CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
|
Namibia |
PERSONALITIES
Kosie Pretorius is back in the spotlight.
He’s a controversial Namibian
politician who does not believe
in the government policy of «One Namibia,
One Nation» —
a catchphrase for sustaining unity and peace in Namibia
Kosie Pretorius, the leader of Namibia’s opposition Monitor Action Group (MAG) party, was re-elected to Parliament during the 30 November-30 December 1999 elections. From past experience, Namibians expect more fireworks from this parliamentarian who has made a substantial contribution to proceedings, far in excess of his party’s numerical strength.
Pretorius runs the smallest party. In fact most Namibians joke about it, saying it is a «one-man party with Pretorius himself as both its president and member(s)». Yet since Namibia’s independence a decade ago, Pretorius has managed to represent it in Parliament for the last two consecutive five-year terms, and is now on his third term as an MP. And this, in spite of his many controversial utterances, some of which have not been taken kindly by those in power.
For instance, Pretorius has hit out at the government motto of «One Namibia, One Nation», saying it’s only his «One Namibia, Many Nations» which can ensure continued peace in the country. What does Pretorius mean? He suggests a federal system of government. In some African countries, Pretorius could have been accused of sowing seeds of disunity, an offence which is not very far from being considered treasonable. In Namibia, the least that could have happened to him is, that he might have been politically ostracised, with his party dying a natural death should it have survived any attempts at de-registration.
One might well ask how this white Namibian has managed such an incredible feat of being re-elected to Parliament, in a country where memories of apartheid and deprivation at the hands of the minority white population, are still fresh in people’s minds, and where the majority of the black population would never usually think of being led, let alone represented in Parliament, by whites again.
Small political parties
The answer lies in Namibia’s political set-up. Unlike some countries where the ruling party leaves small opposition parties to die a natural death, in Namibia, they are encouraged, and even helped to remain afloat. This has happened to Pretorius’ MAG party. In last year’s elections, the newly-formed Congress of Democrats (COD) led by Ben Ulenga, Namibia’s former High Commissioner to Great Britain, came equal with the official opposition Democratic Turnahalle Alliance (DTA) — each party having won seven seats. But the COD received more votes — about 53,000 as compared with the DTA‘s 50,000 — and was tipped to replace the latter as the new main opposition party in Parliament.
But what happened? The South West Africa Peoples Organisation (SWAPO), the party in power, decided to «give» the MAG, the COD‘s 3,000 «extra» votes, to enable Pretorius retain his parliamentary seat. The move has complicated the issue of which party will become the official opposition in Parliament, and Speaker Mose Tjitendero has said there may be no official opposition in Parliament this time round.
Obviously it’s good news for Pretorius. He’s liked by fellow Members because, as one SWAPO MP said: «He’s surrounded with controversy and that’s good for our democracy.» For example, Pretorius is reported as saying that the August 1999 gunfight in the Caprivian town of Katima Mulilo on the border with Zambia, between government forces and the self-styled rebels of the Caprivi Liberation Army, was «a clear testimony that all is not, after all, OK» — in spite of the widely held view that Namibia is one of the most stable countries in Africa. It was on this occasion that Pretorius remarked that unless Namibia is run as a Federal country, as some groups are demanding, such incidents are likely to reoccur.
It must be noted, however, that in post-independent Namibia, the SWAPO government has been trying to implement the policy of decentralisation, under which local authorities in each of the country’s 13 political regions will have to run their own affairs. But despite such a declared policy, Pretorius says the SWAPO leadership is delaying its implementation and, even more important, devolution of power, thus worsening restlessness in some regions.
Pretorius is also an advocate of «group interests». He says: «If forced segregation (apartheid) was wrong, forced integration is also wrong.» However, unlike apartheid which existed here before independence, Pretorius’ political philosophy is voluntary segregation whereby various ethnic groups would be entitled to «self-rule». For him, unity in diversity refers, for instance, to Afrikaners having schools which use the Afrikaans medium of instruction. In addition, these schools should follow their own curriculum and promote their own culture. This is in contrast with the present-day government schools which, Pretorius says, have a centrally designed curriculum and leave little room for «group interests» to flourish. He continues: «On this issue I am much more in line with international thinking than our government, though this is seen as apartheid by some. Assimilation is a recipe for conflict».
Pretorius is not afraid to hit hard. He cites the examples of what’s been happening in countries nearer to home — Angola, Congo RDC. These and other countries have all had internal conflicts which, in one way or another, have ethnicity as a background. «The same thing can happen in Namibia if group interests are not tackled seriously». But can SWAPO be persuaded to accept Pretorius’ advice? So far, there’s been a deafening silence.
ENGLISH CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
PeaceLink 2000 - Reproduction authorised, with usual acknowledgement