A Pohamba Presidency: Between Continuity and Fragmentation
By: Opinion - (Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari)THE end of an era for one political leader always marks the beginning of an era for another.
It is in this delicate and paradoxical orbit of politics that the
21st March 2005 is an important rendezvous in the political life of
Lucas Hifikepunye Pohamba.
Apart from the usual pomp, the family photos and the camaraderie
which epitomises such fetes, Pohamba's entry into the presidency
provides a moment for pause and deep reflection.
First, our pause is informed by an interrogation of the kind of
political leadership Lucas will bring to that irreducible core of
government after fifteen years of freedom.
Pierre Mendes France, a Prime Minister extraordinaire under the
fourth French republic, argued that it is essential to integrate
history in our reflection.
Hence, in this case reflection is rooted in a search for an
understanding of the type of contract or commitments a Pohamba
Presidency ought to deliver to the Namibian people given our
historical particularities.
Evidently, the factors that will shape Pohamba's adoption of a
particular leadership strategy during his Presidency are
numerous.
Amongst the most obvious are his goals as a leader, his
personality, the institutional framework within which he will
operate, the political mechanisms by which his power was won and
could be retained and the means of mass communication at his
disposal.
It is therefore important to posit a thesis in favour of a
leadership style that would be hybrid transactional and
laissez-faire.
Accordingly, this would provide a possible answer as to whether
a Pohamba Presidency would be one of continuity from the three
governments of the first republic or in a worse case scenario,
fragmentation.
Stating the obvious, a Pohamba Presidency would cohabitate in
its initial years with the Party presidency under the emblematic
figure of Sam Nujoma.
Equally so, the fact that Pohamba's ascension to the Presidency
was conceived politically by President Nujoma would define the
finer contours of his presidency.
Obviously Pohamba defined his Presidency on the platform of
continuity.
Yet, it should be stated that a Pohamba Presidency would not be
in its ontology neo-Nujoma-ist.
As a consequence, it would inadvertently have to put emphasis on
the substantive outputs of our democracy.
Nevertheless, it remains, Nujoma-ist in its casting.
One could accentuate the view that Nujoma's leadership style was
largely transformational for he was not so much a coordinator or
manager, but rather an inspirer and visionary.
Such personas are difficult to pollute.
These are the hallmarks of Teflon presidents.
Such leaders are not only motivated by strong ideological
convictions, but have the political will to put them into
practice.
The leader creates the story, embodies the story and ensures
that it resonates with the broader public.
On the contrary, Pohamba's leadership would not be
transformational, thus not so much initiating a vision, but could
assume a double movement.
Firstly, it could take a laissez-faire approach in relation to
the Party presidency in view of the fact that it is an office
outside his personal responsibility as head of state.
It needs mention that political systems can operate without
constitutions, assemblies, judiciaries and even political
parties.
However they cannot survive without an executive branch to
formulate government policy and ensure that it is implemented.
Borrowing from economic jargon, the presidency of a country is a
hub and everything else becomes a spoke, and this includes the
party headquarters.
Be that as it may, a laissez -faire approach is not
irreconcilable with party militancy on the part of Pohamba.
After all, he is number two at party level.
Accordingly, there is the distinct possibility of a Pohamba
Presidency having a ménage a deux or a trois at party level
given the presence of many senior party leaders who are not in
government, but who could interact with a Pohamba executive outside
the Nujoma galaxy, in this case the Party Politburo or Central
Committee.
This would not necessarily constrain the Pohamba executive
because the point deserving elaboration here is the fact that the
Party and the government are distinct entities, with roadmaps which
are both different and complementary.
The credo of a ruling party is to assist government in the
elaboration of government action.
It is a platform for thinking, building ideas and debates
without taboos.
Therefore, a Pohamba Presidency could play the role of
government cohesion and brokering.
He would have to be a consensus builder.
The second approach of this letter is that of societal
reflection.
It is not wrong to argue that over the past 15 years our
politics were rooted to certain extent in the discourse of the
glorious history of liberation politics, heroic labels and
nostalgia.
Executive thinking and elite formation was largely based on an
exile doctrine anchored around the elephants who attended the
congresses of Tanga and Napundwe.
A priori, there is nothing wrong with nostalgia, rewarding
loyalty and the celebration of a glorious past or even the use of
imagery and symbols in the consolidation of power.
Even in the process of doing so, the key ministries and
difficult assignments must be occupied by those with political
stature and (or) accompanying technical competence.
