Namibia’s 2024 general election marks a significant moment of democratic backsliding, not through overt electoral manipulation, but through systemic administrative failures and executive efforts to weaken judicial checks, which are both early indicators of competitive authoritarianism rather than the stable democracy the country has long been assumed to be. Namibia has been recognized as one of Africa’s most stable nations in terms of democracy since gaining its independence several decades ago. Namibia’s 2024 general election, long expected to further demonstrate the country’s reputation for stability, instead exposed deep cracks in its electoral system as widespread shortages, delays, and administrative breakdowns demonstrated Namibia’s clear democratic backslide from previous years. Democratic backsliding occurs when governments weaken institutional checks, limit political equality, or erode civil liberties. Nancy Bermeo notes in her article On Democratic Backsliding that “blatant manipulation on election day seems less and less common,” and this statement seems to be affirmed by Namibia’s recent election. This election suggests not deliberate manipulation, but rather a process undermined by administrative failures and institutional incompetence. What began as a routine vote on Nov. 27 quickly turned into a multi-day crisis after dozens of polling stations ran out of ballot papers and malfunctioning equipment forced voters to wait for hours or return on later days. The electoral authorities extended voting in multiple regions in an effort to contain the disruption, but the damage to the process was already evident. The validity of this extension is also being challenged legally by opposing parties within the nation, adding more fuel to the chaotic nature of this past election.

Election observers reported unusually high levels of logistical failure, with many polling stations opening late and others unable to operate consistently because voter-registration tablets overheated or failed altogether. The electoral commission acknowledged the problems publicly, citing supply and planning issues, and pledged to investigate. However, the delays fueled frustration among voters, many of whom reported being turned away or having to wait through multiple extensions before casting their ballots. The irregularities raised questions about whether the system could guarantee equal access for all voters.

Several parties have filed lawsuits challenging the availability of vote-count numbers and station-level data. Namibia’s courts later awarded them with some limited permission to examine electoral materials, a judicial twist to an already fraught political climate. While the ruling party held onto power, the election exposed vulnerabilities in the country’s democratic institutions. As part of broader concerns, Freedom House’s 2025 “Freedom in the World” report reduced Namibia’s overall freedom score by 4 points over the last year to a 73. The decline was fueled in part by a falling score for the electoral process: “The score declined from 4 to 3 because the presidential election was marred by ballot shortages and technical and staffing problems,” the report notes. Meanwhile, Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index showed Namibia with a 49 out of 100, placing it 59th out of 180 countries. This was an unassuming score that has barely budged over the years and hints at continued perceptions of public-sector corruption. “Namibia has a CPI score less than 50 for multiple years,” observes the analyst, adding that despite expectations for governance reforms, efforts to promote integrity and accountability have stalled rather than progressed.

Electoral fraud is a leading explanation for Namibia’s recent democratic slide, though it is not the only reason. Another flashpoint, the legal landscape on sexual orientation and marriage in Namibia, has now taken a prominent position on the broader agenda. In May 2023, the country’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages lawfully contracted abroad should be recognized for purposes such as spousal immigration rights. This is a decision praised by those advocating for the marriage of same-sex couples and scolded by conservative groups. In June 2024, in another ruling meant to expand civil rights and civil liberties, the High Court invalidated colonial-era laws criminalizing consensual same-sex conduct, saying they were unconstitutional. Those decisions elicited a robust legislative response: parliament later passed laws defining marriage as between opposite-sex partners, while the government moved to produce a new marriage law in 2024 to prohibit recognizing same-sex marriages. This timeline shows how courts, legislatures, and the executive have been embroiled in conflict over rights and constitutional interpretation. This timeline of actions is so important because the government and parliament passing measures to reverse previous court rulings is an example of executive aggrandizement, or, in the words of Bermeo, weakening checks and balances through “legal” means. Rolling back the right to marry can create a precedent for other constitutional protections to be scaled back. After a government has successfully stripped rights from one group, it is much simpler to justify erosions of rights for others down the road.

Namibia’s recent political tensions and constitutional rollbacks also illustrate theories described by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way. Competitive authoritarianism occurs when formal democratic institutions exist and are taken seriously by both incumbents and opponents, but incumbents systematically abuse state power to tilt the playing field, undermine checks, and erode accountability. In Namibia, routine elections, an ostensibly independent judiciary, and active media resemble democratic institutions. Yet operational failures in electoral logistics, rapid legislative pushback against court decisions on same-sex marriage recognition, and uneven media access for opposition voices echo features of competitive authoritarian systems. Opponents continue to contest outcomes and challenge the government in court, but persistent institutional advantages for the ruling party and public perceptions of corruption align with the early warning signs Levitsky and Way identify when democracies begin to drift toward hybrid forms of governance.

The intersection of electoral inefficiency, escalating court battles, the reversal of rights that courts have recognized, and persistent corruption issues is indicative that Namibia is about to enter a turning point in its democratic growth. When elections go awry at the most elemental level of administration and when court decisions on fundamental rights are quickly challenged by political majorities, the veneer of institutional neutrality breaks down. The pressure reflects the early drift toward hybrid governance discussed by Levitsky and Way, in which democratic processes are not replaced but do not hold people sufficiently accountable. Namibia is not an authoritarian competition system at this point, but the red flags are clear: with weakened electoral management, politicized responses from courts in favor of the ruling party, and legislative power that prevents anything more resembling the exercise of real oversight. Without reforms that reinforce election administration, promote judicial independence, and tackle public-sector misconduct more transparently, the country faces normalizing conditions that inhibit political competition and erode trust.

Sources

Maphananga, C (2025) Namibia faces legal challenge over extended elections, CHANNELAFRICA Namibia faces legal challenge over extended elections – CHANNELAFRICA

Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy

Freedom House (2025) Global Freedom Map

Explore the Map | Freedom House 

Transparency International (2024) Corruption Perceptions Index 

Corruption Perceptions Index 2024 – Transparency.org

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2002). The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy

Shikololo, A (2025) Namibia Says No to Gay Marriage… Union Only Between Opposite Sex https://neweralive.na/namibia-says-no-to-gay-marriages-union-only-between-opposite-sex/