Namibia On Sale

TWO decades into Independence, too little has changed for most Namibians in terms of their socio-economic realities. Their society remains stigmatised as the world’s most unequal in terms of income distribution. In contrast, a new species of ‘fat cats’ has thrived.

They prosper despite the sobering picture of an economy lacking meaningful transformation. As Robin Sherbourne summarised in his ‘Guide to the Namibian Economy 2009’, ‘we need to do much better in future if we are to provide jobs and incomes for all the people rather than just the privileged few’.Some believe that a free market gospel (meaning a largely unregulated environment for private capital operations with a minimum of state interference) would be the most opportune development path. Others warn that this is the safest way into further disaster. Even mainstream economists employed with private financial institutions have their reservations concerning the current economic policy. To quote Robin Sherbourne again: ‘Government’s attempts to promote black Namibian business interests have taken place outside any overall coherent, transparent and accountable policy framework and generally have been highly discretionary and shrouded in secrecy. As a result, the lucky few close to power and influence have benefitted greatly, often at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer and consumer.’ Selling Natural AssetsThe Namibia Wildlife Resorts Company as a state-owned enterprise is mandated to act in the public interest. This includes more than merely seeking economic gains, though being economically viable would be an integral part of the defined tasks. To compensate for earlier losses not least due to failed management and disastrous business practices, it has started to enter deals with private sector companies to develop, market and utilise the country’s natural assets (landscape, flora and wildlife) to attract more of a potentially international segment of clients willing to pay hefty rates for viewing the country’s beauty. This includes the main water supply for Windhoek (Von Bach Dam) as a potential upmarket resort for the wealthy (some of whom already benefitted from the limited access to its shores in the past). The Von Bach Dam Saga, as brought into the public domain by an investigative journalist recently, is among the latest evidence illustrating that Namibia’s public goods – supposed to be in general possession and protected in the common interest – are turned into cash for a privileged few. The euphemism of ‘Namibianisation’ has since Independence along with Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and Affirmative Action (AA) served as a smokescreen to cover up the kleptocratic enterprises of a post-colonial parasitic elite. This usurps the political offices and dishes out access to the country’s wealth in public hands to a few comrades in business claiming to be entitled to such benefits as a Previously Disadvantaged Group (PDG). The new acronyms are the masquerade for a class-based co-option strategy into a more de-racialised socio-economic structure basically in existence already prior to Independence. Despite populist anti-imperialist rhetoric of the new rulers, it perpetuates the exploitation of the common people and excludes them from the country’s wealth. Moeletsi Mbeki has recently critically dealt with this tendency. In his essays published as ‘Architects of Poverty – Why African Capitalism Needs Changing’ he bemoans the lack of what one could call patriotism on behalf of those who after Apartheid moved into political offices. Their self-enrichment strategy is based on an unproductive crony capitalism, which contributes to the perpetuation of a (neo-)colonial status quo. It sells the national assets in return for some crumbs. Mind you, the privileged few make a good living off these crumbs. A look at upper market residential areas in Windhoek, Swakopmund, Walvis Bay and elsewhere (in particular further North), as well as the latest cars on the streets and other fancy status symbols of the nouveau riche suggest that they are in no need of social welfare. This is in marked contrast to the majority of the people, who are even denied the benefits of a Basic Income Grant (BIG). But those symbols of accumulated wealth are completely unproductive signs of a voluptuous life-style, instead of being invested into productive sectors of an economy to create employment opportunities for others. The von Bach Dam as PPPIn contrast, it is now the last of the ‘family silver’ Namibian authorities are seemingly willing to carelessly give away, as Alexactus Kaure in his sharp-minded and -worded comment on the latest disclosure of the scuffle around the Von Bach Dam diagnosed (The Namibian, 26 June). The ‘struggle aristocracy’, as so poignantly termed in the editorial of the same day’s paper, cashes in on Namibia’s remaining natural and strategic resources. It testifies to an economic policy which suggests that the erstwhile liberators have turned into sell-outs. ‘A luta continua’, the slogan of the struggle days, almost two decades into sovereignty translates into ‘the looting continues’.Iyaloo ya Nangolo offered a lengthy and wordy ideological Trojan horse published in several local papers in response to the disclosure. As one of the beneficiaries of a Von Bach Dam deal, he not surprisingly sings the praise song of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). He suggests that the PPPs would be not adequately respected as an engine for economic growth and the benefits it offers by means of subsequent trickle down effects in terms of general welfare. It is worthwhile to recollect (as even ya Nangolo does) that PPPs were originally promoted as part of the neo-liberal project by corporate capitalism in the USA. It started its worldwide crusade since the late 1970s by Thatcherism, the Reagan administration and the international financial institutions (in countries such as Chile under Pinochet!). As of lately PPPs were also part of the gospel by politically bankrupt social democratic governments.As one of two