The recent leadership changes within the National Youth Council have once again drawn public attention to a long-standing tension in Namibia’s youth sector: the uneasy relationship between youth politics and youth development.
The resignation of an interim chairperson and the appointment of a successor are not, on their own, extraordinary developments. Leadership transitions occur in all institutions. What warrants reflection, however, is not the change itself but what such moments repeatedly reveal about the structure, culture, and purpose of youth governance in Namibia.
For many young people, the National Youth Council is increasingly perceived less as a responsive development institution and more as a contested political arena, one shaped by alignment, succession manoeuvring, and internal power dynamics. This perception, whether entirely fair or not, has consequences. It shapes trust, participation, and the willingness of young people to see the Council as their platform.
At its core, the National Youth Council was established to represent youth interests, coordinate youth organisations, and serve as a bridge between young people and the state. Its mandate is developmental by design. Yet over time, the distinction between youth representation and youth politics has become blurred.
Youth politics is not inherently negative. Political consciousness, organisation, and advocacy are necessary features of an engaged youth population. The challenge arises when political contestation overshadows service delivery, when leadership struggles consume more attention than programmes, and when institutional energy is directed inward rather than outward.
Many young Namibians today are less concerned with who occupies leadership positions and more concerned with tangible outcomes: access to skills, employment pathways, funding opportunities, and meaningful participation in decision-making. When institutions appear preoccupied with internal battles, they risk alienating the very constituency they exist to serve.
Perception matters in public institutions, especially those tasked with representing diverse and often marginalised groups. When young people view the National Youth Council as distant or inaccessible, participation declines. Engagement becomes episodic. Trust erodes quietly.
This distance is not always the result of malice or incompetence. Often, it stems from structural weaknesses: unclear accountability mechanisms, limited communication with grassroots youth, and insufficient feedback loops between leadership and ordinary members. Over time, these gaps harden into disillusionment.
The result is a paradox: an institution meant to unify youth voices becomes increasingly disconnected from the lived realities of young people navigating unemployment, rising living costs, and uncertain futures.
Leadership renewal is important, but it is not a substitute for institutional reform. If the National Youth Council is to regain relevance and legitimacy, reform must move beyond personalities and focus on systems.
This includes clarity of mandate: what exactly the Council exists to do and what it does not. It requires transparent governance processes that are understood not only by insiders but also by the broader youth population. It demands regular, meaningful consultation with youth organisations and unaffiliated young people alike.
Most importantly, reform must prioritise service delivery over symbolism. Representation is meaningful only when it translates into action: programmes that reach young people, advocacy that results in policy shifts, and partnerships that create real opportunities.
The question confronting the National Youth Council is ultimately a simple one: does it reflect the realities of the youth it represents?
Young Namibians are grappling with structural unemployment, skills mismatches, limited access to capital, and shrinking civic space. They are navigating a rapidly changing economy while being told to remain patient. In this context, youth institutions cannot afford to appear inward-looking or disconnected.
Re-anchoring the Council in these realities requires intentional listening, decentralised engagement, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about relevance and performance. It also requires resisting the temptation to replicate the very political cultures that many young people find exclusionary.
Periods of transition offer an opportunity for introspection. The current moment should not be reduced to speculation or factional commentary. Instead, it should prompt a broader national conversation about what we expect from youth institutions and what young people deserve from them.
If the National Youth Council is to remain a credible platform, it must recommit to its developmental purpose, strengthen its institutional integrity, and place young people, not politics, at the centre of its work.
The future of youth leadership in Namibia depends not on who holds office, but on whether institutions are willing to evolve in service of the generation they claim to represent.
