Reflections on Swapo’s newly appointed Think Tank
Paul T. Shipale (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
The recent appointment of the ruling party’s think tank has reignited a familiar and uncomfortable national conversation about governance, accountability, and policy effectiveness. This is not an abstract academic debate. It speaks directly to long-standing concerns about how ideas are translated into action and whether Namibia’s political system is equipped to confront its structural challenges with honesty and intellectual courage.
These concerns were already articulated in our earlier analysis, “A Transformative Agenda for Namibia’s Invisible Workforce: From Informal to Formal.” The central proposition of that article was simple but often ignored: policy success is not driven by good intentions or the multiplication of institutions, but by clarity of purpose, institutional credibility, and the capacity to execute decisions coherently and consistently.
It would therefore be intellectually disingenuous to assess the newly appointed think tank in isolation or to dismiss scepticism as mere political hostility. The criticisms emerging in recent media commentary are grounded in lived experience and historical precedent. Namibia is not short of plans, advisers, or strategic documents. What it struggles with is implementation, accountability, and a genuine tolerance for critical, evidence-based debate within centres of power.
In principle, a think tank should function as an epistemic institution, a space dedicated to the systematic generation, testing, and refinement of policy ideas grounded in empirical evidence, rigorous analysis, and social realities. Its role is neither symbolic nor ceremonial. A credible think tank bridges political objectives with technically sound, socially responsive, and implementable policy design. Crucially, it must challenge assumptions, interrogate failures, and propose alternatives even when such alternatives are uncomfortable for those in leadership.
It is precisely against this standard that the current appointments have attracted scrutiny. Analysts such as Ndumba Kamwanyah and Henning Melber question whether the composition of the think tank leans more toward political loyalty than intellectual independence. A list dominated by senior public officials, parastatal executives, and party insiders makes it difficult to sustain claims of autonomy. As Kamwanyah rightly observes, a think tank is not defined by titles but by independence, research capacity, and analytical rigour. Without these attributes, it risks becoming a gathering of loyalists rather than thinkers.
These concerns are further amplified by the broader governance context. As highlighted in the article “Govt overloaded with committees – analysts”, Namibia’s governance architecture is already crowded with ministries, advisers, executive directors, task forces, and special committees. President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah’s recent appointment of presidential task forces on economic recovery, health, land, and housing adds to an expanding web of parallel structures.
Critics such as Tyitende argue that these arrangements duplicate existing functions within ministries and agencies, blur lines of responsibility, and enable the diffusion of accountability. In his words, this proliferation amounts to “passing the buck” rather than confronting institutional weaknesses head-on.
The distinction drawn by Swapo deputy secretary general Uahekua Herunga that task forces serve the state while the think tank serves the party may hold conceptually, but it is far less convincing in practice. In a dominant-party system, the boundary between party and state is often indistinct. When the same individuals operate across both spheres, accountability becomes opaque. The key question is therefore not merely what these bodies are mandated to do, but to whom they are ultimately answerable.
Historical experience further justifies public scepticism. Similar initiatives in the past have struggled to demonstrate measurable impact. As Tyitende notes, there is “nothing new” to expect beyond manifesto formulation. Melber goes further, questioning when such structures have ever produced genuinely “out-of-the-box” thinking that enriched public discourse or altered policy trajectories. The limited visibility, originality, and demonstrable influence of previous think tank efforts weaken confidence in the current one.
These structural weaknesses become even more consequential when viewed against Namibia’s most pressing socio-economic challenge: the persistence of economic informality. The transition from informality to formality lies at the heart of employment creation, revenue mobilisation, and social protection. Any policy-orientated institution that fails to meaningfully engage with this reality reveals a troubling disconnect between political ambition and analytical depth. A think tank that does not centre such structural issues risks irrelevance, regardless of the prominence of its members.
Equally concerning is the apparent absence of clearly articulated mandates, timelines, and performance indicators. As Kamwanyah points out, both the think tank and the presidential task forces suffer from vague objectives and a dependence on political approval to function. Without transparent outputs and measurable outcomes, policy influence cannot be assumed; it must be demonstrated.
Yet outright dismissal would be premature. As political analyst Dobson Kwala argues, a genuinely empowered think tank could assist the party and government in reassessing decisions, refining plans, and aligning programmes with manifesto commitments. Properly constituted, it could serve as a bridge between research, public discourse, and political action. But this potential can only be realised if intellectual independence is protected and critical voices are not merely tolerated but actively valued. Some of us have served in this think tank and were assigned a simple task: to find out if maternity leave days should be extended to more or fewer days. No formal debate with our own inputs and how we came to such a conclusion was ever raised as a point of discussion under the pretext that there was not enough time. Besides, some of the familiar faces trained under the Russian school of thought, while others are pure technocrats from UNAM and what have you, and are still pulling the strings behind the scenes, and it is little wonder why these ideas end up gathering dust somewhere on the shelves.
Ultimately, the success or failure of the newly appointed think tank will not be measured by the size of its membership, the stature of its appointees, or the frequency of its meetings. It will be judged by the quality, originality, and courage of its ideas and by whether those ideas translate into improved governance and tangible outcomes for citizens.
In a climate marked by policy fatigue, economic pressure, and public frustration, Namibia does not need more structures for the sake of appearance. It needs institutions, both party and state, that are confident enough to listen, bold enough to rethink entrenched assumptions, and disciplined enough to act. Only under these conditions will a think tank truly deserve its name, and only then will it contribute meaningfully to the country’s development trajectory.
Disclaimer: The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers or this newspaper. They are solely our personal opinions as citizens and pan-Africanists.
