Rebuilding trust in Namibia’s electoral commission

This party leader’s column addresses a question that reaches beyond election day: how can Namibia restore public confidence in the institution responsible for managing elections? Trust cannot be requested as a favour from citizens. It must be earned through clear rules, open processes, timely information and visible accountability.

The Popular Democratic Movement believes that an electoral commission should serve voters before it serves any government, party or temporary majority. Its constitutional role is larger than the administration of ballots. It protects the peaceful transfer of power, gives legitimacy to public institutions and assures every citizen that their vote has been recorded and counted according to law.

Australians understand the value of an election authority that is expected to operate independently, whether voting takes place in a Canberra community hall, a school in Melbourne or a remote polling location in Western Australia. Namibia can learn from that culture of administrative professionalism while developing reforms suited to its own constitutional order, communities and political history.

Independence must be visible

Legal independence is essential, yet public trust depends on more than words in an Act of Parliament. Citizens must be able to see how commissioners are selected, who may remove them, how budgets are approved and which safeguards prevent political interference. If these arrangements are unclear, even an accurate election can be viewed with suspicion.

The appointment process should therefore involve public criteria, parliamentary scrutiny and a transparent record of qualifications. Commissioners should have fixed terms, protection from arbitrary dismissal and a clear code dealing with conflicts of interest. Their financial interests, party affiliations and relevant professional history should be disclosed before appointment, allowing the public to judge whether the institution is being built for national service.

Independence also requires an adequate budget that cannot be used as a political pressure point. Funding should be released on time and audited by an institution with authority to publish its findings. The electoral commission must be able to plan voter registration, recruit staff, secure materials and conduct civic education without waiting for informal approval from the executive.

The PDM’s own commitment to democratic governance requires internal and national institutions to reflect these standards. Our party leadership structure should be understood within that wider commitment: leadership must be accountable, responsibilities must be identifiable and citizens must know where decisions are made.

Transparent rules build confidence

Election rules should be understandable to an ordinary voter, not restricted to lawyers, consultants or party officials. Namibia needs a consolidated electoral calendar that explains registration deadlines, the inspection of the voters’ roll, objections, candidate nominations, postal or special voting arrangements, polling procedures and the timetable for announcing results.

A public version of the roll should allow citizens and political parties to check entries while protecting personal information. There must be a practical process for correcting addresses, removing duplicate records and challenging suspicious registrations. These procedures should be communicated in the languages used across the country, through radio, newspapers, social media, community meetings and local authorities.

Australia’s compulsory voting system creates a strong public expectation that registration and polling administration will be orderly. Voters commonly receive clear instructions from the Australian Electoral Commission and can attend polling places at schools, churches and community centres. Namibia does not need to copy that system, but it can adopt the principle that every procedural step should be explained before confusion becomes distrust.

A transparent rulebook must apply equally to governing parties, opposition parties and independent candidates. The commission should publish formal decisions, written reasons and any legal advice that can lawfully be disclosed. Where secrecy is necessary to protect a person or an active investigation, the limits and duration of that secrecy should still be stated.

Results need a credible audit trail

The announcement of results is the moment when institutional trust is tested most severely. Delays without explanation, inconsistent figures or unexplained changes in reporting can create a vacuum that rumours quickly fill. The commission should publish a results timetable before polling and update it regularly when circumstances require a change.

Each polling station should produce a signed result record that is made available to party agents and posted publicly where practical. Aggregated totals must be traceable back to these records. A secure digital results platform can improve speed, but electronic transmission should support the paper record rather than replace it. Technology is useful when it makes verification easier; it is dangerous when citizens are asked to trust a system they cannot inspect.

An independent post-election audit should examine a meaningful sample of polling stations, with the methodology and findings published. Where the margin is close or credible irregularities are alleged, the law should provide a defined recount or review mechanism. This is not an invitation to reopen every result without evidence. It is a disciplined way to distinguish genuine disputes from political speculation.

