Fillemon Wise Immanuel
5 December 2008
opinion
I have been tempted to write this piece of argument in light of the ugly turn-out of events at Outapi, Omusati Region on November 22, 2008, following the 'alleged' head-on clash between RDP and SWAPO supporters, a situation which Nampol nearly failed to arrest.
Without apportioning blame on any of the parties, be it SWAPO or RDP, I would like to submit herein that the acts, and I mean the Acts themselves, without any reference to the actor(s) that took place, are uncalled for and thus cannot be condoned.
As to who perpetuated the above acts, is secondary to me, the actions themselves hold more degrees of contestation for me, in the context of the Namibian Constitution (Article 17 specifically) and numerous international treaties to which Namibia is a party, including the African Charter, International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights as well International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Both the Namibian Constitution and the mentioned international legal instruments, have called for respect of political rights and tolerance of political differences thereof, between different member states and between individual citizens in their respective countries.
Although 'Outapi drama' is what prompted me to write this article, I would deal with the scenario in a scholarly manner. What manifested at Outapi appears to be a heightened level of political intolerance in the country. Hence my article will be on Political Intolerance vs Tolerance in Namibia: Outapi as case study.
At the outset, I acknowledge the subject that I am about to engage in is quite complex, thus I handsomely invite various intellectuals in different fields and/or from all walks of life to join me in this intellectual discourse.
Political intolerance can be defined as lack of respect, acceptance and accommodation for others in the events of exercising openly their constitutionally guaranteed political rights.
This set of rights includes, inter alia, rights such as freedom of thought, expression, association, peaceful assembly and protection against detention and torture, etc.
More often than not, political intolerance manifests itself when someone is not willing to let other people act in a different way or hold different political views or opinions. Put differently, political intolerance can mean that people are treated unfairly because of their political beliefs and association, or because of the mismatching political prepositions.
In words of one syllable, political intolerance does not accept political differences and as such its end product is in most cases the violence.
Jacob Zuma, when addressing the annual Chris Hani Memorial Lecture in 2007, said that "political intolerance and lack of debate had resulted in the disintegration of democracy and the destruction of nations, as witnessed elsewhere in the world a climate in which we resist open engagement on issues of national interest due to political intolerance or fear will never allow the growth of political consciousness".
This clearly indicates that political intolerance retards ideas, innovation and creativity as people are not challenged to knock behind their brain when thinking in the absence of intellectual adversaries.
Those that are thinking, but are not too sure of how their views and/or opinions will be received by their political opponents or fellow comrades, may be in fear of expressing them. This no doubt results in retrogressive growth of political consciousness.
On the other hand, while political tolerance is a direct antonym of political intolerance, literature further informs us that it is the respect, acceptance and appreciation accorded to individuals in showcasing the diversity of their political views and opinions as may exist amid common human beings.
In practical terms, political tolerance is harmony in the political differences. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication and freedom of thought, conscience and belief.
Political tolerance is about one being her or himself, without imposing her/his political views on others, except through logical persuasion.
Political tolerance is not about giving in or let alone giving up. It is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others.
The practices of political tolerance however don't mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's conviction. All in all, political tolerance is not always a positive concept or an easy practice, but I am reasonably convinced it is an art that we can all master as rational beings.
Agreeably, political tolerance is an important catalyst in the evolution process of a democratic society such as ours. Thus, all citizens, either party members or non-party members, are expected to fall prey to this social concept and practice it.
If the major players in a political system (field), political parties and their entire membership do not obey tolerant principles and/or take extenuating steps to avoid foreseeable political violence, our democracy may be in trouble. As such, the guarantee of national peace and security for all is questionable.
This does not, however, mean universal tolerance is required or even desired for the success of democracy.
What I am arguing here is that by its nature democracy is a system of institutionalised competition of power, but if this competition becomes too intense as to be violent, the system can break down entirely and may take long to repair.
Democracies, therefore, must find mechanisms to mitigate conflict and divisions with consensus. We all know that the danger of continuing to live in a conflict-prone system leads to insecurity, social decay and reversals of democracy.
Thus it is the responsibility of not only the government or ruling party, but of all stakeholders to nurture the democratisation process through the practice of political tolerance.
