Introduction

Namibia’s 2024 Presidential and Parliamentary elections faced difficulties. Confronted with voting stations bereft of physical ballots, overheating electric identity tablets, and a paucity of polling workers, the Electoral Commission of Namibia felt it necessary to extend the election by two days. In response, the leader of the opposition party, Panduleni Itula, claimed that the extension benefitted SWAPO, the ruling party that has been in power since the country’s independence in 1990. The opposition filed lawsuits alleging fraud, claimed that the vote was unlawful, and that the election should be “set aside.” 

The following year, Freedom House lowered Namibia’s electoral process score by two, taking away one point each in its election related categories citing the extension as a “Key Development” in the country’s relationship with democracy. In addition, an article appeared in this publication, written by Karlton Johnson, titled “Namibia’s Troubling Drift Toward Democratic Erosion” and cited the “systemic administrative failures”, a law defining marriage as between members of the opposite sex, and other events in its claim that Namibia, which until this point had demonstrated strong democratic norms, “is about to enter a turning point in its democratic growth.”

Much of this article, along with the response to Namibia’s 2024 election is misguided. Johnson leaves out crucial context in the outcome of the 2024 Elections, misunderstands the process through which Namibia’s same-sex marriage laws were passed, and fabricates a claim about the freedom of the press in Namibia. The article’s shortcomings are frustrating, but it provides a useful example of why defining democracy, and what parts of the definition are worth caring about, is key to understanding what qualifies as democratic backsliding, and what is simply a lack of state capacity or a difference of opinions on cultural values.

The Election

Throughout his piece, Johnson reiterates his belief that the 2024 Election is proof that Namibia is in the process of backsliding. He writes: “Electoral fraud is a leading explanation for Namibia’s recent democratic slide…” After reading this sentence, one would not be mistaken in believing that there was fraud in Namibia’s 2024 election. Johnson even cites Nancy Bermeo’s article On Democratic Backsliding, claiming, “[she] notes in her article … blatant manipulation on election day seems less and less common,” and this statement seems to be affirmed by Namibia’s recent election.” The implication being that SWAPO is engaging in the same nefarious behavior wherein ruling parties chip away at institutions in order to maintain their grip on power. 

However, there is zero evidence that fraud took place in Namibia’s election. In fact, the Supreme Court of Namibia dismissed the opposition party’s claim that the election was fraudulent. The Chief Justice ruled that the decision to extend the election was lawful. Furthermore, the African Union, which carried out a preliminary investigation of the election, found zero evidence of misconduct. Despite both of these events occurring before the article was published, the essay does not include them. Even the leader of the opposition is less inflamed than Johnson, “We are not going to the streets to demonstrate or anything like that.”

That these claims of backsliding do not seem to hold any water is why Freedom House’s 2025 deduction from Namibia’s election index seems so strange. What is Namibia’s crime, a lack of state capacity? Little and Meng’s 2024 article, Measuring Democratic Backsliding though often a recipient to warranted claims of whitewashing autocratic regimes, provides insight into Freedom House’s process. The authors claim “considerable subjective judgment is required to produce democracy scores.” It is possible that the expert responsible for Namibia believes that the elections in 2024 were evidence that the Electoral Process in Namibia are substandard. Their rationale however is yet to be found. 

Homosexuality in Namibia

The 2024 Election is not the sole piece of evidence levied to support “Namibia’s Troubling Drift Toward Democratic Erosion.” Johnson cites Bermeo in arguing that the country’s passage of anti same-sex legislation (The Marriage Act) in response to a Namibian Supreme Court ruling “is an example of executive aggrandizement, or, in the words of Bermeo, weakening checks and balances through “legal” means.” This claim lacks warranting for a few reasons. 

It is framed as though the passage of laws that contradict the supreme court is evidence of power aggrandizement. Not only is this not a case of overreach, but one could argue the parliament is proving dispersion of powers in the Namibian bureaucracy. How so? The Namibian Supreme Court made two decisions: One allowed foreigners in same-sex marriages the ability to reside in the country, the second struck down an old colonial law against “same-sex activity.” Neither ruling was done in a manner that expanded the definition of marriage. This contradicts Johnson’s claim that “Rolling back the right to marry can create a precedent for other constitutional protections to be scaled back.” The right to marry for same-sex couples was never “rolled back” as Johnson claims, because it never existed in Namibia in the first place. 

Furthermore, it is just true that the Namibian parliament was not contradicting the opinion of its people when it passed the law. A majority of Namibians (64%) do not support same-sex marriage. Furthermore, when the law was passed in Parliament, it did not require a tallied vote, instead, support was so widespread in both the ruling and opposition parties, that the law passed orally. 

One can ridicule Namibia’s hostility towards Same-Sex couples, without decrying the parliament’s passage of legislation as autocratic or an example of backsliding. Doing so distorts the term, conflating “democratic norms I strongly associate with democracy” with “what is required for democracy to function.” Some democratic theorists believe protection of majority rights to be necessary for democracy. Johnson does not provide a working definition for us to evaluate Namibia’s accordance.

Free Press

In his penultimate paragraph, Johnson summarizes “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.” This third claim regarding an uneven media, is complete fabrication. According to Reporters Without Borders, Namibia is ranked 23rd out of 180 countries, up five places from its previous placement in 2025. It has a higher score than Spain. Despite some ridicule from members of government who describe the press as negative, the Namibian media is fair. Their effectiveness was proven in 2019 when they were responsible for uncovering the Fishrot scandal wherein Namibian businessmen offered Icelandic companies special access to the Namibian coastline. 

Conclusion

Namibia is not sliding towards autocracy. Its feet haven’t even shifted. The evidence offered in Johnson’s article to support this conclusion consists of three very different phenomena: an election plagued by administrative failures but not demonstrated fraud, the passage of socially conservative legislation through an overwhelmingly supported parliamentary process, and an unsubstantiated claim that opposition voices lack meaningful access to the media. None, at least on the evidence presented, demonstrate that Namibia’s government is systematically weakening political competition, dismantling institutional checks, or insulating itself from removal from office.