Political Perspective

IN every organisation or institution, there are people both good and bad, with some in between!

No matter whether it is a business, a political party, church group or charity, there are those who are committed; some who are along for the ride; and others who are using the group in question to serve their own personal ends. This should come as no surprise.
That’s life, some would say. At the end of the day, the measure of success or acclaim for any of the above is the extent to which the organisation in question manages to keep the predominantly ‘bad’ people at a minimum so that they don’t risk tarnishing the public image of the institution.PERCEPTIONS about various organisations are usually based on the types of people involved in them.
We believe, therefore, that the Mafia is bad; and so too is the Ku Klux Klan – the first being associated with greedy money-launderers and drug smugglers and the second, rabid racists who will kill to achieve their aims.
Similarly, we believe that Medicins sans Frontiers (Doctors without Borders) and the Salvation Army, for example, are good, because the former volunteers its services to help people in war-torn areas and countries in catastrophe and the latter offers Christian salvation to the poor, destitute and hungry by meeting both their physical and spiritual needs.
The above perceptions are probably largely correct, but that does not necessarily mean that there aren’t a few good souls in the ‘bad’ movements and some questionable characters in the ‘good’ ones! It’s just that they are not in sufficient numbers, in both cases, to change the public perceptions about the organisation in question. We can apply the same rationale to various institutions, businesses, organisations and political parties in Namibia today, and my point of emphasis is to say that in all the above, we need to keep their ‘bad’ associates to a minimum if these groupings want to succeed. Stands to reason in the economic context. If, in a business, the majority of management and employees are greedy and on the take, undisciplined and uncommitted to work or to further the aims and objectives of the organisation in question, or there is a massive skills deficit, that project is liable to fail. Moral or material corruption will take its toll on any institution, and if it doesn’t lead immediately to its demise, then it will certainly cause negative public perceptions to form around the organisation in question.Why, for example, do people complain a lot about a Ministry such as Home Affairs? Primarily because the service delivery is not what it should be. Again, that is not to say there aren’t some solid employees in that Ministry, but perhaps the number of inefficient, lazy and even corrupt staff members simply outweigh the good ones. So to turn around public perceptions about that Ministry, you need to ensure there are more efficient and competent employees to up their service level and overall image.Political parties are another case in point. Swapo is not necessarily ‘good’ and RDP ‘bad’, or vice versa. Both (and all other parties for that matter) have honest, committed, selfless and dedicated cadres, and all have what has recently been termed ‘hibernators’. There are those in RDP who are there simply because of their antipathy towards Swapo, and not because they necessarily believe in what the party stands for. If they are RDP believers, passionate about their cause and vocal about their policies, they will conceivably attract more adherents. But if, like the Congress of Democrats (CoD) before it, their agenda is primarily anti-Swapo, it severely limits their possibilities and will hamper their progress and growth as a political entity.There are those in Swapo (in particular because it is the ruling party and therefore linked to power and connections) who are disciplined members, but also those who are using the ruling party for their own (mainly business) ends. It is no secret that a corrupt elite has and continues to devolve power and riches from connections with Swapo, that there are well-known and widely-publicised incidences of this, and that they continue to be sheltered in the ruling party.What I am trying to get at is that there is a difference between people who belong to an institution, group or party, and who legitimately QUESTION their leaders, their projects and policies. They do so because of their commitment and loyalty to an organisation they believe in, and not because their political allegiances may lie elsewhere. They may in fact also enable a positive image of the party or organisation in question, because their aims have good, rather than evil, intent. These are not ‘bad’ people or ‘hibernators’ and we must learn to distinguish between people who do give an institution a bad name because they are simply using that platform to achieve their own ends or to enrich themselves, or those who are simply completely uncommitted poseurs who want to be seen to be seen, but don’t at the end of the day give a hoot about the people and the causes the party may represent.We need to ensure that the various undertakings have a positive public image, and this can only be done by being good and doing good. Witness the public perceptions about international banks which have been bailed out by governments and then used vast chunks of that money to pay themselves fat bonuses. Likewise consumers will turn their backs on businesses that rip them off; and voters will turn away from political parties characterised by corrupt and compromised leadership. But they will be inspired by organisations, institutions and parties and even individuals who endeavour to root out those who give them a bad name.