The frontier which separates ability, merit and popularity ought
not to be mysterious, but real.
Thus, it should be borne in mind that a country is not a museum;
it is not a souvenir which becomes a victim of its own
immobility.
Nonetheless, the heritage of the Nujoma government is positive
and we could not negate these noteworthy successes.
With regard to democracy and liberty, there are zones of
progress and the institutions destined to protect and guarantee
these have been developed.
Grosso modo, the three Nujoma governments fared well in terms of
the articulation of the various aspects of political inputs such as
popular activity, pluralist interests groups, media attention,
parties, elections and formal legislation.
Yet, the theory of the ubermensch being fallacious, the
challenges facing this developmental state will remain enormous
long after President Nujoma has passed in history.
Without reserve, a Pohamba's Presidency ought to take a
transactional leadership style to the affairs of the state.
It is where we find the second movement.
This would demand a more hands- on style of leadership, the
adoption of a positive role in relation to policy making and
government management.
The government must communicate, it must listen; it must be in
constant reflection as Pierre Mendes France would tell us.
Alas, Pohamba's Presidency is expected to do more with regard to
the substantive outputs of democratic legitimacy such as welfare,
security and identity.
As difficult as they are, these are, after all, the primary
concerns of the Namibian people.
It needs emphasis that the raison d'etre of any government is
human security (absence of hunger, crime, conflict etc.).
After 15 years, the executive as the source of political
leadership ought to seek the actualisation of these outputs of
democratic governance.
Thus, there is inherent danger in the political discourse
anchored on continuity, for it could create an overemphasized sense
of success and contentment.
It could also hamper initiative in the form of necessary reforms
with regard to these outputs.
Normally, the survival and stability of a state is threatened by
a government's inaction in providing human security and responding
decisively to social problems.
Unfortunately, we have noted that the bourgeois revolution of
the disenfranchised has been selective and did not take place as
anticipated after independence.
As a consequence, the pre-independence obsession with equality
in terms of opportunity, knowledge and power has not been too
pervasive.
On the contrary, there is unanimity that the three governments
have succeeded in redressing the wrongs of colonialism through two
broad discernible tendencies.
First, internal deracialization through the policy of national
reconciliation, affirmative action, and recently the black economic
empowerment debate.
Our investment in social capital under the three successive
Swapo governments has been underwritten in such logic.
Secondly, through anti-imperialism externally, as evinced in
presidential and ministerial foreign policy statements.
In that instance, continuity is a logical framework.
Undeniably, there has been an evolution in the reduction of
inequalities between white and black.
We have focussed sharply on healing relations with the white
community and creating a black bureaucratic bourgeoisie in
government and a black atavistic business bourgeoisie in the
private sector.
At times, the lines between the two are blurred.
Still, we have forgotten at a practical level, relations amongst
blacks en masse.
Government has been able to dismantle the physical boundaries of
the Bantustans, through the extension of civil liberties and by
unifying ethnically designed public management structures.
Yet, certain elements of society at large did not move along
with that wave.
Mahmood Mamdani argues that "detribalization could be the
starting point in the reorganisation of the bifurcated power
created by colonial occupation."
The extent to which our society has gone in detribalizing
intellectually, and consequently its relations, remains wobbly.
Sadly, we can note that trust and solidarity have taken on
ethnic dimensions.
Our society risks the belief that public office should serve,
first our villages and our tribes.
As such, the ingredients which drive the sociology of a state
become absent.
In doing so, the danger also exist that we might accentuate
Africa's post-colonial particularity where politicians seek public
office to serve ethnic constituencies.
In fact, political parties have emerged, whose mantra is to
serve ethnic their constituencies.
It should be stressed ad nauseam that the fragmentation of the
state could be inevitable in the absence of us de-emphasizing at
large, ethnicity and specifically tribalism.
The role of the Pohamba executive becomes primordial in this
process, for ethnicity is inconsistent with national consciousness
and the formation of a national identity.
In conclusion, Pohamba's Presidency, ought to be driven and
motivated by pragmatic approaches to these problems.
State collapse is inevitable in the absence of pragmatism and
our society could at worse regress to what the English Philosopher
Ernst Gellner refers to as 'a wasteland of non-achievement.' The
purpose of a Pohamba presidency is not to dream another vision, but
to give practical expression to a vision articulated by the three
Nujoma governments.
In short, irrespective of its definition, it should not pour
cold water on the enthusiasm of the masses.
* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari holds a BA (Politics and Sociology)
from Unam and an MA in International Relations from the University
of Stellenbosch, South Africa. He is currently preparing for
doctoral studies at the University of Paris-Sorbonne.
Apart from the usual pomp, the family photos and the camaraderie
which epitomises such fetes, Pohamba's entry into the presidency
provides a moment for pause and deep reflection.First, our pause is
informed by an interrogation of the kind of political leadership
Lucas will bring to that irreducible core of government after
fifteen years of freedom.Pierre Mendes France, a Prime Minister
extraordinaire under the fourth French republic, argued that it is
essential to integrate history in our reflection.Hence, in this
case reflection is rooted in a search for an understanding of the
type of contract or commitments a Pohamba Presidency ought to
deliver to the Namibian people given our historical
particularities.Evidently, the factors that will shape Pohamba's
adoption of a particular leadership strategy during his Presidency
are numerous.Amongst the most obvious are his goals as a leader,
his personality, the institutional framework within which he will
operate, the political mechanisms by which his power was won and
could be retained and the means of mass communication at his
disposal.It is therefore important to posit a thesis in favour of a
leadership style that would be hybrid transactional and
laissez-faire.Accordingly, this would provide a possible answer as
to whether a Pohamba Presidency would be one of continuity from the
three governments of the first republic or in a worse case
scenario, fragmentation.Stating the obvious, a Pohamba Presidency
would cohabitate in its initial years with the Party presidency
under the emblematic figure of Sam Nujoma.Equally so, the fact that
Pohamba's ascension to the Presidency was conceived politically by
President Nujoma would define the finer contours of his
presidency.Obviously Pohamba defined his Presidency on the platform
of continuity.Yet, it should be stated that a Pohamba Presidency
would not be in its ontology neo-Nujoma-ist.As a consequence, it
would inadvertently have to put emphasis on the substantive outputs
of our democracy.Nevertheless, it remains, Nujoma-ist in its
casting.One could accentuate the view that Nujoma's leadership
style was largely transformational for he was not so much a
coordinator or manager, but rather an inspirer and visionary.Such
personas are difficult to pollute.These are the hallmarks of Teflon
presidents.Such leaders are not only motivated by strong
ideological convictions, but have the political will to put them
into practice.The leader creates the story, embodies the story and
ensures that it resonates with the broader public.On the contrary,
Pohamba's leadership would not be transformational, thus not so
much initiating a vision, but could assume a double
movement.Firstly, it could take a laissez-faire approach in
relation to the Party presidency in view of the fact that it is an
office outside his personal responsibility as head of state.It
needs mention that political systems can operate without
constitutions, assemblies, judiciaries and even political
parties.However they cannot survive without an executive branch to
formulate government policy and ensure that it is
implemented.Borrowing from economic jargon, the presidency of a
country is a hub and everything else becomes a spoke, and this
includes the party headquarters.Be that as it may, a laissez -faire
approach is not irreconcilable with party militancy on the part of
Pohamba.After all, he is number two at party level.Accordingly,
there is the distinct possibility of a Pohamba Presidency having a
ménage a deux or a trois at party level given the presence
of many senior party leaders who are not in government, but who
could interact with a Pohamba executive outside the Nujoma galaxy,
in this case the Party Politburo or Central Committee.This would
not necessarily constrain the Pohamba executive because the point
deserving elaboration here is the fact that the Party and the
government are distinct entities, with roadmaps which are both
different and complementary.The credo of a ruling party is to
assist government in the elaboration of government action.It is a
platform for thinking, building ideas and debates without
taboos.Therefore, a Pohamba Presidency could play the role of
government cohesion and brokering.He would have to be a consensus
builder.The second approach of this letter is that of societal
reflection.It is not wrong to argue that over the past 15 years our
politics were rooted to certain extent in the discourse of the
glorious history of liberation politics, heroic labels and
nostalgia.Executive thinking and elite formation was largely based
on an exile doctrine anchored around the elephants who attended the
congresses of Tanga and Napundwe.A priori, there is nothing wrong
with nostalgia, rewarding loyalty and the celebration of a glorious
past or even the use of imagery and symbols in the consolidation of
power.Even in the process of doing so, the key ministries and
difficult assignments must be occupied by those with political
stature and (or) accompanying technical competence.The frontier
which separates ability, merit and popularity ought not to be
mysterious, but real.Thus, it should be borne in mind that a
country is not a museum; it is not a souvenir which becomes a
victim of its own immobility.Nonetheless, the heritage of the
