At the heart of any functioning democracy lies the fundamental principle that the power to govern emanates from the consent and will of the people.
A government that deviates from this principle and becomes detached from the needs and aspirations of its citizens inevitably breeds corruption and oppression.
When faced with such circumstances, the people have historically risen as a collective force to challenge the status quo.
Revolutions, uprisings, and mass movements have served as powerful tools for the people to reclaim their sovereignty and demand a more just and equitable society.
Despite the rising hegemony’s firm grip on the state, it is imperative that we are reminded of the popular sovereignty.
It appears that many are retreating to their cocoons in the absence of tangible alternatives, and those in power have capitalised on this depiction for years, reflected by statements such as “we will rule until Jesus comes back”, by prime minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila.
However, in the annals of history, the collective will of the people has time and again emerged as the most potent force in shaping the destiny of nations.
The idea that sovereignty ultimately resides with the people themselves rather than with any particular institution or authority has been a driving force behind revolutions and uprisings against corrupt regimes throughout the ages.
While such popular movements have the potential to dismantle tyrannies and promote justice, they are not without their risks.
The dangers of revolutions and instability loom large, especially when hegemonies dominate the state at the expense of the people.
Corrupt regimes, with their insidious grip on power, often thrive on the exploitation and marginalisation of their citizens.
This is also the case in Namibia with the grip that Swapo has maintained on the Kavango regions, the most pauperised in the country for over 30 decades.
Besides, history is replete with examples of people uniting to overthrow such oppressive systems.
From the American Revolution that birthed the United States to the Arab Spring uprisings that swept across the Middle East and North Africa, the power of the people has shaped the course of nations.
Through acts of civil disobedience, protests, and sometimes armed resistance, individuals have demonstrated that they are not mere subjects, but the true architects of their collective destiny.
The more political understanding of violence can be glimpsed in Walter Benjamin’s distinction between law-making and law-preserving violence.
Law-preserving violence is a response to crime; as such, it claims to dispense criminal justice.
Law-making violence is fundamentally political.
Rather than address the transgression of an existing law, law-making violence seeks to establish a new law – new law in a very general sense, referring to a new political order.
Law-making violence is, as Jacques Derrida points out in his comment on Benjamin, an original type of violence that establishes a new authority and cannot itself have been authorised by an anterior legitimacy.
The state fears this founding violence more than it does crime, for founding violence is able to justify, legitimate, and transform political and legal relations, and so present itself as having a right to right and a right to law.
Part of the laws made by the current regime, such as the law that enabled the Fishrot scandal, were not for criminality but for the protection of hegemony in their looting endeavours.
While revolutions hold the promise of a brighter future, they are not devoid of dangers.
The overthrow of a corrupt regime can lead to a power vacuum, which, if not carefully managed, can plunge a nation into chaos and prolonged instability.
Power imbalances that emerge during these transitional periods can seize control, replacing one form of oppression with another.
In such scenarios, the interests of the people are often sidelined, and the potential for further corruption and abuse of power remains high.
Hegemonies, whether they be military, political, or economic, exert disproportionate influence over the state and its institutions.
This concentration of power usually leads to the erosion of democratic values and the suppression of dissent.
When the will of the people is subjugated to the interests of a few, corruption thrives, and the true sovereignty of the state is undermined.
In these circumstances, the people’s ability to effect meaningful change through peaceful means is severely compromised, and the likelihood of revolutions and uprisings increases.
Swapo is now clinging to power, not because it can provide change, but because it has to protect its dying hegemony.
For nearly three decades, Swapo held Namibia’s politics in an iron grip.
Even as its reputation was dented by scandal and poor performance, the party continued to win every national election with an absolute majority.
Its decline in the 2019 national elections and the major loss of the two southern regions in the 2020 local government elections demonstrates the rise of the popular sovereignty reclaiming its power.
This should nonetheless provide new opportunities and political reform.
Who or what would come after Swapo, and how would this affect Namibia?
Does Namibia ever dream of a brighter tomorrow with more balanced politics and greater accountability?
With the polarised opposition vote, will Namibia ever see true popular sovereignty and accountability?
Will the Swapo hegemony kneel to the people’s demand through peaceful democratic transition, or will it tighten its grip on power through military means, the conventional modus of liberation movements in Africa?
- Joyce Muzengua is a human rights activist.
Leave a Reply