‘The public is left out’

JANA-MARI SMITH



The Trade Union Congress of Namibia (Tucna) yesterday slammed the way in which public consultations are handled by the government, specifically the cabinet and the National Assembly.

“We have said it a thousand times before and we are going to say it another thousand times. Our government totally lacks the tradition of consultation,” Mahongora Kavihuha, secretary-general of Tucna, said at a press conference.

Kavihuha criticised the way in which the government had pushed through a number of changes or introduced new bills or laws without affording the public and experts the time and space to provide critical input.

“The Namibian government’s lack of proper understanding of consultations has been demonstrated in numerous instances,” Kavihuha said. He said this had led to mounting costs at the taxpayer’s expense.

Kavihuha emphasised that the members of the National Council were an exception to the rule. He praised them for being committed to thoroughly scrutinising proposals that came across their desks.

But he condemned the way in which the National Assembly and cabinet treated proposals or new bills.

“You hardly ever see the National Assembly rejecting a bill,” he said, pointing out that the National Council had often put a stop to new bills if they did not pass scrutiny, with the help of public and expert consultations.

Some of the issues that revealed a damning lack of consultation included the amendment of the Namibian Constitution, which increased the number of seats in parliament.

The introduction of NEEEF and the Private-Public Partnership bills were other examples “where little or no consultations were engaged in”.

He included the solidarity tax proposal, which he said was “nearly bulldozed or rushed through parliament and into the nation without any proper semblance of consultation.”

The Land Bill was the latest example, he said, which led to “some unsavoury and rather ungentlemanly episodes in our parliament and has raised the ire of many Namibians.”

He said although the government, led by the lands ministry, said thorough consultations had been undertaken, their critics claimed that a lack of consultation marred the proposed bill.

“In our view, if government had properly carried through the consultations as they ought to have conducted, the standoff in parliament would never have happened.”

Kavihuha said the lack of consultation was characteristic of a “semi-despotic nature”, and possibly could be traced back to the liberation struggle where “command and militaristic posturing were the order of things”.

He said the government’s current modus operandi included conducting public meetings as a form of consultation, “where information is dished out in a hurry and where virtually no debates are entertained”.

He described these consultations as “poorly attended information sharing sessions, nothing more”.

He said when public consultations were scheduled, not enough notice was given, or they were held during working hours when only a few unemployed people could attend.

In line with this, Tucna had submitted a proposal to the labour ministry two years ago following a study where they looked at best practices in social dialogue processes.

No feedback on the proposal was received and it was not passed on to relevant authorities, Kavihuha said.

Tucna proposed the establishment of an “institutional social dialogue structure rather than just coming up with many laws and each with its cost.”

The proposed social dialogue structure is based on a web hierarchy of permanent positions through which information flow, including public input, is directed in order to ensure maximum feedback according to a structured formulae.

The dialogue is based on an executive body, which in turn is in touch with numerous other bodies, including the prime minister, a parliamentary sub-committee and four committees representing public service and development, the labour market, a macro-economic committee and a trade and industry committee.

According to Tucna, trade unions are usually neglected during public debates or discussions around the introduction of new policies and laws.

“People believe that the trade unions only deal with labour market issues,” Kavihuha said. To the contrary, he said, trade unions were vital to discussions about all social economic issues and should have a seat at the table when such issues were addressed.