THE KEY point of debate in the current public discussion around the proposed constitutional amendments seems to be whether there was sufficient consultation.
In a nutshell, supporters of the current amendments say that Swapo and other political parties were consulted, and that anyone interested to give input could have done so via those channels. On the other hand, civil society groups maintain that there has been insufficient consultation. How much consultation is enough?
It is true that political parties should be a good vehicle for consultation. Political representatives have a duty to keep their constituents informed on key political issues, and a duty to communicate and represent the views of those constituents.
That is the ideal, but Namibia is a young democracy where that ideal has not yet been realised. Political allegiances tend to involve complex issues of identity and loyalty rather than being issue-based.
Furthermore, the party list system used for the National Assembly and the system of indirect election for the National Council have the disadvantage that there is no small, easily-definable group of voters to which MPs are accountable.
These problems are exacerbated by the fact that there was no widespread publicity about most of the constitutional amendments under consideration before they were tabled in parliament – so members of the public who might have been interested to give input were not put on notice as to what was afoot, nor were they informed about what forums they might utilise to have their say.
Another fact to keep in mind is that some of the issues under consideration, such as the proposed increase in the number of parliamentarians, are issues where party-political leadership – who are likely to benefit personally from an increased number of seats – may well have views at variance from the average rank-and-file party member or taxpaying member of the public.
When it comes to the issue of diversity of viewpoints, even the assertion that the bill emanates from the “Law Reform and Development Commission” is misleading.
The terms of office of the members of that commission expired in November 2013, with the exception of those of chairperson Sacky Shanghala and the Ombudsman, who is an ex officio member.
This was well before any discussion of most of the issues covered by the proposed amendments. The resulting vacancies have to date not been filled, meaning that the “commission” which produced the bill comprises two individuals.
When it has its normal full complement of eight members, the commission includes persons recommended by the Law Society and the University of Namibia – but even that level of diversity was lacking when the bill was formulated.
It is interesting to compare the steps taken to solicit public input on the Child Care and Protection Bill (CCPB) – Namibia’s most comprehensive consultative process to date. The CCPB itself was made available far and wide, with a summary explaining its provisions in accessible language. The CCPB and the accompanying summary were distributed to 144 key stakeholders (such as social workers and groups which work with children) and provided on request to anyone else who wanted it, in hard copy or electronic form.
Very short and simple summaries of the CCPB were produced in a total of five languages, and distributed in three languages in the form of inserts in national newspapers. There were at least 38 radio slots about the CCPB in various languages, along with 33 discussions of it in the print media and nine on television. A Facebook discussion group devoted specifically to the bill attracted more than 300 members.
The specifics of the CCPB were discussed at 39 workshops, conferences and other meetings, including well-attended regional meetings throughout the country which targeted a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Input on the CCPB sent in by members of the public via email, text message, letter and fax were collated and considered.
This input substantially re-shaped the bill, making it more responsive to Namibian needs and concerns.
To be fair, this level of consultation does not come cheap in terms of either money or investment of time.
Some say that there should be a national referendum which would give each and every Namibian voter a say on the amendments.
This is probably the most fully inclusive approach. However, referendums are very expensive and limited by their nature to “yes” and “no” answers or other equally simple responses – and so do not allow for the richness of input that can be provided through other means.
But it is possible to have better consultation without spending extravagant sums of money or holding a national referendum.
The key point is that meaningful consultation requires meaningful information.
The minimum requirements for adequate consultation should be widespread communication through the media of the details of the proposals for constitutional amendment, followed by clear and accessible opportunities for any and all members of the public to communicate their input regardless of whether or not they are affiliated to any political party.
Meaningful consultation also requires the dissemination of a simple explanation of what is proposed in as many languages as possible, to ensure that people of varying backgrounds and educational levels can take part in the discussion.
Better consultation would produce a better bill, not to mention a sense of democratic ownership of its contents. It is still not too late to do a better job.
