Thirty-five years after independence, Namibia is still using a political system designed by and for someone else.
Other African countries have adapted their governance to fit their people but we’re stuck with Westminster structures that increasingly fail us.
Look around our continent. Countries like Zimbabwe that stuck to inherited colonial systems often ended up with authoritarian governments or endless political crises.
But those that adapted governance to their own cultures like Botswana, which successfully blended traditional leadership with modern democracy, built stronger, more stable societies.
Namibia is at a crossroads. We can keep struggling with a system that doesn’t fit us, or we can build something better.
Our Westminster system works like a boxing match with the government and opposition throwing punches at each other while the speaker tries to keep order. The goal is to knock out your opponent, not solve problems together.
But that’s not how we traditionally make decisions in Namibia.
Our communities have always valued consensus building, sitting together until we find solutions everyone can live with.
If the house cannot hear the village, the village will hear the house on election day. We are trying to govern a nation that believes in ubuntu using a system designed for political combat.
SOLUTIONS DON’T LIVE IN MEMOS
Here is the core problem: the same cabinet ministers who should be checked by parliament actually sit in parliament. It’s like having a referee who is also playing for one of the teams.
This creates real problems. Take the minister of urban and rural development, who can override decisions made by councillors that voters specifically elected.
When people in Windhoek or Oshakati choose their local representatives, why should an unelected minister have power to nullify their choice?
Democracy is not a courier service where ballots are collected locally and power is delivered to the capital.
If Windhoek wants obedience, let Windhoek earn it by performance, not proclamation.
Centralisation is when the problem lives at Katima and the solution lives in a memo.
Even worse, we have seen how this system enabled the Fishrot scandal.
Ministers manipulated laws to give themselves excessive power over fishing quotas, leading to corruption that cost us millions and over thousands of jobs.
Years later, the same structural problems remain unfixed.
Our diversity should be our strength but Westminster’s adversarial approach turns it into a weakness.
When political parties often align with ethnic groups, and the system creates winners who take everything, we deepen rather than heal old divisions.
For a country still recovering from apartheid, a system designed to divide us, we need governance that brings us together, not drives us further apart.
While politicians score points against each other, ordinary Namibians suffer.
PRIORITIES AND PERFORMANCE
With nearly half our people living in poverty and youth unemployment at 30% plus, we can’t afford a system that produces more political theatre than actual solutions.
- Botswana: Land Boards + Ntlo ya Dikgosi (House of Chiefs)
Recognising customary rights in law and vesting authority in autonomous land boards reduced discretionary patronage, clarified appeals, and gave citizens documentary proof of tenure key for planning and investment. Urban waiting lists remain a capacity problem, not a model flaw.
- Rwanda: Consensus + Performance (Umushyikirano and Imihigo)
Annual national dialogue aligns priorities, while district performance contracts link plans to measurable targets and public reporting.
The result: faster local service delivery, tighter planning discipline, and clearer accountability for district leaders.
Lesson for Namibia… Don’t import ideology… codify practice.
Imagine a system where parliament is truly independent from the executive, providing real oversight: where traditional leaders have meaningful roles in governance, not just ceremonial positions; where decision-making emphasises consensus building over adversarial debate; where local communities have genuine control over their affairs; where ethnic diversity is seen as strength requiring inclusive governance, not a winner takes all competition.
This isn’t about abandoning democracy, it’s about building democracy that works for us.
FROM INHERITANCE TO INNOVATION
The Westminster system found us at independence, but independence was just the beginning of our journey.
We’ve now had 35 years of experience. We know what works and what doesn’t.
Young Namibians who didn’t experience apartheid judge our system on current performance. They see corruption enabled by weak oversight, ethnic divisions reinforced by adversarial politics, and slow responses to urgent challenges.
Do these inherited systems serve them?
We can continue with a system designed for someone else’s problems, accepting its limitations and periodic crises. Or we can join other successful African countries in building governance structures that reflect our values while maintaining democratic accountability.
The choice between colonial inheritance and indigenous innovation will shape our next 35 years. Which path do we want to take?
Governance systems should be chosen by the people who live under them, not imposed by history. We don’t need stronger men, we need weaker excuses and stronger institutions.
– Rodney (Omes Hatani) Cloete is a member of parliament.
