President Pohamba And The Shadow Of The Republic

THE speech of President Hifikepunye Pohamba to mark the 17th Independence anniversary could have been written five years ago – and the founding President could have read it in the year 2000.

I take this line of argument, not because the speech is not positive or is short on mobilising language, but merely because it does not offer much in terms of a modernising project for the vast majority of Namibians. It offers no hope for the litany of high-school dropouts who could not get into university or find a job.Naturally, one would have hoped that the President’s message addresses itself to this generation, which at some point found hope of employment in a cold storage plant, a pig or chicken farm in Blair’s Britain.(Un)fortunately it is no longer the case and recent unemployment figures highlight the horrifying reality that we are planting landmines in our midst.Secondly, it does not inspire those pauperised teachers and nurses who could afford a house in Cimbebasia ten years ago – with some now being forced to rent rooms in townships.As such, 17 years is a lifetime and specifically if nothing suggests that your end of the month is likely to be different now than it was then.Evidently, for a Namibian who has been a Minister, a PS or a CEO ever since, it is a rather short period since the wait for the economic kingdom is long over.Therefore, continuity makes perfect sense.To understand this language of continuity in the speech of the President two issues come to mind.First, when President Pohamba assumed office two years ago, the immediate assumption was that he would be a continuity President.This line of thinking was rather obvious in view of the fact that the founding President sponsored Pohamba’s entry into State House.However, soon after he got used to the decor of his new office, our perspectives of the President shifted due to amongst others, his categorical rejection of himself being a ‘lame duck president’.We found a leader who could surprise with the kind of positions he was to take on issues of national interest.And he did, at least in theory.We were excited with the frontal approach on corruption.To this end, the President invested an enormous amount of political capital in the crusade against what could now be considered generalised corruption.Generalised corruption is not some ugly notion I am inventing here, but it is self-explanatory due to the fact that the President made it his key priority.Yet as months passed and now two years of his presidency, impressions of the President as a change agent are evaporating.On corruption for example, the President does not have much to boast about.The same goes for service delivery.But more crucially, what could explain this zigzagging about the perceptions that we have of the President and his performance? This leads logically to the second issue which explains the “deja vu et lu” language in the speech of the President.It is impossible not to pick up contradictory inflexions in the way the President speaks and acts.He appears timid and caught between his own conscience as a moral leader: a strong stance on corruption, a higher propensity for fairness and solid convictions about the democratic process (consultations with opposition parties and other civil society actors).Adversely, there is ambiguity between his moral conscience and his existence as a Swapo leader whose bible is the ruling party and its realpolitik.As a political party, the crusade against corruption could affect its electoral appeal.If President Pohamba is to get out of that ambiguity by spitting in the party soup, it is likely to be to his own detriment.Normally, under such circumstances, a leader has to choose between being audacious or a minimalist.President Pohamba seems to be choosing the latter.The reasons for this choice are many, but chief is that minimalists are averse to anything like offending comrades, and therefore have great difficulty acting decisively.I concede that the founding President laid strong foundations for Namibia to prosper.So, the temptation for a successor becoming a minimalist is greater in a country that is politically stable and with no clear signs of a collapsing economy.Nonetheless, it is urgent for a modernising agenda to be carried forward aggressively.For that to happen, President Pohamba must become less claustrophobic about the power he has as head of state.He must reshuffle his cabinet, his permanent secretaries, not just because it is sexy to do so, but to tell us that he is redeploying skills to priority areas.In short, tell us that he is listening, and more crucially that he has the capacity to act and change the fate of the disenfranchised youth and rural poor Namibia.Hopefully, the coming state of the nation address will be more concrete on these issues.Otherwise President Pohamba risks the danger of speeches defining his status as President.The problem with speeches alone is that they are a reflection of the shadow of the republic simply because the republic is one where speeches act as general statements.It is the acts that define leadership, period.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in Political Science at the University of Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne, France.It offers no hope for the litany of high-school dropouts who could not get into university or find a job.Naturally, one would have hoped that the President’s message addresses itself to this generation, which at some point found hope of employment in a cold storage plant, a pig or chicken farm in Blair’s Britain.(Un)fortunately it is no longer the case and recent unemployment figures highlight the horrifying reality that we are planting landmines in our midst.Secondly, it does not inspire those pauperised teachers and nurses who could afford a house in Cimbebasia ten years ago – with some now being forced to rent rooms in townships.As such, 17 years is a lifetime and specifically if nothing suggests that your end of the month is likely to be different now than it was then.Evidently, for a Namibian who has been a Minister, a PS or a CEO ever since, it is a rather short period since the wait for the economic kingdom is long over.Therefore, continuity makes perfect sense.To understand this language of continuity in the speech of the President two issues come to mind.First, when President Pohamba assumed office two years ago, the immediate assumption was that he would be a continuity President.This line of thinking was rather obvious in view of the fact that the founding President sponsored Pohamba’s entry into State House.However, soon after he got used to the decor of his new office, our perspectives of the President shifted due to amongst others, his categorical rejection of himself being a ‘lame duck president’.We found a leader who could surprise with the kind of positions he was to take on issues of national interest.And he did, at least in theory.We were excited with the frontal approach on corruption.To this end, the President invested an enormous amount of political capital in the crusade against what could now be considered generalised corruption.Generalised corruption is not some ugly notion I am inventing here, but it is self-explanatory due to the fact that the President made it his key priority.Yet as months passed and now two years of his presidency, impressions of the President as a change agent are evaporating.On corruption for example, the President does not have much to boast about.The same goes for service delivery.But more crucially, what could explain this zigzagging about the perceptions that we have of the President and his performance? This leads logically to the second issue which explains the “deja vu et lu” language in the speech of the President.It is impossible not to pick up contradictory inflexions in the way the President speaks and acts.He appears timid and caught between his own conscience as a moral leader: a strong stance on corruption, a higher propensity for fairness and solid convictions about the democratic process (consultations with opposition parties and other civil society actors).Adversely, there is ambiguity between his
moral conscience and his existence as a Swapo leader whose bible is the ruling party and its realpolitik.As a political party, the crusade against corruption could affect its electoral appeal.If President Pohamba is to get out of that ambiguity by spitting in the party soup, it is likely to be to his own detriment.Normally, under such circumstances, a leader has to choose between being audacious or a minimalist.President Pohamba seems to be choosing the latter.The reasons for this choice are many, but chief is that minimalists are averse to anything like offending comrades, and therefore have great difficulty acting decisively.I concede that the founding President laid strong foundations for Namibia to prosper.So, the temptation for a successor becoming a minimalist is greater in a country that is politically stable and with no clear signs of a collapsing economy.Nonetheless, it is urgent for a modernising agenda to be carried forward aggressively.For that to happen, President Pohamba must become less claustrophobic about the power he has as head of state.He must reshuffle his cabinet, his permanent secretaries, not just because it is sexy to do so, but to tell us that he is redeploying skills to priority areas.In short, tell us that he is listening, and more crucially that he has the capacity to act and change the fate of the disenfranchised youth and rural poor Namibia.Hopefully, the coming state of the nation address will be more concrete on these issues.Otherwise President Pohamba risks the danger of speeches defining his status as President.The problem with speeches alone is that they are a reflection of the shadow of the republic simply because the republic is one where speeches act as general statements.It is the acts that define leadership, period.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in Political Science at the University of Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne, France.