIS should inform the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and the various National Development Plans.CONCLUSIONS I am fully aware of a range of issues that may impede or even prevent consideration and implementation of some of the ideas contained in this brief paper.Nonetheless, I do believe that it is important for national policies to become more results-oriented (a similar conclusion was reached in the recent outstanding research paper by Sebastian Levine and Benjamin Roberts titled ‘A Q-Squared approach to Pro-Poor Policy Formulation in Namibia’), for this to happen the national and regional statistical information base and platform will have to be improved.Finally, it is my hope that this modest contribution will fuel open, critical debate in our country, for it is only a discourse on and of democracy that has the possibility to overcome the legacies associated with the structure of thought and power that (neo)-colonialism exerts on post-colonial Namibia and that lives on in the minds of those who exercise public and private power.* Andre du Pisani teaches politics and some philosophy at the University of Namibia (UNAM).He writes in his personal capacity.Further reading Angula, Nahas, “Namibia at Political Crossroads”, New Era, Friday, 08 February 2008, p.10. Angula, Nahas, “Threat Posed By Ethnic Political Entrepreneurship in Namibia: Part 2”, New Era, Friday, 15 February 2008, p.10. Angula, Nahas, “Towards an Inclusive, Fair and Just Political Order in Africa”, New Era, Friday, 22 February 2008, p.8 and 10.Foucault,Michel, Power.New York: New Press. Grierson, Sir Herbert J.C., Milton and Wordsworth, Poets and Prophets: A Study of Their Reactions to Political Events.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1937. Hengari, Alfredo Tjiurimo, “A Society With A Passion For Ignorance”, The Namibian, Friday, February 15, 2008, p.7. Hengari, Alfredo Tjiurimo, “A Call for an Avant Garde Namibian Leadership”, The Namibian, Friday, November 9, 2007, p.7. Kaure, Alexactus T., “Choice and Citizenship: Defending the Democratic Terrain”, The Namibian, Friday, February 15, 2008, p.6. Kaure, Alexactus T., “Politics of the Institution and the Public Intellectual: From Makumbe to Maamberua”, The Namibian, Friday, March 7, 2008, P.6. Levine, Sebastian and Benjamin Roberts, “A Q-Squared approach to Pro-Poor Policy Formulation in Namibia”, Q2 Q-Squared Working Paper No.49, November 2007, University of Toronto, Canada, e: info@q-squared.ca Melber, Henning, “Rally for Democracy and Progress: The New Kid on the Block”, The Namibian, Friday, November 9, 2007, p.6. Sabine George H. and Thomas L. Thorson (eds.) A History of Political Theory, Fourth Edition.Tokyo: Holt-Saunders International Editions, 1973.Smith, Chris, “Connecting the Dots…”, The Namibian, Friday, February 15 2008, p.15.Note 1] Citizenship: the status of having the right to participate in and to be represented in politics.Though it apparently received little notice when it was written, it has become, together with John Stuart Mill’s essay ‘On Liberty’, the classic argument for free speech in the English language.Milton stated once for all the faith of intellectual liberalism, that truth will prevail over error when both may be freely tested by investigation and discussion.When there are avenues for rational disputation.Milton was also important for another reason.His argument in substance does nothing more than assert the principle that resistance to a tyrant or the abuse of public power, is a natural right.In the ‘Tenure’ he argued that humans are born free and set up governments for the sake of mutual defence and in service of the public or the common good.The latter, the principle of the public or the common good, derives from Aristotle and is one of the foundations of his political writings.Like other principles in politics, it is of course contested.What constitutes the public or the common good? Who defines it, in whose interest? For Milton, the law is there to limit and control public authority.The magistrate’s power is derived from the people for the public good, and hence the right to protect the common good against a tyrant and unaccountable rule must always reside in the people.No person or party can know that he/she or it is perfectly right and hence neither a magistrate nor a party should enforce belief in a particular interpretation.The above brief excursion into some of the ideas of John Milton is useful not only because Milton by and large failed to see that individual liberty is an impracticable ideal if citizens are unfit to be trusted with a voice in government.In this, he followed Plato who privileged rule by the guardians.There is an even more ominous reason why we need to read Milton; his idealisation of a revolution as a new dawn of liberty, dignity and constructive politics.Transposing his logic to present-day Namibia, one cannot but recognise the tendency of some individuals and parties to construct their politics almost exclusively around liberation and to present it as the way to the New Jerusalem – the final act in the drama of our politics.Akin to a misplaced ‘end of history thesis’ that fails to realise that ultimately democracy always believes in the value of dialogue amongst communities not as constellations of impersonal forces-either racial or ethnic-but as a complex of human beings and of human interests and needs.Philosophically, democracy has been designed to mediate disagreement and not agreement, for if we were to agree on everything all the time, there would be no need for democracy.Democracy recognises human agency; it represents the human face of politics. FREE AND EQUAL AGENCY There is another domain idea embedded in democratic thought – at the very least since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights – and that is on the political level human beings have to meet as free agents and equals.Politically speaking liberty and equality are not intrinsic aids to happiness, but can reasonably be regarded as moral attitudes without which dialogue become in any complete sense of the word impossible.How can a meeting of minds take place if all parties in interest do not concede to the other parties, at least as an initial assumption, that their points of view and interests are not merely vicious and divisive? Without that attitude understanding, let alone agreement, will almost certainly not result.Agreement and understanding, the latter is grounded in respect, may follow when all sides or parties can speak their minds freely without fear of reprisal.Of course, in practical politics there are no guarantees that the process will succeed (for it depends on trust, catalytic leadership, good faith and good will) but its absence is a guarantee that it will fail.The philosophy, as distinct from the politics and institutions of a democratic society is, therefore, as its critics have said a form of intellectualism.It is rather an intellectualism which, in the words of Sabine and Thorson (1973: 846) “assumes that understanding is not beyond the range of possibility and that it not only depends on but extends good will and tolerance”.Considering, how some of our politicians, party functionaries and intellectuals engage in cultures of derision, in the name of “dialogue”, one cannot but wonder how much of the philosophy of democracy they truly understand? Also, does the chorus of adulators, for example, realise what their utterances mean for the philosophy of democracy? Do they care? Who are putting our nascent democracy at risk? Have material interests and the tyranny of political correctness overtaken democracy as a moral value and a political praxis? Regrettably also at our institutions of higher learning? I, like so many other Namibians, have witnessed how the collective destiny according to the direction of one person or party, has led to profound failure and discontent in our own SADC sub-region and elsewhere.How such an attitude and approach to the conduct of politics inevitably results in the making of a country’s nightmare.Often this happens when persistent adulators proclaim one person or party as the one and only.Once our country ran this very risk with one person and one party imposing its/their vision upon our destiny; now, there are disquieting signs that the scriptwriters again make individuals and parties big and Namibians small.This is a tendency that has to be avoided if we were to preserve the philosophy of democracy; if we wish to celebrate and value multiple truths and multiple voices.The above, however worrying, is not new.Michel Foucault one of the leading post-modernists thinkers together with Lyotard and Derrida, as well as critical theorists – Cox and Linklater among others – have long argued for a power-knowledge relationship.Unlike rationalists and positivists, these scholars have shown that power in fact produces knowledge.All power requires knowledge and all knowledge relies on and reinforces existing power relations.Thus, there is no such thing as ‘truth’ existing outside of power.Truth is not something external to social settings but instead part of them.Accordingly, post-modernists examine what power relations are supported by ‘truth’ and knowledge practices.The central message of post-modernists is that various ‘regimes of truth’ merely reflect the ways in which through history both power and truth develop together in a mutually sustaining relationship.The way to uncover the inner workings of power is to undertake a detailed historical analysis of how the practices and statements about the social and political world are only ‘true’ within specific discourses.It is from such a perspective that some of the more recent political outpourings and writings have to be viewed.No less a notable than the Rt.Hon.Prime Minister Nahas Angula (writing as “Citizen Nahas Angula”) 1] lamented the rise of “ethnic political entrepreneurship” and the threat it poses to hard-won unity and the public good.One can agree with much of his reflective writing – in a certain sense Namibia is at the political crossroads – for citizenship and dialogue lie at the very heart of inclusive, fair and just politics, not only in Namibia.What ‘citizen Angula’ fails to recognise is that his ‘truth’ is a reflection of his position within the power construct of post-colonial Namibia.FORMAL AND SUBSTANTIVE CITIZENSHIP Both the philosophy and the praxis of democracy require that the political society address both formal and substantive citizenship.Government and the society at large need to meaningfully address the formal or explicit exclusion of women and other minorities from full and equal citizenship status; transforming gender inequalities in property relations; gender inequalities in family relations; ensuring women’s and the poorer section of the populace’s access to justice; recognising and protecting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women, and ensuring gender justice in the economy.While a contested concept ‘gender justice’ means fair treatment of women and men, where fairness is evaluated on the basis of substantive outcomes and not on the basis of a notion of formal equality that uses an implied ‘sameness’ standard.This means that in some cases, (that need to be empirically determined) different treatment may be what is needed for a just outcome.Fairness should also be at the level of interpersonal relations and at the level of institutions that mediate these relations and offer redress of wrongs.Gender justice also implies transforming the gender hierarchy that has disadvantaged women.There is a growing