The Need for Distributive Justice

At the heart of the distributive struggle for justice is the desire to give people a dignified socio-economic life.

All public institutions have a moral duty to promote activities that enhance human dignity and advance human good.

As custodians of state resources, they must implement practical measures to reduce violent socio-economic conditions.

Many Namibians find themselves unable to afford basic necessities such as food.

This is not because of moral failure or a lack of economic productivity but harsh socio-economic structures.

Many people are poor simply because they were born in an unequal society; they never had an open slate of socio-economic choices and opportunities.

Without intentional preventative interventions and measures, their lot will not change.

Interventions must go beyond food relief and must ensure people have the power to make real economic choices.

‘TANGIBLE GOOD’

If a state’s most valuable assets are its citizens, this needs to be shown by granting them access to life-enhancing goods.

What does it take to live a good life in Namibia?

Or, what are the most tangible goods required to allow people to make real and life-altering choices?

These are not merely economic questions. If anything, they ask what must be done for the poor to attain conditions worthy of a human being.

This makes economic inequality an ethical issue, one that cannot be adequately addressed if we do not ask the right questions, the human questions.

Most citizens need state intervention to realise a life of socio-economic dignity.

This explains why the government’s policies produce bizarre results.

Especially when the dream of economic emancipation protects exploitative investors who in turn live on wealth gained from our national resources.

A distributive notion argues that the resources of the country must be used to promote human good.

Thus, by virtue of being citizens, the least advantaged among us must be given the means to attain a measure of life befitting a human being.

This is not aid to the poor, but that which befits a person.

Endorsing distributive measures in the public system is a way of undoing socio-economic characteristics that undermine human dignity and the ability to flourish.

It must be a tangible good that also serves as a symbol of decision-making.
 
BIG IDEAS

The concept of a Basic Income Grant (BIG) continues to be rejected by the government.

The primary reason is cost. This is a flawed argument, especially when the government fails to exercise austerity when it comes to consumption by politicians.

The self-enrichment structures around top government officials, lawmakers, SOE employees, etc, give us every reason to dismiss the cost argument.

Most of these people contribute nothing to the animation of society.

This is an artificially created middle class that adds no economic value to society but rather rank among the largest consumers of goods.

The poor have a right to benefit from their country’s resources, and more creative progressive taxation measures can be adopted to realise BIG.

Further, the government would have us believe that as a nation we are unable to negotiate fairer deals on our resources.

We are also aware of the backdoor deals in which state brokers are paid to sell national resources for their own gain.

The ongoing Fishrot case and the recent lithium mining deal attest to this.  
 
REAL POWER

Distributive justice looks to counter greed, corruption and unjust structures.

It argues that when it comes to its citizens, cost must never be an excuse.

Sadly, the government has denied people the power to make real choices.

In denying BIG, a basic means of accessing economic power, it legitimises economic dispossession.

The tragic deaths of 16 members of the Shishugho family recently from suspected food poisoning speaks to the 43% of Namibians experiencing multi-dimensional poverty.  

The family would have had access to buying safe food if they had the power to make real choices on where to obtain food.

It is our ethical duty to critique the government’s failure to adopt safety nets for the poor.

It is immoral that a nation with so much resource wealth cannot feed its hungry.

To counter this, the government must seriously consider providing an unconditional universal basic income grant.

This would give people real power to make basic choices.

• Basilius Kasera, lecturer of religion, philosophy and applied ethics (Unam). Disclaimer: The views expressed are in his personal capacity and do not represent those of his employer or associates

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.