Seeing The BIG Picture

ONCE again thank you for an opportunity to voice my concerns through your esteemed paper.

This time I want to join the discussion on the unconditional basic income grant (BIG) for every Namibian citizen, especially with regard to the response by the IMF published in the local Afrikaans daily. Much of what I am going to say has probably been said already, but I am convinced that we need to talk about this issue, especially because it is an issue that is born out of the concern for the poor and the marginalised who do not have a voice.I am not so much surprised that the IMF is joining this discussion since we know that their interest is “to make money” and to promote only those programmes that will bring in more money for them.We also know about governments, especially in Africa and Latin America, that have launched economic programmes on the IMF’s advice and now are more indebted than ever before with their people reeling under poverty.Their response reveals to me that the so-called rejection of the BIG by the Cabinet is influenced by them.Lest they forget, majority of Namibians live in extreme poverty, and it is the responsibility of every Namibian to find ways and means to address this situation.I am sure the BIG proposal stems from the fact that we need to alleviate poverty, which is in line with the utterances and wishes of most Government ministers.To reject it outright is almost like committing a crime against most Namibians who live in abject poverty with no change of education opportunities that might empower them to rise out of the abyss of poverty.However, I am glad that the IMF is noting how many per cent of the GDP the implementation of BIG will utilise.It is a small number, 5,5 per cent, if I read well.Therefore I do not agree with the statement that it is not economically viable or affordable.Namibians surely can identify their needs and what best can work for them.We do not need outside help to know what we want because we are not blind.We know what difference a basic income will make.It will stimulate rural economies.And I don’t talk economical rhetoric here.I am talking about the realities the poor are facing, the households headed by grandmothers with AIDS orphans and because the daughter is trying to make ends meet as a domestic worker in Windhoek.Young men in villages who compete for jobs were there are none.A Basic Income Grant will make such a difference.Not only will it help poor households to pay for water and school fees, but it will stimulate small businesses in rural areas due to the injection of much-needed cash into these villages.As a minister/theologian, I have been accused that I talk about charity, which the church so much loves to give, when I talk about BIG.I wish to stress that it is not the case.Charity helps only for the moment and actually never lifts people out of poverty.Therefore instead of handing out charity, we need to ask why the people are poor and how we can address the problem.Then we will realise that the BIG coalition is actually dealing with this question.Therefore I am thankful for the NGOs, the Council of Churches and the trade unions that have formed a coalition to sensitise us about the possibility of BIG as a means to find an answer to the question why people are poor.I heard a minister say that people are poor because they are lazy.I don’t agree.People are not poor because they are lazy; they are poor because there is no support system that will lift them out of the abyss of poverty.Namibians, especially the poor, live in a country where economic policies during colonial times denied them a change to benefit from the economic system of this country, and they are still denied this right in a free and independent Namibia.I am talking about the very poor people who are losing their houses because they cannot afford to pay their monthly bills to the municipality in a country where they were promised economic prosperity.I am talking about people who have shacks on a piece of land that is not even big enough for a small vegetable garden (don’t forget that even if there is space, they need money to buy water).I must warn against outright rejection of BIG.The world only knows conditional grants, therefore the suggestion by IMF, but nowhere did they really empower people.Maybe Namibia, with such a small population, should really consider an unconditional universal cash grant, which will also minimise administrative checks and balances and policing to narrow the gap between the poor and the rich.As a last thought, I see conditional grants like the one proposed by IMF as charity because one is entitled to them on condition.It is not a solution because its conditions only address a specific situation without looking at the bigger picture.A universal, unconditional basic income grant, on the other hand, addresses what our Constitution stands for, as evident from the preamble: The “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” and the “indispensable right to freedom, justice and peace and that these rights include the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, religion, creed or social or economic status”.I thank the BIG coalition for opening our eyes to a possible solution to a universal problem and Bishop Kameeta in particular for his leadership and the courage to show to us that we need to face the reality of poverty among the majority and that we need to do something about it.While we might agree or disagree with the aims of the BIG coalition, perhaps voicing these agreements and disagreements might give shape to a model that will address the problem we all face, namely how to alleviate poverty and close the ever-widening gap between the poor and the rich.Silence means