Australians are familiar with counting processes that may take time, especially in closely contested electorates. The public generally accepts delay when officials explain the reason, identify which votes remain and set out the next procedural step. Namibia can strengthen confidence by making that same relationship between delay and explanation part of electoral practice.

Complaints must lead to remedies

A right without an accessible remedy is an empty promise. Voters, candidates and observers need a straightforward way to report intimidation, missing materials, unlawful campaigning, incorrect registration or misconduct by officials. Complaints should be logged, assigned a reference number and acknowledged within a fixed period.

The commission should establish an independent complaints unit with authority to investigate administrative breaches and refer criminal matters to the appropriate bodies. Its reports should identify the type of complaint, the time taken to respond and the action adopted, while protecting sensitive personal information. Patterns matter: several small failures in one district may reveal a serious weakness that a single case would conceal.

Election tribunals and courts also require sufficient time to hear disputes before an elected body begins its full term. A legal remedy that arrives years later cannot repair every democratic harm. Clear filing deadlines, published procedures and properly resourced judges can prevent electoral litigation from becoming either a political weapon or an inaccessible privilege.

Lessons from other countries reinforce the importance of openness. A documented accountability precedent shows how courts can challenge excessive secrecy when the public interest is at stake. Namibia’s circumstances are different, but the underlying principle is relevant: public institutions should not hide information merely because disclosure is uncomfortable.

Parties and citizens share responsibility

An electoral commission cannot restore trust by itself. Political parties must train agents, submit accurate information, respect the code of conduct and challenge decisions through lawful channels. Leaders should avoid presenting an unverified allegation as an established fact, particularly when social media can carry a rumour from Windhoek to every region within minutes.

Civic participation should begin well before an election. Schools, churches, trade unions, youth organisations, traditional authorities and civil society groups can help explain registration, voting rights and complaint procedures. Young Namibians deserve practical civic education that teaches them how institutions work, how to assess campaign claims and how to participate peacefully.

Australia’s public life offers useful examples of civic habits that make elections familiar rather than mysterious. At polling places, volunteers may run a sausage sizzle, local groups distribute information and voters understand that the process belongs to the community, even when they disagree about the result. Namibia can cultivate its own community traditions around elections, drawing on local languages, music, churches and neighbourhood organisations.

Participation must include people who are often overlooked: voters with disabilities, citizens in remote settlements, first-time voters, people working away from home and those who need assistance in understanding official forms. A commission that measures access by the number of polling stations alone may miss barriers involving transport, language, mobility or information.

Reform should be measured in public

Reform will have meaning only if citizens can see whether it is working. The commission should publish annual performance reports covering registration accuracy, voter education, staffing, procurement, complaints, security incidents, technology, accessibility and spending. These reports should be presented in plain language, with data that journalists, researchers and parties can examine.

A permanent consultative forum could bring together political parties, civil society, disability advocates, youth representatives, traditional leaders, academics and the media. Its role would be to identify problems before the next election, rather than convene only during a crisis. Meetings, submissions and responses should be placed online and made available in accessible formats.

Public procurement deserves particular attention. Ballot papers, equipment, transport, information campaigns and temporary staffing should be managed through competitive and auditable processes. Contracts, suppliers and delivery milestones should be disclosed where security and privacy considerations permit. When voters can follow public money, they are better placed to distinguish an administrative mistake from corruption.

Trust is also shaped by the broader economic experience of citizens. In Sydney or Brisbane, people may judge public services through housing costs, transport and household bills; in regional Queensland or Western Australia, distance and access can dominate daily life. Namibian voters likewise evaluate democratic institutions alongside employment, water, education and service delivery. A credible election cannot solve every social problem, but it gives citizens a legitimate means to demand better government.

The PDM will continue to advocate reforms that place voters at the centre of the electoral system. Restoring confidence is a continuing public duty, measured through open records, independent oversight, fair access and honest communication. When the commission accepts scrutiny, when parties respect the rules and when citizens can verify the path from ballot to result, Namibia’s democracy becomes stronger for everyone.