Namibia went to the polls this week in an atmosphere that was largely calm, orderly and dignified. It is a reminder that, despite frustrations and imperfections, the country remains committed to democratic processes that many societies struggle to uphold.
The peaceful character of our elections has always been a quiet national pride and proof that political difference does not need to become political violence.
That is precisely why any rhetoric that undermines this peace must be taken seriously. In the lead-up to the elections, Landless People’s Movement (LPM) leader Bernadus Swaartbooi made remarks that many Namibians interpreted as irresponsible, inflammatory, and incompatible with our democratic culture.
In moments when the nation is preparing to exercise its constitutional right to vote, leaders carry a heightened responsibility. Words do not exist in a vacuum.
They travel through communities already strained by unemployment, inequality, disillusionment and political fatigue. They can steady a country or shake it.
Namibia’s stability is not accidental. It is the product of decades of restraint, dialogue, and conscious choices by citizens who value peace above political theatrics.
That stability should never be treated casually. When leaders speak in ways that create anxiety about unrest or imply that violence is an acceptable political tool, they step outside the bounds of democratic leadership. Whatever frustrations any party may carry, no grievance justifies language that destabilises public confidence in the electoral process.
The irony is that the elections themselves told a different story, as the electorate spat out the LPM, presumably due to the reckless comments made by its leaders.
The Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) executed its duties, voters showed up, and the early results revealed a political landscape shifting but not collapsing. SWAPO reclaimed constituencies it had previously lost, suggesting a mixture of rural mobilisation, demographic turnout differences and the lingering strength of long-established structures.
Opposition parties held ground in some areas and faltered in others. Youth turnout remained uneven: a quiet but urgent reminder that apathy among young Namibians remains one of the most decisive political forces in the country.
What the election did not produce, despite economic pressure and political tension, was violence. Namibians refused it. The electorate once again demonstrated that disagreement is not a threat and that political variety is not instability. The country moved forward, quietly and firmly.
That is why inflammatory rhetoric stands out so sharply: it clashes with the national character. It does not reflect who we are or how we resolve conflict. It does not reflect the patience of voters who stood in lines, the commitment of polling officials who worked long hours, or the trust communities placed in the process.
Namibia is not perfect. Our democracy may be unfinished work, but the one thing we cannot afford to gamble with is peace.
Voters demonstrated maturity this week, and leaders must match it. If Namibia wants to continue being a country where elections bring debate rather than destruction, then every political figure, regardless of political party, must learn to treat peace as a national asset, not a bargaining chip.
This election reminded us that Namibia’s democracy is still standing. The question now is whether our leaders will stand up for it too.