Today, Namibia is at an important crossroads in its political journey as a democratic state. However, while in a great knowledge of the above, some of the following questions may constitute a set of questions that we may be asking ourselves: Will Namibia, as a country, march towards a further consolidated democratisation and greater economic stability, or will it march towards an increased political polarisation and relapse into a chaotic and ungovernable state?
This is for instance, when we have ineffective and powerless police officials to be able to repel the potential force resistance, when the situation demands during political rallies and other public meetings.
Of course, you and I, my party and your party, would not want to see this happening. As such, while the state is to ensure that capable cadres are delegated, you and I must make it our integral assignment to educate our respective party members on the potential danger of any political violence.
In the face of all, much depends on overcoming the current level of political intolerance to a manageable level.
This is easy in Namibia like anywhere else, provided that political leaders and members of various parties see it indifferently. In other words, each of the political parties, ruling or non-ruling, should desist itself from deliberate provocations against the other.
In the event of violence being perpetuated from both parties, they all need to bring it to an end, as it does not hold well for our social harmony and peaceful co-existence.
The bringing to an end of political intolerance does not only create a congenial political culture compatible with a democratic society, but also presents a political pleasure while making the national politics an interesting agenda.
Should this be the case, in the process politicians are compelled to think on their feet in the quest to find solutions to the national challenges, while at the same time devising effective and logical campaign strategies to win them massive support through the application of the majoritarian rule.
All the above, ladies and gentlemen, point to the importance of having the culture of tolerance both in the political and social arenas. Various studies have suggested that with proper education, training and socialization, greater tolerance can be achieved among the party activists and aspiring leaders and in society in general.
Education, training and socialization:
Civic education that includes orientation of political behaviour, linking the individual to the polity and social institutions, needs to be vigorously pursued. This civic education should put more emphasis on mutual co-operation despite personal, religious, economic and political differences.
Generally, the art of association in political and social life is an essential requirement for political tolerance and peaceful society.
Education, should cultivate, more than anything else, congenial civic dispositions of people, and loyalty to their respective parties secondary to the nation's fundamental values and principles.
It has been argued severally that education should target younger people more, in order to equip them with a culture of tolerance. It has been shown that most young people have the capacity to apply abstract principles to concrete situations.
They have a heightened curiosity about social and political issues and, are keenly interested in their rights and responsibilities. Thus, education should aim not only to create technocrats, but most importantly to create a framework where people with different ideas and values can interact.
Namibia has recently witnessed the expression of the political will to practise political tolerance by young people from different political parties in the country following the formation of the Political Youth Forum. The political youth forum, which is an annual event, is organised by the National Youth Council in conjunction with Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, and its primary aims, include, but are not limited to the instillation in the youth of Namibia, the culture of political tolerance.
Debated Fiercely
Interestingly, the latter participants of the forum, like the former, have debated fiercely on the national issues openly and non-compromisingly, yet with tolerance.
I am equally strongly encouraged, that beside their obvious political differences in terms of views, opinion positions and overall ideologies, they (participants) called for the practice of political tolerance across Namibia, on a larger scale.
For this to be progressively realised, political parties should refrain from provocative and attempting acts against one another. Although this experiential learning is more important for developing civic virtues in people at a young age, senior citizens, our father and mother, grandfather and mother, can as well gain from this phase. However, as a matter of common logic it is widely assumed that elders are more tolerant than young people owing to the experience of various testing times, light and tough.
I am thus convinced that the situation of political intolerance would not escalate any further in the presence of our elders, from whom we can tap the wisdom. In addition, as always we have recently witnessed the political tolerance within the ruling party, SWAPO, during the debate on the Millennium Challenge Account.
This is very encouraging in light of Chris Hani's words, when said: "We have nothing to fear and everything to gain from a climate of political tolerance. We must not fear open context and free debate with other organizations and within our own. Open debate can only serve to uncover the bankruptcy of our political opponent."
Getting specific, although the Outapi drama is worth condemning, the issue itself with regard to who initiated it and what his/her or their motives were is quite ambiguous, as unclear as it appears.
I have been waiting patiently for someone to come forth as a first hand eye witness to convince me with material evidence, that 'the Outapi Drama' was initiated and embarked upon by the those who have been suspected by the media, being SWAPO supporters.
The media claimed that the rebels in the 'Outapi Drama' were wearing SWAPO attires, without indicating since when the order was given that only SWAPO members should and shall put on SWAPO attires.
