Is Namibia an oligarchy or a
By: Brian Njutjinavo
The former colony known as South West Africa adopted the name Namibia and came to be known as the Republic of Namibia. Some people would ask why it was not known as the Democratic Republic of Namibia… the reasons are obvious and it is presumably because the political system and the constitution Namibia's leaders adopted in 1989 was that of a republic.
Most post-colonial governments in the states of Africa adopted governing systems that would ensure that the resources of a particular state would be utilised to the greater good of society. Policies such as Ujamaa by President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania were introduced mainly to supplement the type of governing system the country adopted. Many post-independence development policies were there to ensure that people complied with the governing system in place and that no one would derail from the system in place. The Republic of Namibia had various development policies, with the aim of complementing the governing systems adopted by the country.
It is therefore essential to understand political systems in order to understand the governing styles in a particular state. It is also vital to note that any form of government is guided mainly by the social contract that was predominantly advocated by ancient political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and many others. The idea of a social contract was to ensure that people are not overstepping their boundaries, such as “where your rights end, my right starts” which were outlined in the scholarly work of the above-mentioned philosophers. In order to ensure that people's rights are not violated, people came together and formed a social contract with a superior body (Leviathan) to govern the conduct and behaviour of the citizens within a particular state. In the 1960s, European countries gave Africa back to the natives believing that they were ready to govern themselves and this inspired African leaders to choose the form of government that would suit them best.
Various forms of political governance style were available for African leaders such as monarchies where the government was ruled by one individual. In this form of government there is no government in the practical sense. In fact, a monarchy is just a group of individuals who strategically place one of the members to rule. The ruling group of individuals in a monarchy are usually the men behind the scenes and are the ones making the most critical decisions. In the post-independence Africa, for various reasons monarchies were not ideal. However, another style of public governance those African leaders could have chosen the oligarchy which was subsequently rejected. In an oligarchy a state is ruled by a group of individuals, these individuals usually have an economic advantage over others and tend to rule in most cases. One can arguably use the “Omusati clique” as an example if they were to rule Namibia; however the notion of Omusati Clique was a rumour and it might not have existed. For various reasons the oligarchy was rejected in most states in Africa, although it is believed to be in existence in some parts of the world, if not Africa. Oligarchy could pave a way for mafia-style organisations, thieves and corrupt cartels to rule behind the scenes, while using the prime minister or president as a pawn.
Anarchy was not considered because it is considered to be the worse state of governing style in Africa, if not the world. Anarchy discourages any form of central government, and it advocates for anyone to be their own boss, because in anarchy no laws exist. Some African states prefer not to have any government in place as it is considered to be an excuse of enriching the chosen few. For various reasons, anarchy was heavily rejected in Africa.
A democratic form of government is common in modern political governing systems as it allows people from all walks of life to participate in politics. In a democracy the notion of Aristotle's “all people are political animals” is central and realistic, because all people from all walks of life can participate in politics through freedom of association, right to free and fair elections, right to a fair trial and so forth, as outlined in the constitution. In a democracy there exists an element of chaos for example where the majority decides to take land by force without legal intervention, one would say is a chaotic majority rule. If the laws apply and people are governed by the law then the notion of a republic comes into realisation. In a republic the government is limited by the law or by the constitution of the country. In republics no one is above the law and is subject to be tried by the courts of the country.
One can therefore detect that a democracy in itself is not a stable style of public governance, because power-seeking politicians begin to abuse their power. In a democracy people vote for a chosen few who will help a certain group of people benefit from the system. The chosen few tend to rotate their positions to ensure that the ruling few remain in power. No other person can penetrate the circle of the ruling elite and this could revert to an oligarchy, where a certain group of individual rule behind the scene.
*Brian Njutjinavo, holds a Bachelor of Commerce from Unam and is currently pursuing a honours degree in Political Science
The former colony known as South West Africa adopted the name Namibia and came to be known as the Republic of Namibia. Some people would ask why it was not known as the Democratic Republic of Namibia… the reasons are obvious and it is presumably because the political system and the constitution Namibia's leaders adopted in 1989 was that of a republic.
Most post-colonial governments in the states of Africa adopted governing systems that would ensure that the resources of a particular state would be utilised to the greater good of society. Policies such as Ujamaa by President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania were introduced mainly to supplement the type of governing system the country adopted. Many post-independence development policies were there to ensure that people complied with the governing system in place and that no one would derail from the system in place. The Republic of Namibia had various development policies, with the aim of complementing the governing systems adopted by the country.
It is therefore essential to understand political systems in order to understand the governing styles in a particular state. It is also vital to note that any form of government is guided mainly by the social contract that was predominantly advocated by ancient political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and many others. The idea of a social contract was to ensure that people are not overstepping their boundaries, such as “where your rights end, my right starts” which were outlined in the scholarly work of the above-mentioned philosophers. In order to ensure that people's rights are not violated, people came together and formed a social contract with a superior body (Leviathan) to govern the conduct and behaviour of the citizens within a particular state. In the 1960s, European countries gave Africa back to the natives believing that they were ready to govern themselves and this inspired African leaders to choose the form of government that would suit them best.
Various forms of political governance style were available for African leaders such as monarchies where the government was ruled by one individual. In this form of government there is no government in the practical sense. In fact, a monarchy is just a group of individuals who strategically place one of the members to rule. The ruling group of individuals in a monarchy are usually the men behind the scenes and are the ones making the most critical decisions. In the post-independence Africa, for various reasons monarchies were not ideal. However, another style of public governance those African leaders could have chosen the oligarchy which was subsequently rejected. In an oligarchy a state is ruled by a group of individuals, these individuals usually have an economic advantage over others and tend to rule in most cases. One can arguably use the “Omusati clique” as an example if they were to rule Namibia; however the notion of Omusati Clique was a rumour and it might not have existed. For various reasons the oligarchy was rejected in most states in Africa, although it is believed to be in existence in some parts of the world, if not Africa. Oligarchy could pave a way for mafia-style organisations, thieves and corrupt cartels to rule behind the scenes, while using the prime minister or president as a pawn.
Anarchy was not considered because it is considered to be the worse state of governing style in Africa, if not the world. Anarchy discourages any form of central government, and it advocates for anyone to be their own boss, because in anarchy no laws exist. Some African states prefer not to have any government in place as it is considered to be an excuse of enriching the chosen few. For various reasons, anarchy was heavily rejected in Africa.
A democratic form of government is common in modern political governing systems as it allows people from all walks of life to participate in politics. In a democracy the notion of Aristotle's “all people are political animals” is central and realistic, because all people from all walks of life can participate in politics through freedom of association, right to free and fair elections, right to a fair trial and so forth, as outlined in the constitution. In a democracy there exists an element of chaos for example where the majority decides to take land by force without legal intervention, one would say is a chaotic majority rule. If the laws apply and people are governed by the law then the notion of a republic comes into realisation. In a republic the government is limited by the law or by the constitution of the country. In republics no one is above the law and is subject to be tried by the courts of the country.
One can therefore detect that a democracy in itself is not a stable style of public governance, because power-seeking politicians begin to abuse their power. In a democracy people vote for a chosen few who will help a certain group of people benefit from the system. The chosen few tend to rotate their positions to ensure that the ruling few remain in power. No other person can penetrate the circle of the ruling elite and this could revert to an oligarchy, where a certain group of individual rule behind the scene.
*Brian Njutjinavo, holds a Bachelor of Commerce from Unam and is currently pursuing a honours degree in Political Science
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article