|
Editorial
10
Years of Namibian Independence:
Economy
- Human Rights: 2-1
afrol.com, 15 May - I remember very well those glorious days of
Namibian independence some 10 years ago. Finally the Namibians did gain
the self-government they had fought for for decades and which they
indeed deserved. I was even more pleased to see the defeat of the
anachronistic South-African racist regime.
Though, on behalf of the Namibian people, deep
down, I didn't feel too optimistic. And finally a colleague of mine said
what almost everybody was thinking but nobody dared to say publicly:
"You'll see. They'll get just another brilliant African
resistance-leader turning into an autocratic president, with no idea of
governing a state, allocating all wealth to his followers. In ten years
you'll see. The promising economy of today will be in ruins and government
has turned a dictatorship."
African governments didn't have too much
credibility those days.
This is slowly changing in our days - slowly,
but it is changing. Of course, clichés like Mugabe don't do much for the
image of African governance, but they definitely are loosing ground. At
least, now one can talk of lots of examples were governance is steadily
improving, were it is taken seriously, and were the results in economy and
human rights are visible for everyone who wants to see. Nothing against
ex-president Abdou Diouf of Senegal, on the contrary, but it was a relief
seeing that this acting president lost in elections and, without any drama,
gave power to his successor. Just like that. Congratulations, Senegal!
Back to Namibia. No, President Nujoma didn't
turn out to be the dictator my colleague predicted. Not at all. Actually
Namibia has been a history of economic success, so much that friendly
supporting donor nations found it difficult to continue their aid to such
a rich country. SWAPO's old ally, the Norwegian government, thus withdrew
its economic support, not in protest of human rights violations, but
because Namibia not really was in need of traditional development aid. Too
bad, considering the lost investments, but what a compliment... We could
almost talk about the "Roaming Lions" economies of south western
Africa: South-Africa, Botswana and Namibia, in some ways repeating the
success of the "Tiger Economies" of South East Asia. Now we're
only waiting for peace, stability and democracy in Angola and Zimbabwe,
and we might be looking at a new region of economic weight in a global
context. And Namibia in general is playing an important role, both
economically and by giving credibility to African governance. Because no
one really believed that Namibia would reach its potentials.
Namibia did not give to much blessing to its conquerors.
The Germans were exposed to the world for their brutal colonial politics,
crushing the Herero rebellion, and they were expelled before the great
mineral resources of the land were discovered. Also the South-Africans
lost their image through their generally condemned occupation of Namibia.
They, however, managed to enrich themselves on Namibian mineral resources, but
were also too late to participate in the offshore “mineral harvesting”.
Now it all belongs to the Namibians, and could provide the base of welfare
for the whole nation - if handled well. And that leads us to our question:
Is it all handled well?
Sam Nujoma's Government was left an economy of
boosting numbers and a lot of goodwill from the international community
that had so far boycotted “South West Africa”. However, the allocation
of wealth was disastrous, almost everything being in white hands or even
in the hands of foreign multinationals. The economy was and is heavily
dependent on the extraction and processing of minerals for export, though
of a large variety of non-fuel minerals, in total not being that much
exposed to fluctuating world market prices. While these exports account
for the Namibia’s flattering economic statistics, over half of the
population still depends on (mostly subsistence) agriculture for its
livelihood. An afternoon’s promenade in Windhoek further reveals that
wealth allocation has not changed profoundly after ten years of SWAPO rule;
banks and supermarkets are South African branches and the white upper
class dominates the urban area while blacks hands of labour are housed in
isolated townships located conveniently far from the centre. White
citizens still have an average per capita income of US$14,000 a year,
while many of the poorest black citizens earn just $165 a year.
Unemployment is nearly 40 percent and affects primarily the black majority.
The inheritance of Apartheid thus is not only a South African problem!
Contemporary Zimbabwe is demonstrating for us which harmful implication
such an allocation may have when it is mixed with political instability.
Even without a very socialist outlook, most
would agree that the best measure of success or failure in the Namibian
economy is a more even allocation (without decreasing total numbers, of
course). In fact, the situation isn’t that bad in Namibia when we
compare with other countries. I have chosen to compare with the Anglophone
countries South Africa (because Namibians will always compare with South
Africa), Botswana, Ghana and Kenya (countries which at some time were seen
as examples of good economical leadership) and the Francophone Gabon, with
its comparable richness in minerals (oil) and low population. A comparison
of some social and economic data is made below:
|
(numbers are from 1997) |
GDP per capita ($) |
Life expectancy at birth |
Infant mortality (‰) |
Adult alphabetisation (%) |
Rural population (%) |
Doctors per 1000 inhabitants |
Telephones per 1000 inhabitants |
| South Africa |
3040 |
64 |
48 |
82 |
49 |
0,61 |
88 |
| Botswana |
2800 |
68 |
42 |
70 |
72 |
0,21 |
26 |
| Ghana |
410 |
58 |
79 |
62 |
64 |
0,04 |
3 |
| Kenya |
250 |
59 |
61 |
78 |
73 |
0,05 |
77 |
| Gabon |
3880 |
54 |
92 |
63 |
51 |
0,40 |
20 |
| Average of those above |
2076 |
61 |
64 |
71 |
62 |
0,26 |
43 |
| Namibia |
1970 |
59 |
59 |
40 |
64 |
0,22 |
4 |
This brief comparison underlines some points.
