Namibia’s Uncivil Civil Society

THERE has been a paucity of debate about the role of civil society in Namibian politics. And the little there is, is either cast in simplistic terms or not properly theorised. But since this is an election year, it’s perhaps necessary we bring in the role and place of civil society in democratic politics.

In a New Era column, Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro correctly bemoaned the deafening silence from the various strata of civil society in the country especially on issues that have important constitutional and political implications. I’m sure he is assuming that there is a robust civic realm out there.And in his latest offering in The Namibian, Henning Melber tackled that issue albeit briefly and in a slightly different context. He points out why Namibian civil society is weak and ineffective. Proceeding from a comparative perspective, Melber argue that: ‘The public as well as inner-party discourse in SA, shows far more nuances and diversity than in Namibia and the role of NGOs and other civil society actors and their forms of mobilising participation in public affairs through civic interest groups and social movements, seem to suggest that there is considerably more strength and space for dissenting voices to operate and articulate alternatives without immediate fundamental consequences for the daily survival of the individuals involved.’ The politics of the belly and fear (I would add political opportunism) are cited to underscore the Namibian dilemma.The question is: are we perhaps expecting too much from civil society? Yes, we should because in other places and times, civil society movements have made a difference in countries as diverse as Chile, Indonesia, Kenya, Lesotho, Poland, Spain, Zambia, Zimbabwe etc. They represent the demand side of the political equation and are thus the ultimate guarantor of the democratic process. My piece is an attempt to broaden the discussion about the role of civil society in general and in the Namibian political context. Arguing from a normative and idealised conception of civil society, I would maintain that civil society is not a thing, forum or actor but a kind of an empty social space recognised and protected by formal state and constitutional guarantees of individual rights and liberties and open to multiple uses by an equal and free citizenry. It is only when you have those conditions that the various civil society actors can operate short of confrontation as we have seen in some other countries.I also posit that formal recognition by the state doesn’t always guarantee an active civil society or compensate actors for loss of real importance on the ground and it carries the possibility of getting entangled in a whole web of patronage. The labour movement in Namibia under the umbrella of the NUNW represents this kind of scenario. Perhaps because of the culturally and intellectually underdeveloped nature of Namibian society especially before independence, the country didn’t develop a vibrant civic realm in the townships like say in SA. The modicum that developed evolved around work-place issues (even OPO was an off-shoot of the contract labour system). So the present labour movement was initiated by Swapo and it has since been aligned, co-opted and entangled in the programmes of the ruling party not to say the party’s compromised ideological and elitist thinking which in most cases is inimical to the interests of the working people. The NUNW doesn’t seem to have a problem with this arrangement.Thus the labour movement here is nothing but a stepping-stone into higher political office (if one makes a lot of noise but is still supportive of the ruling party thinking). Minor differences are expressed here and there but these are done within the belly of the beast, not outside. As an aside, I have always had problems with the SA Communist Party incorporation into the ANC liberal political and ideological structures because the SACP doesn’t influence their policies.Thus all civil society actors that are aligned to political parties and with state structure have effectively closed that important empty public space between state and society within which civil actors are supposed to operate and they thus cease to be civil but become uncivil societies and appendages of political parties. The functions of the NUNW and even COSATU are nothing other than to propagate the hegemonic agendas of Swapo and the ANC respectively. What this means is that labour has been drafted into politics without it in turn putting any demands on the political establishment. That’s why the NUNW has been conspicuously silent, as Matundu-Tjiparuro points out, on some of the major issues that affect the masses and working people like corruption and the perennial underhand deals by the elite at our parastatals like the recent scandals at Namibia Wildlife Resorts.It is one thing for a civil society actor to blindly align itself with a political party and quite another to support a specific policy initiative that would be beneficial to the everyday needs of its members. Until the labour movement and other civil actors in Namibia understand this finer distinction, then they are likely to fail.It would be interesting to see how the working people will vote this time around. Will they again vote for the neo-liberal project of the past 20 years spearheaded by Swapo or for a new kind of non-statist and participatory socialist order that parties like Swanu and others are advocating?