Nujoma government is positive and we could not negate these
noteworthy successes.With regard to democracy and liberty, there
are zones of progress and the institutions destined to protect and
guarantee these have been developed.Grosso modo, the three Nujoma
governments fared well in terms of the articulation of the various
aspects of political inputs such as popular activity, pluralist
interests groups, media attention, parties, elections and formal
legislation.Yet, the theory of the ubermensch being fallacious, the
challenges facing this developmental state will remain enormous
long after President Nujoma has passed in history.Without reserve,
a Pohamba's Presidency ought to take a transactional leadership
style to the affairs of the state.It is where we find the second
movement.This would demand a more hands- on style of leadership,
the adoption of a positive role in relation to policy making and
government management.The government must communicate, it must
listen; it must be in constant reflection as Pierre Mendes France
would tell us.Alas, Pohamba's Presidency is expected to do more
with regard to the substantive outputs of democratic legitimacy
such as welfare, security and identity.As difficult as they are,
these are, after all, the primary concerns of the Namibian
people.It needs emphasis that the raison d'etre of any government
is human security (absence of hunger, crime, conflict etc.).After
15 years, the executive as the source of political leadership ought
to seek the actualisation of these outputs of democratic
governance. Thus, there is inherent danger in the political
discourse anchored on continuity, for it could create an
overemphasized sense of success and contentment.It could also
hamper initiative in the form of necessary reforms with regard to
these outputs.Normally, the survival and stability of a state is
threatened by a government's inaction in providing human security
and responding decisively to social problems.Unfortunately, we have
noted that the bourgeois revolution of the disenfranchised has been
selective and did not take place as anticipated after
independence.As a consequence, the pre-independence obsession with
equality in terms of opportunity, knowledge and power has not been
too pervasive.On the contrary, there is unanimity that the three
governments have succeeded in redressing the wrongs of colonialism
through two broad discernible tendencies.First, internal
deracialization through the policy of national reconciliation,
affirmative action, and recently the black economic empowerment
debate.Our investment in social capital under the three successive
Swapo governments has been underwritten in such logic.Secondly,
through anti-imperialism externally, as evinced in presidential and
ministerial foreign policy statements.In that instance, continuity
is a logical framework.Undeniably, there has been an evolution in
the reduction of inequalities between white and black.We have
focussed sharply on healing relations with the white community and
creating a black bureaucratic bourgeoisie in government and a black
atavistic business bourgeoisie in the private sector.At times, the
lines between the two are blurred.Still, we have forgotten at a
practical level, relations amongst blacks en masse.Government has
been able to dismantle the physical boundaries of the Bantustans,
through the extension of civil liberties and by unifying ethnically
designed public management structures.Yet, certain elements of
society at large did not move along with that wave.Mahmood Mamdani
argues that "detribalization could be the starting point in the
reorganisation of the bifurcated power created by colonial
occupation."The extent to which our society has gone in
detribalizing intellectually, and consequently its relations,
remains wobbly.Sadly, we can note that trust and solidarity have
taken on ethnic dimensions.Our society risks the belief that public
office should serve, first our villages and our tribes.As such, the
ingredients which drive the sociology of a state become absent.In
doing so, the danger also exist that we might accentuate Africa's
post-colonial particularity where politicians seek public office to
serve ethnic constituencies.In fact, political parties have
emerged, whose mantra is to serve ethnic their constituencies.It
should be stressed ad nauseam that the fragmentation of the state
could be inevitable in the absence of us de-emphasizing at large,
ethnicity and specifically tribalism.The role of the Pohamba
executive becomes primordial in this process, for ethnicity is
inconsistent with national consciousness and the formation of a
national identity.In conclusion, Pohamba's Presidency, ought to be
driven and motivated by pragmatic approaches to these
problems.State collapse is inevitable in the absence of pragmatism
and our society could at worse regress to what the English
Philosopher Ernst Gellner refers to as 'a wasteland of
non-achievement.' The purpose of a Pohamba presidency is not to
dream another vision, but to give practical expression to a vision
articulated by the three Nujoma governments.In short, irrespective
of its definition, it should not pour cold water on the enthusiasm
of the masses. * Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari holds a BA (Politics and
Sociology) from Unam and an MA in International Relations from the
University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. He is currently preparing
for doctoral studies at the University of Paris-Sorbonne.