A Call For An Avant-Garde Namibian Leadership

A FEW weeks ago, a top Namibian diplomat said to me that Namibians have put individuals at the axis of the political discussion, and this has deflected attention from the key task of developing the country.

Similarly, albeit in a different context, the ANC leader Mathew Phosa argued last weekend that instead of discussing individuals, the debate in the lead to the forthcoming ANC Conference in Polokwane has to be about policy. The Namibian diplomat and the ANC leader have a point.Debates about individuals can become messy, and organisations can get stuck while leaders are battling it out.Consequently, the entire country bears the brunt.Be that as it may, we can’t evacuate individual leadership qualities from the trajectory of the state.Can we discuss the liberation struggle and our past 17 years without the person of Sam Nujoma? Similarly, can modern Singapore be the excellent case study it is today without understanding what its founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew stood for? These two examples confirm that there are times in history when committed leaders make a difference in developmental and political outcomes.Politics does not function in a vacuum, nor should the task of developing the country be seen in isolation.The vertical silos we call states are led by individuals.It goes without saying that to understand where a country is going, one should look at the leadership.In short, how leaders think and act.Whether Vision 2030 becomes a reality is a function of a competent leadership that mobilises our collective energies.Such a debate is all the more urgent in light of recent political developments; be it the succession debate in Swapo or the formation of the new political party, the Rally for Democracy and Progress.All these developments provide a perverse kind of good news because our country is moving a tightrope on leadership.They suggest that we have to frame the debate around our future on the key issue of who should lead.It’s a discussion we should not avoid, because we can’t discuss policy without discussing the substance of the individuals who drive and implement policy.The Phosa part of the equation is unhelpful in understanding why some states do well and others don’t.Yes, policy discussions could elevate the level of our political debate and democratic maturity.But that is also a function of leaders as individuals, their expertise and their vision.Unfortunately, what is troubling about our current national discussion is that we are not conversing about any of these two crucial issues.The discussion is infected with political gossip, name-calling, bellies, backstabbing and paranoia.In particular, the past three years have been perhaps the most gruelling since Independence.They don’t seem to provide a compelling road map or instil a sense of confidence in the future of this country.There is pervasive metastasising in our institutions and the way the state functions.Lee Kuan Yew, the Oxford educated lawyer turned a malarial island with no resources into a modern financial centre with first-class quality schools, health and public services.Yet, for all this success, Lee and Singapore’s young generation of leaders remain on alert for the perils.They continue to adapt their language to the changing demands of modern Singapore.The same should be our credo as an African political success story; we need to remain alert for the perils and the setbacks that could be in store if we don’t take the right decisions, now.Our vocabulary as a small country is naïve in theory and feckless in practice.We continue to talk about ‘imperialists’ and ‘reactionaries’, ‘us versus them’, and youth leaders have internalised such morose language to describe all and sundry.Their current discussion is not to persuade the other side on issues, but to keep their bases agitated and be assured of the rightness of their respective narrow causes.For their part, some senior leaders believe in tribal gatekeepers instead of going to all corners of this country and getting the talented Namibians we so desperately need to develop our institutions and our country.As a rule, when the President speaks, the Prime Minister must be pragmatic enough to act.Concretise whatever the President says.Alas, the Prime Minister makes headline news over-analysing political events and whatever malaise in this country.Clearly, this suggests complacency and shows that as Namibians we are not looking at the long-term trends.Instead of paying more attention to the world and its success stories, leaders have adopted laissez-faire methods.We are so distracted by the politically trivial and this has led to our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.Let us adapt our language and our methods to changing times.Chinese ministers meet twice every year with their Singaporean counterparts to learn from the Singaporean experience; over 50 Chinese city majors visit Singapore every three months for courses in City Management.What are we doing as a small African country? All I am saying here is that we should not be fanatical Namibians or sceptical Namibians, but practical Namibians.In fact, an avant-garde leadership can make that difference in how we ordinary folk frame our discussions and working methods.