Let me address the elephant in the room directly. There is a deafening silence surrounding a matter that is critical to both Swapo and Namibia. Conversations about succession ahead of the 2027 Swapo Congress (C2027) are intensifying, yet they are rarely confronted with the seriousness they deserve. Positioning has begun, camps are quietly consolidating, and speculative debates are increasingly shaping political discourse.
As Charles de Gaulle reminds us, sometimes “politics is too important to be left in the hands of politicians.” In moments of strategic consequence, silence becomes complicity. The country and the party cannot afford petty squabbles disguised as democratic engagement.
Namibia stands at a critical juncture. Swapo stands at a critical juncture. What is required now is decisive leadership and institutional discipline. Now is not the time for experimentation.
I state as a matter of fact that discussions within the party and broader society have become disproportionately preoccupied with personalities rather than policy. Succession narratives are dominating political conversation, while substantive engagement with governance priorities, economic reform, institutional strengthening, and social cohesion remains secondary. This orientation reveals a deeper concern within our political culture: the reduction of politics to leadership contests at the expense of programmatic clarity and long-term national objectives.
In dominant-party systems, such tendencies carry particular risk. Political scholarship consistently demonstrates that premature succession battles erode institutional stability, fragment party cohesion, and weaken public confidence. Swapo’s own historical experience confirms this pattern. Periods characterised by intense intra-party contention have not strengthened the movement; they have generated instability and contributed to declining membership morale. Organisational energy becomes consumed by internal rivalries rather than directed toward governance and policy implementation.
These lessons are especially pertinent as C2027 approaches.
President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah (NNN) occupies the presidency at a moment that demands continuity, experience, and administrative depth. Her political trajectory encompasses participation in the liberation struggle, diplomatic representation, senior cabinet leadership, and party administration. This breadth of experience equips her with institutional memory and strategic understanding that are indispensable in navigating complex domestic and international environments. Her qualifications are not symbolic attributes; they constitute substantive assets for statecraft.
To argue that she deserves a fair and unchallenged opportunity to govern is not to elevate her beyond scrutiny. Competence does not imply infallibility. All presidencies encounter policy recalibrations, unforeseen constraints, and contested decisions. Namibia’s structural challenges, persistent inequality, unemployment, economic stagnation, and institutional fatigue are deeply embedded. They cannot be resolved within a short temporal horizon, nor within a single electoral cycle. Sustainable reform requires consistency, coherence, and time.
This is precisely why experimentation in leadership at this stage would be imprudent.
Institutional consolidation literature underscores a fundamental principle: stability at the centre enables transformation at the periphery. When leadership authority is continually contested, administrative focus dissipates, policy implementation slows, and reform becomes reactive rather than strategic. A nation grappling with structural economic and social pressures requires decisiveness rather than perpetual repositioning. President Nandi-Ndaitwah represents continuity anchored in experience, not stagnation.
Discipline within Swapo is therefore not a matter of convenience; it is a matter of institutional survival. Once a president of the party is elected, collective responsibility demands that she be afforded the space to lead and govern. Internal democracy must culminate in unity of purpose after contestation has concluded. Without this transition, the party risks entrenching factionalism as a permanent feature of its political culture.
This does not diminish the importance of accountability. On the contrary, principled accountability strengthens leadership and safeguards institutional integrity. The primary custodians of such accountability are Swapo members themselves. Performance must be evaluated against party resolutions, policy frameworks, and electoral commitments. Accountability rooted in agreed documents fosters constructive engagement; accountability driven by factional calculation fosters instability.
Equally important is the recognition that dissent and disloyalty are not synonymous. One of the most corrosive tendencies in political organisations is the labelling of critics as enemies. Leaders must resist this impulse, and those within their inner circles must avoid manufacturing adversaries to consolidate influence. Democratic maturity lies in the capacity to disagree without destabilising institutions. The strength of SWAPO will be measured not by the absence of debate, but by its ability to manage debate responsibly.
The approach to C2027 must therefore reflect strategic patience rather than premature ambition. The party cannot afford a cycle of internal destabilisation that diverts attention from governance and accelerates membership erosion. Past experience has demonstrated that unresolved intra-party contention weakens organisational coherence and public trust. Stability, by contrast, creates the conditions for renewal, ideological clarity, and programmatic focus.
Namibia’s national trajectory remains closely intertwined with Swapo’s internal health. In our political configuration, the direction of the party substantially shapes the direction of the state. As Swapo goes, so goes Namibia. At this critical juncture, the imperative is clear: consolidate leadership, strengthen institutions, and prioritise governance over ambition.
President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah deserves a fair opportunity to lead and to govern. Not because she is immune to criticism. Not because she will avoid setbacks. But because nation-building requires time, trust, discipline, and decisive leadership. The alternative, premature contestation and experimentation, carries risks that neither the party nor the country can responsibly assume at this moment.