Namibia, in spite of its relatively high GDP per capita, does not seem to
have significantly better social conditions than relatively poor countries
such as Ghana and Kenya, although infant mortality is lower and there is a
greater density of doctors. Namibia, in fact is pretty much average,
overseeing its extremely low alphabetisation rate and the lack of
telephones. Comparing itself with Gabon, which has not throughlived
Apartheid, Namibians however can claim pride in their allocation. The
numbers also illustrate the great difference in possibilities, if you
compare the numbers of Gabon and Botswana, and note how the Botswana
government has managed to allocate the wealth coming from its economic
boom to the population in general (in spite of having a rural population
of 72%!). Gabon doesn't show such flattering numbers, and Namibia is
somewhere in between - not surprising, taking in account its occupation by
South Africa. More
than anything, however, the numbers indicate that Namibia is in a transition period,
were the right policy might bring growth with a better allocation. They
even indicate that government policy should focus more on education,
because an alphabetisation rate of merely 40% certainly not is convenient
for a country in transition, and does not constitute a firm base for a
future re-allocation.
Economics are mostly in good hands, than. But
how do you do, Namibians, when it comes to liberty, fraternity and human
rights? Did he become a dictator, your magnificent freedom fighter? Well,
he didn’t, he won his elections by being the most popular politician in
Namibia, but still, things are not all gloomy. As for the human rights
situation, the US Department of State sums it up like this in its annual
report about Namibia (1999):
The
Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however,
there were serious problems in several areas. Members of the security
forces committed several extrajudicial killings. The Government did not
account for the whereabouts of some persons detained by the security
forces. Security forces beat suspects during arrest and while in custody
during operations in the Caprivi region. Security forces beat citizens and
Angolan refugees during security operations in both Kavango and Caprivi
that were the result of fighting between Angola government troops and
UNITA forces along the border with Angola. There were other reports of
police mistreatment of suspects in detention. Prison conditions remain
harsh, but the Government took some steps to improve conditions. The
Government arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens under the state of
emergency. Lengthy pre-trial detention is a problem. A large court backlog
continues to lead to lengthy delays of trials.
Amnesty International (AI) recently has made a
report of human right abuses in Namibia, according to IRIN. Although the Namibian government
is not the worst amongst abusers, civilian population in northern Namibia
have learned to fear government troops as well in the ongoing conflicts,
which President Nujoma seems to drag Namibia further and further into. AI
presented the following critics:
Civilian
life has been disrupted. On the Namibian side of the border, villages have
been attacked by armed bands which are often identified by the villagers
as UNITA forces. Further east, in Caprivi, following armed attacks by
secessionists on Katima Mulilo last August, over 300 people suspected of
being involved in the attack were arrested and many of them were
reportedly tortured by Namibian police.
And these military involvements seem to be the
most serious threat to Namibia in its eleventh year of independence.
Seemingly trying to upgrade Namibia into a regional power, the government
is jeopardising the regional stability, Namibian stability, the human
rights situation and the economic situation. "We are extremely
worried that this is going to drag Namibia much deeper into a conflict
which is not Namibia's business," Phil ya Nangoloh, director of
Namibia's National Society for Human Rights (NSHR), told IRIN on May 8th
this year. "It will lead to a deterioration of the humanitarian and
human rights situation in Angola, will waste resources, and will
contribute to instability in the region." He further said the
prevailing insecurity in northeast Namibia, with UNITA attacks on villages,
road ambushes, and raids on military targets, was a consequence of the
government's decision in December 1999 to allow the Angolan army to use
Namibian territory in pursuit of the rebels. "UNITA was not a threat
to Namibia. Now it's reacting to attacks by Angolan soldiers based here.”
Mr. ya Nangoloh is right. Nujoma’s direct
involvement in the Angolan conflict, however right it might be to fight
UNITA, and in Congo Kinshasa is jeopardising the stability of Namibia and
the entire region. Ask people in the Anglophone West African countries.
They will tell you how their modest or not so modest involvement in the
crisis in Liberia and Sierra Leone has created a totally new atmosphere of
insecurity in the entire region. And such conflicts spread rapidly when
they are let to cross borders, due to the brutalisation of entire
generations in affected areas. And until now, the conflict in Angola was
not let to destabilise neighbouring countries, but neighbouring countries
were a tremendous help in stabilising Angola, being a refuge, a source of
aid and an example to refer to.
The best thing Namibia could do for its
neighbours is becoming an economic engine for the region, creating the
"Roaming Lions" economies of south western Africa and as such,
become a source of stability and inspiration in the region. Namibia
certainly has managed well in these ten years of independence, better than
I dared to hope in March 1990. Indeed, it has contributed to regain
credibility for African government in general. And there is no need to
jeopardise that in Year Eleven.
Yours sincerely,
Rainer Chr.
Hennig
the editor
©
afrol.com. Texts and graphics may be reproduced freely, under the
condition that their origin is clearly referred to, see Conditions.
You can contact us at rainer.hennig@afrol.com |
|