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in political science at the University of Paris-Panthéon Sorbonne, France.He is currently on a research internship at the UN Headquarters, New York.The Namibian diplomat and the ANC leader have a point.Debates about individuals can become messy, and organisations can get stuck while leaders are battling it out.Consequently, the entire country bears the brunt.Be that as it may, we can’t evacuate individual leadership qualities from the trajectory of the state.Can we discuss the liberation struggle and our past 17 years without the person of Sam Nujoma? Similarly, can modern Singapore be the excellent case study it is today without understanding what its founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew stood for? These two examples confirm that there are times in history when committed leaders make a difference in developmental and political outcomes.Politics does not function in a vacuum, nor should the task of developing the country be seen in isolation.The vertical silos we call states are led by individuals.It goes without saying that to understand where a country is going, one should look at the leadership.In short, how leaders think and act.Whether Vision 2030 becomes a reality is a function of a competent leadership that mobilises our collective energies.Such a debate is all the more urgent in light of recent political developments; be it the succession debate in Swapo or the formation of the new political party, the Rally for Democracy and Progress.All these developments provide a perverse kind of good news because our country is moving a tightrope on leadership.They suggest that we have to frame the debate around our future on the key issue of who should lead.It’s a discussion we should not avoid, because we can’t discuss policy without discussing the substance of the individuals who drive and implement policy.The Phosa part of the equation is unhelpful in understanding why some states do well and others don’t.Yes, policy discussions could elevate the level of our political debate and democratic maturity.But that is also a function of leaders as individuals, their expertise and their vision.Unfortunately, what is troubling about our current national discussion is that we are not conversing about any of these two crucial issues.The discussion is infected with political gossip, name-calling, bellies, backstabbing and paranoia.In particular, the past three years have been perhaps the most gruelling since Independence.They don’t seem to provide a compelling road map or instil a sense of confidence in the future of this country.There is pervasive metastasising in our institutions and the way the state functions.Lee Kuan Yew, the Oxford educated lawyer turned a malarial island with no resources into a modern financial centre with first-class quality schools, health and public services.Yet, for all this succes
s, Lee and Singapore’s young generation of leaders remain on alert for the perils.They continue to adapt their language to the changing demands of modern Singapore.The same should be our credo as an African political success story; we need to remain alert for the perils and the setbacks that could be in store if we don’t take the right decisions, now.Our vocabulary as a small country is naïve in theory and feckless in practice.We continue to talk about ‘imperialists’ and ‘reactionaries’, ‘us versus them’, and youth leaders have internalised such morose language to describe all and sundry.Their current discussion is not to persuade the other side on issues, but to keep their bases agitated and be assured of the rightness of their respective narrow causes.For their part, some senior leaders believe in tribal gatekeepers instead of going to all corners of this country and getting the talented Namibians we so desperately need to develop our institutions and our country.As a rule, when the President speaks, the Prime Minister must be pragmatic enough to act.Concretise whatever the President says.Alas, the Prime Minister makes headline news over-analysing political events and whatever malaise in this country.Clearly, this suggests complacency and shows that as Namibians we are not looking at the long-term trends.Instead of paying more attention to the world and its success stories, leaders have adopted laissez-faire methods.We are so distracted by the politically trivial and this has led to our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.Let us adapt our language and our methods to changing times.Chinese ministers meet twice every year with their Singaporean counterparts to learn from the Singaporean experience; over 50 Chinese city majors visit Singapore every three months for courses in City Management.What are we doing as a small African country? All I am saying here is that we should not be fanatical Namibians or sceptical Namibians, but practical Namibians.In fact, an avant-garde leadership can make that difference in how we ordinary folk frame our discussions and working methods.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in political science at the University of Paris-Panthéon Sorbonne, France.He is currently on a research internship at the UN Headquarters, New York.