body of critical scholarship that questions a narrow and linear definition of citizenship that simply sees it as the relationship between state and citizen.The literature argues for conceptions of citizenship that take into account the fact that one’s experience of citizenship is mediated by other markers of belonging.For instance, such factors as race, ethnicity, family connections, region, or socio-economic status should be considered.Feminist and gender studies have emphasised the importance of such a situated understanding of citizenship for women, and how crucial it is that such an analysis proceeds from an understanding of women’s lived experiences.SPATIALLY ENABLED GOVERNMENT There is another more practical requirement to a more inclusive, service driven and just political order, and that is the idea of spatially enabled government.The key idea is that of using spatial information for public decision-making in planning, service delivery and the optimal allocation of resources.Provided that applicable spatial information is shared and utilised across levels of government and regions, this could greatly improve policy and governance coherence.Ideally, Government and other role players should develop an integrated Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). Such a SDI exploits the sciences and technologies associated with Geographical Information Science (GIS) and sustainable development.A SDI is the basis of an integrated National Integrated Geo-spatial Data Infrastructure (IGIS).The advantages of such geo-information frameworks and technologies – some of which Namibia has in place – are numerous.For example, an IGIS will greatly support and facilitate research and development (notably Q-squared research on poverty); focus the strategic management of natural resources such as water and marine resources; facilitate the management of decision information and services for spatially enabled government; respond to the needs of data and information sharing in emergency management and disaster relief (one existing example is DEPHA – Data Exchange Platform For the Horn of Africa); strengthen governmental and social accountability and enable government to set-up national inventories such as a national forest inventory.Namibia does have various databases that could serve as the foundation for a National Integrated Geo-spatial Data Infrastructure (IGIS).Local Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) is more problematic, especially for local and regional authorities.Considerably more work will have to be done, inclusive of legal and regulatory frameworks.The National Information Technology Policy and the E-Government Policy, for example may have to be revisited.There is also the issue of local capacity building and the current reality of IT infrastructure in local and regional authorities.Ideally, an integrated IGIS should inform the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and the various National Development Plans. CONCLUSIONS I am fully aware of a range of issues that may impede or even prevent consideration and implementation of some of the ideas contained in this brief paper.Nonetheless, I do believe that it is important for national policies to become more results-oriented (a similar conclusion was reached in the recent outstanding research paper by Sebastian Levine and Benjamin Roberts titled ‘A Q-Squared approach to Pro-Poor Policy Formulation in Namibia’), for this to happen the national and regional statistical information base and platform will have to be improved.Finally, it is my hope that this modest contribution will fuel open, critical debate in our country, for it is only a discourse on and of democracy that has the possibility to overcome the legacies associated with the structure of thought and power that (neo)-colonialism exerts on post-colonial Namibia and that lives on in the minds of those who exercise public and private power.* Andre du Pisani teaches politics and some philosophy at the University of Namibia (UNAM).He writes in his personal capacity.Further reading Angula, Nahas, “Namibia at Political Crossroads”, New Era, Friday, 08 February 2008, p.10. Angula, Nahas, “Threat Posed By Ethnic Political Entrepreneurship in Namibia: Part 2”, New Era, Friday, 15 February 2008, p.10. Angula, Nahas, “Towards an Inclusive, Fair and Just Political Order in Africa”, New Era, Friday, 22 February 2008, p.8 and 10.Foucault,Michel, Power.New York: New Press. Grierson, Sir Herbert J.C., Milton and Wordsworth, Poets and Prophets: A Study of Their Reactions to Political Events.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1937. Hengari, Alfredo Tjiurimo, “A Society With A Passion For Ignorance”, The Namibian, Friday, February 15, 2008, p.7. Hengari, Alfredo Tjiurimo, “A Call for an Avant Garde Namibian Leadership”, The Namibian, Friday, November 9, 2007, p.7. Kaure, Alexactus T., “Choice and Citizenship: Defending the Democratic Terrain”, The Namibian, Friday, February 15, 2008, p.6. Kaure, Alexactus T., “Politics of the Institution and the Public Intellectual: From Makumbe to Maamberua”, The Namibian, Friday, March 7, 2008, P.6. Levine, Sebastian and Benjamin Roberts, “A Q-Squared approach to Pro-Poor Policy Formulation in Namibia”, Q2 Q-Squared Working Paper No.49, November 2007, University of Toronto, Canada, e: info@q-squared.ca Melber, Henning, “Rally for Democracy and Progress: The New Kid on the Block”, The Namibian, Friday, November 9, 2007, p.6. Sabine George H. and Thomas L. Thorson (eds.) A History of Political Theory, Fourth Edition.Tokyo: Holt-Saunders International Editions, 1973.Smith, Chris, “Connecting the Dots…”, The Namibian, Friday, February 15 2008, p.15. Note 1] Citizenship: the status of having the right to participate in and to be represented in politics.