With Namibia's parliamentary and presidential elections on 27–28 November, hype and obsession mount by the day. The assumption that democracy is about competition between contesting political programmes of parties seeking to convince voters that they have the best on offer for the political future and social welfare of the country and its people could not be more misplaced than in the current context of Namibia.

Opposition parties have since independence failed to present a meaningful political alternative to those elected into political offices to govern. As comparative overviews by civil society institutions (the Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) in 1999 and the Namibia Institute for Democracy (NID) in 2004) have shown, it is difficult if not impossible to make any choices based on programmatic alternatives, hence voting boils down to preferences or dislikes as an emotional affair. In the absence of alternatives this is a political choice by identification (not uncommon in elections everywhere) and poses particular challenges to parties to act responsibly during the campaigning.

The dynamite added to politics in Namibia is that it is largely based on and guided by either narrow-minded local or ethnic identities (for most among the minority parties) or gospel-like confessions about what 'the national' is supposed or has to be. Only the odd ones out (splinter groups with highly ideological but sectarian agendas, which at times border on the religiously confessional) are promoting a clear, politically defined mission. They rather unsuccessfully display similar features to SWAPO (South West Africa People's Organisation) as the dominant party, who cultivates its mystically elevated role as the liberator, which has accomplished salvation and hence claims to represent the holy shrine.

The SWAPO website established mid-year is a striking illustration of this mindset. It provides almost unlimited space for the articulation of such an understanding. While being moderated – meaning that not everyone has access to sharing their view submitted for the blog, resulting in the conspicuous absence of any (self-)critical reflections – it displays a worrying panorama of views bordering on the fanatic.

One submission posted is sufficient to illustrate the point: 'It is biblically tested that god created people in his own image and in Namibia the people are SWAPO and SWAPO is the people and now if you are not a SWAPO Party Member then what are you? Stop deceiving yourself with foreign funded political tribal political projects in the name of opposition parties … soon all opposition parties will be electro shocked through the ballot box and forever buried in a political scrap yard. It is a well known fact that all peace loving Namibian (sic) will always vote for SWAPO Party and SWAPO Party will win all 72 seats in the National Assembly and govern Namibia until the second coming of Jesus Christ, amen.'

If one assumes that this is the odd view of some misguided individual, who just means to show their loyalty, one is taught a sobering lesson by the founding father of the Republic of Namibia, Sam Nujoma. While he is supposed to be the caring head of a family, which embodies as the Namibian nation a variety of people with different backgrounds, lifestyles and values, he maintained at a political rally in mid-November – according to a newspaper article in the party organ ‘Namibia Today’ – that 'the successes of the SWAPO Party government in all 13 regions of our country are clear for every genuine Namibian to see'.

This sounds like a harmless statement during a political rally as part of the election campaign. But it discloses a profound flaw guiding Namibian politics by those in political control and power. Those not sharing the clear vision, it implies, do not qualify as genuine Namibians. The slogan of the struggle days that 'SWAPO is the nation and the nation is SWAPO' remains 20 years into independent (and supposedly democratic) Namibia the only notion guiding the political judgment of fellow Namibians. Deviation is tantamount to felony and singles one out as a traitor. The guilty verdict is passed without mercy.

Those who for whatever (and admittedly not always the best or most honest) reasons feel motivated to campaign for other political parties or goals, are labelled as agents of foreign interests. The SWAPO website, which has to be considered as an authentic voice of the party, provides us with an example not even submitted by some outside individual to the blog but posted in its column 'The Spotlight'. This draws attention to issues considered to be of relevance. In early November it posted a text on the 'Presidential and National Assembly Elections', which reasoned: 'We must not forget that neo-imperialist forces are at work and have been dreaming to reduce the 2/3 majority of our ruling parties ANC, MPLA, FRELIMO, CCM, ZANU-PF and now SWAPO Party… what is now the Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP) is the brainchild of imperialist donors.'

The dichotomy separates the Namibian reality and that in all other countries under former liberation movements into the good (the former liberation movement in power), and all others into the bad and the ugly. There is no in between. Everyone with differing opinions is at best unpatriotic, if not an agent of dark, outside forces. This includes not only the majority of the voting population in a country like Zimbabwe, but also Namibian diplomats who do not ensure that votes cast meet expectations, as if it is their personal responsibility to get it right. The oath they take is to represent the country abroad. The dominant perception held among the SWAPO officials however translates this into representing the party – the same logic as above.

We have a permanent representative at the United Nations in New York, who represents Namibia in the best way possible. His reputation among those working locally within the UN system is impressive. His committed performance allows Namibia to punch way above its weight. Instead of praising him for this remarkable achievement, he is accused to be among the 'hibernators', who are suspected to be everywhere operating clandestinely against the party. Meanwhile, his assignment is as far away from any party-related politics as the moon is from the earth.

There is simply no way that a UN post would allow for any party-related activity. But when the results from the earlier conducted elections at the diplomatic missions abroad were reported, mayhem broke loose over places where SWAPO obtained not much more than half of the votes (as if this would not represent success). Common sense could tell you that a place like New York might provide generally more fertile ground for pluralist policy notions among Namibians than those organised in the diaspora; let’s say in Moscow or Havana. Instead, a blogger on the SWAPO website urged, 'something has to be done in New York there are a lot of traitors there', and in response another blogger added: 'New York!! Who is the Head there at UN?? No wonder!!'

