---

---

Namibia: Are the Blind Leading the Blind?

Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro

9 May 2008

---

Windhoek — IT seems the Governor of the Erongo region must start reading his local protégés, the Karibib Town Council, in particular, the riot act ala the Hardap Governor.

Not that much may have come out of his Hardap counterpart's act but the storm seems to have at least calmed albeit one does not know for how long the clam will remain.

Reading the riot act is necessary for the town of Karibib where peace and the resultant progress have proven illusive. With the next polls just around the corner it is imperative that the town starts repositioning itself for a polling audit and engage in some exercise in progressive pretence. The best that the town of Karibib seems to have been doing during its lifetime is a stop-go affair. Even the change of administrative guard seems to have been a jump from the frying pan into the fire. Likewise results of the Ministry of Regional and Local Government, Housing and Rural Development and the Association of Local Authorities in Namibia (ALAN) seem to have been another hide-and-seek game.

Meanwhile, the town's policymakers and its chief administrator's mini civil war seems to be deepening day-by-day further drowning in its strides the town and its residents in deepening miseries. In view of this internecine war one wonders what becomes of the effective and efficient administration and policy-making? Not to speak of an effective service delivery. It is unpredictable how long the jury on this matter shall be sitting but it seems like eternity.

Meanwhile, it is back to the polls for the country's residents, including those of Karibib. What verdict are the voters of this town expected to deliver? This is anybody's guess. However, I am sure that some of the councillors would have a re-run as if they have anything to write home about for the residents. Nor have the voters anything to be proud of in their town under the incumbent stewardship of these councillors for whom fighting the chief executive officer seems to have become a major pre-occupation if not an obsession at the expense of almost grounding the administration of the town.

The sad thing is should the voters exercise the option to vote-boot out these councillors, much a meagre resources spent on their training are resources down a bottomless pit with their exit. This also means that there may be no continuity in terms of the work of the council. The little experience the incumbent councillors may have acquired on the council's affairs would also be gone. Perhaps that is the price of democracy.

But what is the bottom line to all this? It is a lack of meticulous judgment whenever we are nominating candidates for local elections. Political parties are often quick to point out that this is a matter for the locals and their local political structures. Yes, the locals and their structures may have been seen to run matters but the invisible hand of the national political bigwigs and the national party structures have always been lurking somewhere in the unseen, if not dominantly so. After all this is the age of decentralisation and the central structures must pretend to be as invisible as they can yet with decisive and influential if not hegemonic consequences.

Thus we have been living on a diet of so-called local democracy and the invisible and reluctant central phenomenon. Meritocracy has found little niche in this state of affairs of local populism and the hidden hegemony of centralism. The result has been poorly equipped and motivated councillors riding on the crest of popularity rather than merit.

In the case at hand there is little to read from media reports what the bone of contention has been. The issues seem more personal than of real concern to the efficient and effective running of the town's affairs in the interest of its residents. Voters in this town stand before a crossroad. They have been run by a team whose sole interest seems to be their shadowboxing to get fingers on an imaginary cake.

This speaks volumes of the mental make-up of some of the candidates we nominate. Their interest is as shallow as it can be. All of us whether at local or central level somehow must carry the can for the candidates whom we by hook or crook, or by some democratic shenanigans, bequeath our local authorities.

There's no denying that out there in our localities we have people with integrity to occupy these offices and bring to them dignity, diligence, dedication, commitment and dutifulness needed in uplifting these communities. Yet, such people are most of the time bypassed for political yes-men/women or empty populists. At times they do not avail themselves because they know that there is little to gain. As much as they may be qualified in terms of training and what-have-you, they do not have the requisite commitment and dedication to the service of their people, which they are only prepared to offer at a high price tag, if not at milking the local economy. This is not to say there are not well-meaning individuals but they seem to be few and far between.

Certainly, elected bodies at these levels must reflect the diverse make-up of their constituent communities if they are to champion and carry these diverse interests.

We are living at the end of a double-edged sword in the sense that between the two strands of those entrusted with public affairs, the appointed and elected officials, none seems to be prepared well for the task and duties at hand due to historical legacy. It is a case of the blind, if not half blind, leading the blind.

Political leaders have been trumpeting the need for change at the local level but this never seems to usher in. Everyday is an experience of its own in the daily governance of local authorities. Certainly such organised chaos cannot go on forever. Certainly we need a serious look at the concept of decentralisation.

Be the first to Write a Comment!

---