A politics of 'smoke and mirrors'

By Paul T. Shipale, Namibia

With the last session of the fourth parliament re-opened, I occasionally go to Parliament to chat with some MPs about Parliament in General and to ‘lobby’ if we understand, etymologically, by lobbying as gathering of MPs in the hallways and lobbies to discuss, try to canvass for support, gauge the opinion of our lawmakers etc.

I should admit, as my brother put it, that nowadays the speaker does not have to worry with the quorum anymore as the chamber is packed to capacity. And who would dare go AWOL with the prospect of MPs waiting to be “called”? Anyway, the other day, I read a report in the Namibian daily about Minister Kugongelwa-Amadhila who was irked by the comments of the opposition’s MP Arnold Tjihuiko who lamented the lack of information on the activities of the executive. Here is what the reporter wrote ‘...Tjihuiko complained “members are not well aware of activities of Ministries as they do not tell us”…the Finance minister rejected “Ministries compile annual reports which are tabled in the house, accountability reports are also available…”…the speaker recommended “maybe there could be monthly progress reports and regular sharing of information like ministerial statements…”with renewed vigor Tjihuiko continued talking about last year special cabinet committee until the Agriculture minister said “we debate on this report but where is it? …” the speaker was in his element now and said curtly “the report was tabled already four months ago”. MPs were all smiles at this response. Tjihuiko added insult to injury…he said melodramatically, drawing laughter from the opposition benches, “a report was tabled a while ago and some MPs cannot even remember?” The Finance Minister tried to save the situation…she quipped in Tjihuiko’s direction “reports are tabled here. You cannot say that Parliament is kept in the dark”.

Like Firoz Cachalia in his article titled “good governance, needs an effective parliament”, I argue here that Some reporters and commentators fail to appreciate that the mediadriven style of the opposition parties, and their narrow emphasis on the role of Parliament as a ‘check’ and ‘limit’ on the authority of the Executive, are important factors limiting the capacity of parliament to play a role in promoting not only accountability and good governance, but service delivery and development. Question period, for instance, has the important function of providing parliament with information which will enable it to play a role in promoting accountability and service delivery, but the opposition approaches question period with a view to short-term tactical advantage. While the form is to bring information into the public domain, their prime purpose is “to give the government a hard time”. The opposition will seek to extract information which they can use to portray the government in a bad light and the government for its part will be reluctant to disclose information of a kind or in a form that will help the opposition to do so. The so called “strong opposition”, which judges its efficacy by the number of embarrassing questions it asks, thus promotes a politics of “smoke and mirrors”.

In Parliamentary systems, the constitutional lodestar of accountability is the doctrine of Ministerial accountability. It is arguable that the traditional doctrine does not accord with the realities of modern government and is inconsistent with public sector reforms that strategically, would locate us in the new thinking on accountability. The oversight role is often seen as that of opposition parties alone, designed to police and expose maladministration and corruption. Such a view is limited and deficient. The traditional oversight/ accountability model is a form of compliance auditing. Its raison d’être is the discovery of error. But a delivery enhancing concept of oversight should primarily be aimed at identifying the systemic causes of policy failure by monitoring the implementation of policy and programs by committees with the requisite resources, information and expertise. Our elected MPs don’t even have private secretaries or PROs. How then do we expect them to monitor effectively?

I was particularly impressed the other day by the contribution of MP Loide Kasingo (tipped for a ministerial Post) on the Nipam’s bill (Namibia Institute for Public Management), tabled by the right honorable PM Angula. MP Kasingo suggested that Nipam should come up with courses that cater for our lawmakers’ capacity building especially in the field of constitutionalism and jurisprudence. To me, Nipam is similar to the French National School of administration (ENA) that trains the elite of the crème de la crème as future directors, CEOs, PSs, Ministers including Presidents. I suggest Nipam should also become a thinktank institution for research, policy formulation and institutional design. Meme Kasingo also added that the sub judice principle as a common law practice that you neither comment nor criticize judgments or matters before the court “depends on what, when and how. Otherwise why do we have legal reviews by peers?” she asked. The main difference between the British legal system or the common law and the Roman-Dutch law is the accusatorial nature for one and the inquisitorial system for the other. In the former, the system’s uniqueness is its stare decisis doctrine, which requires that courts abide by former precedents when the same point arises again in litigation or lawsuit.

In the Roman law inquisitorial system, the inquiry into the facts is conducted by the judge, who also examines the evidence and interrogates witnesses. Unlike its counterpart, this system decides on the basis of evidences put in court, which may be limited by rules of evidences. As Namibia inherited a mix hybrid of the English common law and the Roman-Dutch law brought by the Netherlands to Southern Africa, Evidences will thus be crucial in the ruling of the election litigation case next week. The judges would certainly want to apply the stare decisis’ principle to abide by the precedent set in 2004 of a vote recount. If that happens, smaller opposition parties may end up losing their seats that they got through the highest remainder formula unless the opposition, playing a politics of smoke and mirrors, withdraws the case as it was done in Ukraine recently.