One could dismiss such ill-conceived ramblings as the misguided conspiracy theories of some over eagerly loose cannons on the ground who seek to pose as the super-SWAPO loyal activists, not realising that their paranoid fantasies do so much more damage to Namibia’s image and the dominant party’s reputation abroad than any dissenting political voice could. The really worrying matter is, however, that the same mindset is reproduced among leading office-bearers, as the trade union and the party’s youth league demand illustrates that the head of state withdraws diplomats who happen to be based at missions where election results have not met expectations – as if these would expose themselves voluntarily and willingly to such a career-limiting move for a handful of votes in an election where the end result is made up of a million ballot papers cast!

This is not only a politics of power at its worst, it is also a politics of paranoia which applies a conspiracy theory to everything not in line with the prescribed. It is as pathological as the euphoria over the successes celebrated. Since the overall results of the elections on the fishing boats and the diplomatic missions abroad did meet (foreseeable) expectations, it was considered justifiable to allow on the SWAPO website utterances of the following calibre: 'I felt pity for all the anti-SWAPO activists in Namibia!! It is a fact, not a myth, that our indeed almighty SWAPO Party is basically gonna put bullets into their heads comes 27-28 Nov elections. SWAPO is here to conquer.'

The question is, to conquer what? Any democratic spirit, which we felt was a goal worth fighting for during the days of the anti-colonial struggle? Or were we never serious about the notion of democracy? Was it all about seizing power only to keep it at all costs for eternity, like in neighbouring Zimbabwe, where the people have to pay a horrendous price for being liberated? Is the constitution we adopted with all the fundamental rights respecting the freedom of organisation and the freedom of opinion not worth the paper on which it is printed? Is the freedom of opinion only the freedom for these opinions quoted?

The SWAPO vice-president added fuel to the flames when he accused opposition politicians during a recent public rally as suffering from 'Savimbi syndrome'. Given the connotations wilfully mobilised, this is tantamount to hate speech. He thereby showed in an unfortunate act of misjudgement that irresponsible elements out of order with any decent conduct of an election campaign taking place in a highly explosive emotional environment are not limited to the few rank-and-file activists abusing the party website for kindergarten polemics.

Since its inception during mid-2009 this website has run a column, 'The Spotlight', operated by the web master. It therefore represents the authority of an official party line. Revealingly, it did initially not focus at all on any principled policy issues, which would convincingly document why a vote for SWAPO would be in the best interests of the country. Instead, it paraded for several weeks four individuals who were exposed because of what was considered as anti-Namibian (meaning anti-SWAPO) views and invited readers to submit comments on the blog. The result was an avalanche of personally offending insults tantamount to a witch-hunt of a medieval purge.

None of the party officials in responsible public positions have, to my knowledge, gone on record dissociating themselves from a kind of vendetta bordering on fascist propaganda. Is this the alternative in political discourse we juxtapose to the apartheid era? Is this the liberating gospel we preached as the emancipation from the yoke of colonialism and its mindset? Is this the convenient but cowardly way of dealing with differing views in the 'Land of the Brave'? Is this the kind of freedom watered by the blood of those who sacrificed their lives? (Does, by the way, this include the blood of those who were denied a life in independent Namibia because they were suspected of being spies but never stood a chance to prove otherwise and as a result did not survive exile?)

We have been engaged in an anti-colonial struggle for freedom. Thus, freedom should as an integral part respect the freedom of political choices. It should be our noble goal to convince the majority of Namibians that it is in their best interests to vote for SWAPO because SWAPO has the best political and social future to offer. But if the future is one in which the current practices of hate speech and witch-hunts against anything considered to be of another opinion are understood as the normal practice, we have not achieved a lot and liberation remains a remote goal.

Those who see this intervention, which is indeed borne out of frustration and disappointment, as the ramblings of a grumpy, elderly man who displays his petty bourgeois liberal views should be reminded of the conviction held by Rosa Luxemburg against the orthodox dogma in the Communist Party she belonged to. In her unfinished, posthumously published manuscript on the Russian revolution, she conceded that every democratic institution has its limits and shortcomings. But against Lenin and Trotsky she argued that the elimination of democracy as such is worse than the disease it is supposed to cure, for it stops the very living source from which alone can come the correction of all the innate shortcomings of social institutions. That source is the active, untrammelled, energetic political life of the broadest masses of the people.

Rosa Luxemburg categorically stated that freedom solely for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of 'justice', but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when 'freedom' becomes a special privilege.

Those who are quick at labelling this a typically Eurocentric notion are advised to go back to Frantz Fanon’s manifesto in 'The Wretched of the Earth' some 50 years ago. Writing at a time when the Algerian war of liberation had not even ended, Fanon prophesied the abuse of government power after the attainment of independence. In a chapter entitled 'The pitfalls of national consciousness', he predicted that the state, which by its robustness and at the same time its restraint should convey trust, disarm and calm, foists itself on people in a spectacular way, makes a big show of itself, harasses and mistreats its citizens and by this means shows that they are in permanent danger. He continues by criticising the abuse of power exercised by the party, which 'controls the masses, not in order to make sure that they really participate in the business of governing the nation, but in order to remind them constantly that the government expects from them obedience and discipline… The political party … instead of welcoming the expression of popular discontentment, instead of taking for its fundamental purpose the free flow of ideas from the people up to the government, forms a screen and forbids such ideas.'

What a shame that half a century later we are not able to submit different evidence, which could make the point that we have truly liberated Namibia and its people.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Dr Henning Melber has been a member of SWAPO (South West Africa People's Organisation) since 1974. He was director of the Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) between 1992 and 2000 and is the current executive director of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in Uppsala, Sweden.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.