Political integrity frailty in Namibian politics

One of the bedrocks of our democratic institutions is the social contract between voters and elected representatives. This contract hinges on people`s values, what they judge to be right or wrong, what they deem important, the causes they espouse, and the ideals they embrace in strengthening the quality of the country’s democracy.

Whichever example one looks at, at whatever point in history, one will find that good and functioning democracies have clear, strong norms. These norms are upheld both by the governed and those who govern them, or those who aspire to govern them one day. The fact that not everybody can govern, politicians are entrusted with the power to represent the interest of the general public.

The citizens expect those entrusted with the power to possess political integrity. Political integrity means that politicians act consistently in the public interest, rather than serving private interests. At a minimum, the public interest implies that decisions are taken independently of private interest and are not intended to simply sustain the power holder’s wealth or positions. The separation of the public and private spheres is paramount in the exercise of political integrity.

Politicians won’t always make decisions that align with the short-term preferences of everyone, but it does mean they act in a way that is consistent with a set of moral or ethical principles and standards. Integrity is further defined as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles or moral uprightness.

That means integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions. This seems to be a difficult quality to find in contemporary Namibian politics on either side of the political aisle. Both see a lack of integrity, in their opponents, yet there is a total lack of integrity that plagues both sides.

The frailty

The biggest moral frailty facing the majority of current and aspirant political leaders is the desire for money and power. Past and recent internal campaigns had proven that delegates align themselves with a particular candidate or slate to advance their agenda at the expense of regional or national agenda. They are driven by the lust for power, prestige, status, and authority. These “objects of admiration” not only gratify their need for self-aggrandisement by feeding their oversized ego.

They also provide them with compelling evidence to confirm their sense of superiority to others probably their most coveted need of all. One of the primary characteristics of today’s politicians is their exaggerated sense of status (to be called honourable) as can be witnessed by the disunity and unhealthy contention for positions during the congress or local authority elections of office bearers.

Ironically, despite the steadfast ethical values they profess, these politicians can be viewed as “moral relativists” in that what they adamantly deem immoral for others is yet somehow acceptable for themselves. Whether we characterise the personal “allowances” they make as constituting a double standard or outright hypocrisy, these privileged concessions to self broadcast their overblown sense of entitlement.

Even before winning office, these individuals may have been inclined toward such “entitled thinking.” But there’s little question that once elected their newly elevated status promotes further exaggeration of this tendency which ultimately must be seen as anti-social.

During election campaigns political leaders spent their time pretending by visiting poor people, overnighting in informal settlements, and cooking for vulnerable elders but once elected they park all those concerns until the next campaign. Now they are often tied up in intimate dinners with associates and donors. This means those with more money and power are given more attention and get more access to them – and the most potential to influence policy decisions.

The question of politicians shortchanging the electorate by saying one thing and doing another, when this can’t be justified by genuinely changing circumstances, is one of the issues on what is a wide and complex spectrum of political integrity.

Integrity is closely connected to trust, and we know that’s a quality in short supply when voters think of politics and politicians. Frankly, a number of politicians have no problem with the majority of citizens remaining poor: such is their fatalist understanding of poverty. To them, some people are destined to suffer, unless they “wise up” and embrace some form of fraud or the other.

I believe this total lack of integrity by candidates of some parties is one of the reasons for voter apathy during elections. Most voters are tired of promises, infighting and lies about other candidates, their party and their agenda. They want political parties to field competent, incorruptible people with the right values who will drive a virtuous cycle where good democracy begets good governance, and good governance begets good politics. This cycle can be underpinned and sustained by ethical political parties.

Question of interest

Thequestionwhichisofparticular interest to Namibians as we prepare for the 2024 elections is whether the politicians in Namibia have the political rectitude to steer the country out of contemporary ills besetting the citizens. We need to be able to trust that the people we send to parliament will prioritise the common good, rather than their donors and friends.

Namibia needs politicians who will have a proactive stance on social issues to fix the structural conditions enabling poverty rather than choosing to support private businesses belonging to their associates over ordinary people. Foreign direct investment (FDI) alone will not lift unskilled citizens out of poverty. Hence, without investing in healthy and welleducated citizens, attracting all the investors on earth to Namibia will not produce real progress or long-term development, particularly if citizens have not been empowered to produce wealth themselves.

The quality, affordability, and accessibility of services should therefore hold the key to social well-being, cohesion, and stability – and often the sustainability of life itself. Decisions about which services are provided to whom and how they are regulated should be at the heart of national and local politics.