Nonetheless, I concur with Madame SG Iivula–Ithana that the case be thrown out of court for ill-prepared affidavits by the complainants such as submitting their applications of nullifying the Presidential election results after deadlines and basing their arguments on flimsy administrative errors while the law clearly stipulates that no election will be nullify based on administrative errors.

The Okahandja by-elections, which came against the backdrop of the November elections’ dispute and the latest schizophrenia of a poisonous powder and chasing the media while MISA Namibia is quiet and hiding behind the KA/DA Stifungs (Konrad Adenauer and Deutch Africa Stifungs), were thus going to be critical in exonerating or incriminating the ECN’s competence.

Judging from the sea of people who flocked to the town’s stadium to attend the rallies, there was no doubt that SWAPO was going to win the Okahandja by-elections intended to set the benchmark for this year’s regional and local elections on whether a marriage of convenience by the opposition parties will be “things to come” in future elections ‘to wrench power’ from the ruling party and test if ‘independent candidates’ will be the trend in years to come.

Looking at the another issue of ‘smokes and mirrors’ of the ‘devambonizing doctrine’; Are the people strategizing together on the next move or they are simply ‘enfant terrible’ with emotional outburst calling others “faked adoptees, hitchhikers …with fertile imagination from a twisted mind...hiding behind inconsistent empty slogans…with a mercenary-like, sensational yellow and cheque book journalism…with party rules formulated to suit certain specific individuals with name attachment… of handlers and cohorts”? Who are these ‘handlers and cohorts’ if I may ask? Because this sounds so familiar to the ‘third hand’ conspiracy theory concocted against the youth. The founding father and President Pohamba are national leaders representing all Namibians and are not ‘Oshiwambo speaking Presidents’ as there was no instance ‘where a decision was taken that the next president should be Oshiwambo-speaking person’.

Since the proponents of the ‘Non- Oshiwambo’ doctrine asked for fairness, What if in turn, following this train of thought, someone suggests that the next PM should not be ‘a Damara speaking person’ since we already had two ‘Damara speaking PMs’? Or if someone else suggests that ‘the top four’ positions should all be up for grabs to allow for other charismatic and/or youthful leaders to take part in the race, thus eroding and circumventing the precedents set? Similarly, what if the ex-internal leadership says that the next president should come from them or the white community, the women; the youth etc claim that it is their turn, where do you draw the line after opening this Pandora box like a kid playing with fire; mwashe monyanda?

Like the editor of Namibia Today, I would also like to find out, ‘who is KK’s candidate who does not want to compete with “Oshiwambo speaking people?” and I should add, who is the Oshiwambo speaking person that KK and Hengari have in mind that they are so afraid of? The late Moses//Garoëb became the party’s SG in the early 1990s not because he was a “Damara speaking person” but simply because he was a down to earth and courageous leader who loved people and used to greet everyone down to the cleaners.

//Garoëb embodied the party’s values and principles and thus secured that position in a race against a liberation struggle‘s stalwart in the person of Andimba Toivo ya Toivo, Idem for PLAN Political Commissar Greenwell Matongo who was a brave man. Similarly, KK was elected at the last Electoral College not because of his tribal undertones of “…a loyal…and proud Otjiherero-speaking Namibian”.

‘Only a blind will not see the connection’ of this danger to Mr. Ya Nangolo’s ensconced ‘devambonization doctrine’ as an entrapment eating away at the very fabric and one of the support-bases and pillars of the ruling party through divide and rule tactics. My entente cordial is; to avoid the repeat of “Muyongo’s diarrhea” incident, regardless of the tribal origin and as long as people go through the structures to be tested and can do the job, let the best man or woman win, period!

Besides, “who can tell what the future holds but God alone?” (Isaiah 46:8-11).When Absalom and Adonijah were fighting with that sense of entitlement for the throne and were conspiring with bloodless coup de palais, little did they know that Salomon was going to reign (2 Samuel 15 & 1 King 1). True leaders never fight for the throne but always ask; why me of all people?

According to Salomon’s wisdom, the real owner is the one that says; don’t cut the child in two and not the one that wants equal share. God looks not at the outward appearance but at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). After all, the true heir to the throne will eventually emerge without anybody’s help, so I don’t see what this hullabaloo is all about.

Indeed, the institutional approach allows us to predict how changes in the dynamics of partisan competition would be filtered through constitutional structures to produce changed behavior but a constitutional design is only one factor – albeit a key one – in determining where power lies in any given political system. So, the President will do well to guard against unpredictable siffleurs playing a politics of smokes and mirrors because, ‘one never knows which whistle they will blow tomorrow’.