directors of the BEE company Tungeni Africa Investments, ya Nangolo seeks to legitimise his business interests. Fair enough. Hence it is also only fair to engage with ya Nangolo’s arguments instead of simply dismissing them unexplained. As he proposes, PPP ‘is driven by the need to fast track sustainable development while expediting service delivery and addressing alleviation of poverty, ignorance and other social evils’. He fails to mention, however, how and in which way the planned Von Bach Dam scheme would achieve such effects. Which services will be delivered, and how poverty alleviation would be achieved. Will Tungeni Africa Investments provide shelter for the homeless or allow those living in shackles to move into decent housing at reasonable and affordable costs? Will the construction site employ a meaningful number of Namibian workers at minimum wage for a longer period of time instead of awarding tenders to Chinese construction companies notorious for offering best bids because of their negligence of the country’s labour laws?The advocate of PPPs in general and the Von Bach Dam scheme in particular, suggests that PPP is ‘an economic reform strategy to deliver high quality services in an initiative that leverages the innovations and efficiency of private sector within society’. He does not spell out which high quality services the Von Bach Dam scheme will provide – and to whom. More to the point, however, he also states that ‘PPP had been developed to de-risk developmental programmes to private sectors’. For potential investors this is indeed an incentive, as it minimises risks at the expense of state agencies. But who gains? The Von Bach Dam scheme like similar other potential enterprises in collaboration with NWR, aims ‘to spur growth in the tourism sectors’. But even the most impressive success stories in tourism provide hardly any convincing evidence that a prosperous tourism industry benefits the majority of the local population with lasting structural effects towards an economy based on sustainable growth and welfare
. Tourism is among the most vulnerable of money generating activities, highly dependent upon external factors, and its main beneficiaries are not those in – often temporary and seasonal – employment. Rather, these are the first ones to suffer from setbacks. What makes the Von Bach Dam a sensitive issue is the fact that it is the main water supply to Namibia’s capital. Who owns and controls this fundamental public good if the utilisation of its territory is leased for generations to a private company? To which extent is this private investor loyal to the protection of a most precious public good, on which a population depends even if many among those cannot afford to pay the ever-increasing prices for water supply? The latest scandalously flawed budget by the Windhoek municipality (which mocks any ‘pro-poor’ concerns) is of no comfort when it comes to its ordinary residents. In combination with the emerging plans at the Von Bach Dam this is surely reason enough to be worried about the future potential scenarios of such PPP. Public vs Class InterestYa Nangolo suggests that the perception of PPPs as privatisation is a misconstruction and a source of media wrangling. This covers up for the fact that it indeed is a kind of ‘outsourcing’, which allows private capital to generate long-term profits with public property, while the ordinary citizens – as taxpayers, users of privately operated ‘public’ utilities or in any other way dependent on commercially traded commodities for their daily life – have to foot the bill. At the end, a few rich are richer, and the poor are poorer, while the state and its administration as well as the politically responsible office bearers have failed their duties to protect and act in the general interest of all members of society (not least the weakest). What is presented as a ‘media wrangle’, highlights in fact a dimension of class interests. The just released 2nd Millennium Development Goals Report for Namibia, which paints a rather rosy picture, cannot help but to summarise that ‘a segment of the society is very wealthy even by international standards’ and that the richest 10% of households consumes 20 times more than the poorest 10%. A background paper on trends in human development and human poverty compiled in 2007 by an economist with the UNDP office in Windhoek points to the fact that ‘contrary to the objectives of Vision 2030, human development in Namibia appears to be on a long-term decline’ and that ‘the administrative regions with the greatest needs are under-prioritised in the development budget’. One does not need to be a brain surgeon to find out where – socio-economically and regionally – the beneficiaries of a Von Bach Dam resort scheme will be. Moeletsi Mbeki (himself a beneficiary of new business opportunities provided to so-called previously disadvantaged) ended his deliberations on the ‘architects of poverty’ with the conclusion that African elites are with few exceptions a rentier class. They appropriate wealth through access to national assets they are selling to others and ‘have no sense of ownership of their country and are not interested in its development. They view the country primarily as a cash cow that enables them to live extravagantly … as they attempt to mimic the lifestyles of the colonialists. … With the lack of ownership goes the pillaging of resources, neglect of the welfare of the people, corruption, capital flight and, ultimately, brutality against dissenting voices.’ – Sadly, there is nothing more positive to add from a Namibian perspective. Dr. Henning Melber is Executive Director of The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in Uppsala/Sweden. A member of Swapo since 1974, he was Director of The Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) between 1992 and 2000. He has recently co-edited (with Roger Southall) ‘A New Scramble for Africa? Imperialism, Investment and Development’ (University of KwaZulu-Natal Press 2009). The volume is available in the local bookshops and through Demasius Publications.