PDM calls for a national survey on digital inclusion and internet access

Reliable internet access has become a basic condition for participation in public life. It affects whether people can apply for work, access government services, study online, communicate with relatives, follow political debate and respond to emergencies. Yet access remains uneven across Namibia, with households facing different barriers linked to geography, income, disability, age, language and the availability of suitable devices.

The Popular Democratic Movement is calling for a national survey to establish a clear picture of Namibia’s digital divide. The proposed research would examine who is connected, who is excluded and why. It would also give policymakers evidence for practical action, rather than relying on headline figures about mobile subscriptions or network coverage.

Why a national survey matters

A person may live in an area technically covered by a network and still be digitally excluded. A weak signal, expensive data, an unreliable electricity supply, an old handset or limited digital skills can make an internet connection difficult to use. Counting subscriptions alone will not show whether people can complete an online form, attend a virtual class or download a public document.

PDM’s position places access within a wider democratic framework. Digital inclusion is connected to transparency, civic engagement and equal treatment by public institutions. If key information is increasingly published online, people without a stable connection may be left outside important conversations about budgets, services, elections and development.

A national survey could identify differences between urban and rural communities, formal settlements, commercial farms and remote regions. It could also record how people access the internet: through a personal smartphone, a shared family device, a school, a library, a workplace or a public access point. These details would help distinguish a coverage problem from an affordability or skills problem.

What the research should measure

The survey should collect household-level information while protecting personal privacy. Useful indicators would include monthly spending on data, average connection speeds, network reliability, access to electricity, ownership of smartphones and computers, and the ability to use online services in a preferred language. Questions should also address disability access, online safety and whether people know where to obtain help.

Affordability needs careful attention. A low-cost data bundle can still be unaffordable for a household balancing food, transport, school expenses and medical costs. Researchers should examine how often people ration data, postpone downloads, avoid video calls or depend on free Wi-Fi. Internet access that exists only when a person walks to a public area is different from a dependable connection at home.

The study should include groups often missed by conventional polling. These may include older people, young people outside formal education, women with limited control over household finances, people with disabilities, informal workers, migrants and communities in sparsely populated areas. Indigenous and local-language perspectives would help ensure that digital participation is measured as a social experience, not only as a technical service.

From evidence to public investment

Survey results should lead to a public digital inclusion strategy with measurable targets. Investment may be needed in mobile towers, fibre connections, community Wi-Fi, public computer facilities, local repair services and digital literacy programmes. Schools, clinics, libraries and community centres could serve as trusted places where residents obtain information and assistance.

Connectivity also depends on dependable power. Solar-powered infrastructure could support communications in locations where grid access is limited or outages are common. PDM’s broader interest in locally owned energy infrastructure is reflected in its discussion of community solar projects, which offers a useful link between energy resilience, local ownership and communications access.

Public funds should be directed according to need rather than population size alone. A remote settlement may require a higher initial investment than a dense urban neighbourhood, but its residents should not be treated as commercially unimportant. Procurement agreements could include coverage obligations, service quality standards and transparent reporting on whether providers meet their commitments.

Lessons for an Australian audience

Australia has its own digital inclusion gaps, even with extensive national broadband investment. Residents of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane generally have a wide choice of fixed and mobile services, while people in remote parts of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland can face slower connections, long distances to service centres and fewer providers. The National Broadband Network has expanded access, but the quality and affordability of a connection still vary between households.

Everyday habits reveal why service quality matters. Many Australians use smartphones for banking, school communication, Medicare-related information, work scheduling, streaming and navigation. A family in a regional town may share one device or rely on mobile data when a fixed service is unreliable. Public libraries and community centres remain important access points for people completing government forms, preparing job applications or learning basic digital skills.

The Australian market also shows how consumer choice can be shaped by provider concentration, contract terms and data allowances. A customer may compare plans from major telecommunications companies and smaller resellers, yet still find that the best service depends on local infrastructure. In remote communities, a connection can cost more in time and equipment even when the advertised monthly price appears similar.

Australian legislation provides relevant points of comparison. The Privacy Act governs the handling of personal information, while the Online Safety Act addresses harmful online material and platform responsibilities. Digital inclusion policy must work alongside these protections: people need access, but they also need confidence that their data is handled responsibly and that online participation will not expose them to avoidable harm.

Building trust and digital capability

A survey will be valuable only if communities trust the process. PDM would need to support clear explanations of the purpose of the research, the identity of researchers, the use of information and the safeguards applied to responses. Participation should be voluntary, with consent procedures suited to different literacy levels and languages.

Data collection should combine household questionnaires with interviews, focus groups and local consultations. Community organisations, schools, traditional leaders, disability advocates and youth representatives can help researchers understand barriers that may not appear in a standard form. Independent oversight would strengthen confidence in the findings and reduce the risk that results are shaped by political convenience.

Digital skills deserve the same attention as infrastructure. Someone may have a smartphone yet struggle to recognise a scam, create a strong password, adjust accessibility settings or complete a government application. Training should be practical and locally delivered, covering online safety, financial services, public information and the use of digital tools for education and work.

Young people can be powerful partners in this effort. Through schools and the Youth League, PDM could encourage peer-led workshops, community mapping of connectivity gaps and public discussions about responsible technology use. Such activities would give young residents a meaningful role while helping older community members gain confidence with essential services.

Digital access as democratic participation

Internet access influences whose experiences are visible in national debate. People who can publish, share documents and communicate with officials have more opportunities to shape public priorities. Those without access may depend on others to interpret information or speak on their behalf, which can reinforce existing inequalities.

Digital participation should complement, rather than replace, face-to-face organising. Community meetings, printed notices, radio broadcasts and accessible public offices remain essential, especially where connectivity is limited. A national inclusion policy should ensure that moving a service online does not quietly remove an offline route for people who need it.

Creative expression can also connect civic participation with public memory. A report on a giant commemorative mural demonstrates how public art can preserve stories and invite collective reflection. In Namibia, digital tools could help communities document local histories, share cultural work and present concerns to a wider audience, provided that ownership and consent are respected.

The proposed survey would give PDM and other stakeholders a stronger basis for policy decisions. Its purpose should be practical: identify excluded communities, measure the barriers they face and direct investment towards reliable, affordable and safe access. Digital inclusion is ultimately about equal opportunity to participate in society, and that goal requires evidence grounded in the everyday lives of Namibia’s people.