EDITORIAL: The power of numbers in parliament
Elections decide more than who sits in parliament. They shape the balance of power, the speed of reform, and ultimately the trajectory of a nation. Swapo’s recent experience in Namibia, losing 26 seats in the past two National Assembly elections to leave it with a slim 53% majority, illustrates how the size of a parliamentary majority can both empower and constrain governance.
A two-thirds majority, long enjoyed by Swapo, offers clear advantages. It enables a government to implement ambitious policies, fast-track legislation, and pursue long-term reforms with little risk of obstruction.
Yet history also shows the risks of such power. When unchecked, large majorities can tempt those in authority to bypass scrutiny, push through poorly designed laws, or use the parliamentary hammer to serve political interests rather than the public good. Absolute control, even with noble intentions, can erode accountability and weaken institutions designed to safeguard democratic debate.
By contrast, a slim majority, like Swapo’s current 53%, introduces both challenges and opportunities. On the positive side, it forces governments to engage more deeply with opposition voices, encourages debate, and ensures that legislation is not bulldozed through without proper scrutiny. In principle, this strengthens democracy and promotes transparency.
But there is a practical downside. Narrow margins can leave governments struggling to pass urgent or technically complex bills, especially when ministerial absences or internal dissent reduce effective voting strength. As seen in Namibia, even vital legislation, such as the Petroleum Amendment Bill, can falter if the ruling party cannot maintain discipline or secure sufficient support. For citizens, delays in critical laws - ranging from economic reform to social protections - can translate into stalled development or missed opportunities.
The lesson here is that the size of a parliamentary majority, overwhelming or otherwise, is a double-edged sword.
A two-thirds majority, long enjoyed by Swapo, offers clear advantages. It enables a government to implement ambitious policies, fast-track legislation, and pursue long-term reforms with little risk of obstruction.
Yet history also shows the risks of such power. When unchecked, large majorities can tempt those in authority to bypass scrutiny, push through poorly designed laws, or use the parliamentary hammer to serve political interests rather than the public good. Absolute control, even with noble intentions, can erode accountability and weaken institutions designed to safeguard democratic debate.
By contrast, a slim majority, like Swapo’s current 53%, introduces both challenges and opportunities. On the positive side, it forces governments to engage more deeply with opposition voices, encourages debate, and ensures that legislation is not bulldozed through without proper scrutiny. In principle, this strengthens democracy and promotes transparency.
But there is a practical downside. Narrow margins can leave governments struggling to pass urgent or technically complex bills, especially when ministerial absences or internal dissent reduce effective voting strength. As seen in Namibia, even vital legislation, such as the Petroleum Amendment Bill, can falter if the ruling party cannot maintain discipline or secure sufficient support. For citizens, delays in critical laws - ranging from economic reform to social protections - can translate into stalled development or missed opportunities.
The lesson here is that the size of a parliamentary majority, overwhelming or otherwise, is a double-edged sword.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article