unwillingness to uphold the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia that stands for liberty and justice for all Namibians.J.B.Gaomab Via e-mailMuch of what I am going to say has probably been said already, but I am convinced that we need to talk about this issue, especially because it is an issue that is born out of the concern for the poor and the marginalised who do not have a voice.I am not so much surprised that the IMF is joining this discussion since we know that their interest is “to make money” and to promote only those programmes that will bring in more money for them.We also know about governments, especially in Africa and Latin America, that have launched economic programmes on the IMF’s advice and now are more indebted than ever before with their people reeling under poverty.Their response reveals to me that the so-called rejection of the BIG by the Cabinet is influenced by them.Lest they forget, majority of Namibians live in extreme poverty, and it is the responsibility of every Namibian to find ways and means to address this situation.I am sure the BIG proposal stems from the fact that we need to alleviate poverty, which is in line with the utterances and wishes of most Government ministers.To reject it outright is almost like committing a crime against most Namibians who live in abject poverty with no change of education opportunities that might empower them to rise out of the abyss of poverty.However, I am glad that the IMF is noting how many per cent of the GDP the implementation of BIG will utilise.It is a small number, 5,5 per cent, if I read well.Therefore I do not agree with the statement that it is not economically viable or affordable.Namibians surely can identify their needs and what best can work for them.We do not need outside help to know what we want because we are not blind.We know what difference a basic income will make.It will stimulate rural economies.And I don’t talk economical rhetoric here.I am talking about the realities the poor are facing, the households headed by grandmothers with AIDS orphans and because the daughter is trying to make ends meet as a domestic worker in Windhoek.Young men in villages who compete for jobs were there are none.A Basic Income Grant will make such a difference.Not only will i
t help poor households to pay for water and school fees, but it will stimulate small businesses in rural areas due to the injection of much-needed cash into these villages.As a minister/theologian, I have been accused that I talk about charity, which the church so much loves to give, when I talk about BIG.I wish to stress that it is not the case.Charity helps only for the moment and actually never lifts people out of poverty.Therefore instead of handing out charity, we need to ask why the people are poor and how we can address the problem.Then we will realise that the BIG coalition is actually dealing with this question.Therefore I am thankful for the NGOs, the Council of Churches and the trade unions that have formed a coalition to sensitise us about the possibility of BIG as a means to find an answer to the question why people are poor.I heard a minister say that people are poor because they are lazy.I don’t agree.People are not poor because they are lazy; they are poor because there is no support system that will lift them out of the abyss of poverty. Namibians, especially the poor, live in a country where economic policies during colonial times denied them a change to benefit from the economic system of this country, and they are still denied this right in a free and independent Namibia.I am talking about the very poor people who are losing their houses because they cannot afford to pay their monthly bills to the municipality in a country where they were promised economic prosperity.I am talking about people who have shacks on a piece of land that is not even big enough for a small vegetable garden (don’t forget that even if there is space, they need money to buy water).I must warn against outright rejection of BIG.The world only knows conditional grants, therefore the suggestion by IMF, but nowhere did they really empower people.Maybe Namibia, with such a small population, should really consider an unconditional universal cash grant, which will also minimise administrative checks and balances and policing to narrow the gap between the poor and the rich.As a last thought, I see conditional grants like the one proposed by IMF as charity because one is entitled to them on condition.It is not a solution because its conditions only address a specific situation without looking at the bigger picture.A universal, unconditional basic income grant, on the other hand, addresses what our Constitution stands for, as evident from the preamble: The “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” and the “indispensable right to freedom, justice and peace and that these rights include the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, religion, creed or social or economic status”.I thank the BIG coalition for opening our eyes to a possible solution to a universal problem and Bishop Kameeta in particular for his leadership and the courage to show to us that we need to face the reality of poverty among the majority and that we need to do something about it.While we might agree or disagree with the aims of the BIG coalition, perhaps voicing these agreements and disagreements might give shape to a model that will address the problem we all face, namely how to alleviate poverty and close the ever-widening gap between the poor and the rich.Silence means unwillingness to uphold the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia that stands for liberty and justice for all Namibians. J.B.Gaomab Via e-mail