After all, it is just a colour that any who is in love with it may choose to put it on. In this line of thinking, if someone who is not a SWAPO member or supporter wears the SWAPO colour in a bad faith, he/she may go out and carry out evil deeds in order to paint negatively the image of SWAPO Party.
Or it may be that those hibernating in SWAPO were behind the move.
Equally so, an alternative possibility may be that the disgruntled and overly thrilled opposition parties had ordered its or their members and/or supporters to wear SWAPO colours and boycott the meeting for their own party.
This can either be by an individual party (RDP) or by a common course or purpose by all opposition parties.
The collective conspiracy by opposition parties, if it is the case here would not be the first time it is happening as they are used to it.
Some of them had earlier conspired to boycott the Tobias Hainyeko by-election. Again, painting SWAPO as a bad party in the public view can only be the reason for this. If the above considered dimension can stand the truth, I thus found the conclusion that SWAPO members and supporters were involved in the violent acts at Outapi to be far-fetched, than the reality.
Should the claim of the media, however be true, I stand to argue the following:
Life's Options
Life is full of options. Our ways of disagreeing are not the same as our ways of agreeing. Where one agrees, the other may disagree. All these can be reduced to one sentence such as, "There are many ways to kill a cat". Should it be true, after being proved that SWAPO members and supporters attacked the RDP members, then they opted for the wrong way, provided they were not initially provoked!
The possible provocation in this regard might have been in the form of the chosen venue, Baobab Tree, which has a historical meaning and traditional virtues, specifically to the people of Outapi and Ombalantu.
Therefore, it is justifiable and understandable if the people of Outapi blocked RDP members from using the tree that they traditionally value.
The boycotting of the meeting thereof may be viewed as an expression of disproval by the Outapi residents for their traditional tree to be turned into a political temple.
On the side of RDP, those who were in Outapi would have taken reasonable steps to prevent what happened if they were really peace-loving like they claimed to be. This in light of the fact that they knew what was exactly going to happen at Outapi, as Nyamu alleged (who was not at the scene because of his military background, while innocent and misled Namibians were being chased without Nyamu coming to their rescue).
Again, after the Outapi event, Nyamu publicly accused the Founding President Dr Sam Nujoma, for having instigated the disruption of their rally. This is persistent and continuous fabrication of falsehoods and crucifixion of our Founding Father and other democratically elected national leaders that may lead to gross political intolerance.
I am confident that no national leader was involved in the incitement of ordinary people to embark upon political intolerance and violence of any kind as claimed by opposition.
In conclusion, I am tempted to submit that human beings are not born tolerant, but can learn to be. There are many ways to express our disapproval of one another, rather than resorting to violence.
For instance, when a party whose ideology you do not buy or do not like is organising a rally in your residential area, you may mobilise a fasting among all residents (Mahatma Gandi's formula), or locking yourself in your houses or locking all outlets and/or shebeens for the place to have no human movement in your respective surroundings, apart from the intruders.
Or alternatively, those of you that belong to one party, different from the one conducting a rally, could gather at a different place in a visible distance to/from the rally of the other party, in order to indicate that they are in the majority.
This may discourage the minority parties from holding political rallies and eventually join the majority parties, such as SWAPO. This I would call 'political overshadowing'.
Put differently, it is maybe high time that we change our modalities of holding political rallies as parties, in such a way that we create platforms for 'Engagement' in discussion form, with our members and supporters during rallies.
This creation will give members the opportunity to ask direct questions to political leaders during rallies on issues, either presented to them right then or general ones. In this way, the public and party's membership can filter issues for themselves and establish their factual natures. Again, here I am encouraging the logical persuasion and engagement of all in our political activities. You would eventually see that this sort of atmosphere would enhance the overall political tolerance among us. This will however only be possible if there is mutual respect between ourselves and towards our national leaders.
Finally, on my personal political conviction, I submit that SWAPO sells the best ideas and policies in comparison to the present political parties in Namibia. It remains the only party with the driving passion and political will to consolidate the notion of One Namibia, One Nation through unity of purpose and through provision of solutions to the national challenges.
As such, it is thus convincing to deposit our trust in the SWAPO leadership, especially that we are facing national elections next year.
Fillemon Wise Immanuel is an economics graduate, student lawyer and former UNAM SRC president and NANSO secretary for tertiary education and an active member of SPYL.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 New Era. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
