Chaos in the National Assembly is no longer shocking. It is becoming routine. This week, proceedings descended into disorder after National Unity Democratic Organisation (Nudo) member of parliament Vetaruhe Kandorozu questioned the citizenship of deputy minister of education, innovation, youth, sport, arts and culture Dino Ballotti and told him to “go back to Italy.”
The deputy speaker, Phillipus Katamelo, ruled the remarks unparliamentary. Swapo members of parliament walked out in protest after the matter was referred to the standing committee on rules. The session collapsed.
We have written before about the conduct of our parliamentarians, on both sides of the aisle. We have lamented the insults, the point-scoring, the performative outrage. We have cautioned that the erosion of decorum inside the House erodes public confidence outside it. But this latest episode demands a sharper question: Is this what the youth is telling us about the future of our country?
Many of the loudest, most combative voices in the current Assembly belong to younger members. They were elected amid promises of renewal, accountability and generational change. They campaigned as disruptors of old politics. They positioned themselves as a break from stagnation. Yet what we are witnessing is not renewal. It is a regression.
Questioning a colleague’s citizenship on the basis of appearance, suggesting that “Namibia does not look like that”, and invoking race as a qualifier for belonging is not revolutionary politics. It is reckless politics. It is the politics of exclusion. It is the politics that tears at the very fabric of a constitutional democracy founded on non-racialism and equality before the law.
Namibia’s Constitution is unambiguous: citizenship is a legal status, not a racial category. Our history, painful and instructive, should have immunised us against the temptation to define Namibianness by skin colour. To resurrect that logic inside the National Assembly is not bold. It is backward.
And what of the walkout? When Swapo MPs left the chamber in protest after the deputy speaker referred the conduct to the rules committee, they too contributed to the disorder. A legislature cannot function if its members abandon it whenever rulings displease them. Protest has its place in a democracy. But the National Assembly is not a rally ground; it is a constitutional forum governed by procedure.
We must call this conduct for what it is: a group of ill-prepared, inexperienced and incompetent actors who have been handed platforms of power and are now using them to reveal themselves.
Parliament is not a stage for viral clips. It is not a theatre for ethnic insinuations or partisan theatrics. It is the primary law-making body of the Republic. It carries the responsibility of oversight over the executive. It is where national policy is debated, refined and passed. When its members reduce it to a shouting match, they diminish the institution and themselves.
We are told this is passion. We are told this is fearless truth-telling. We are told this is youthful energy disrupting complacency. No. Passion without discipline is chaos. Fearlessness without substance is noise. Youthful energy without preparation is simply immaturity amplified by a microphone.
The tragedy is not merely that tempers flared. It is that the substantive work of governance was sidelined, again. At a time when unemployment remains stubbornly high, when young graduates are desperate for opportunity, when public health systems strain under pressure, and when economic recovery requires careful stewardship, the National Assembly chose to debate identity in its most superficial form.
What message does this send to the very youth in whose name so much of this theatre is performed?
It tells them that institutions are props. It tells them that constitutional offices are arenas for personal branding. It tells them that rhetoric matters more than research, and confrontation more than competence.
And yet, these are the same young politicians who aspire to manage ministries, oversee budgets, and shape national policy in the decades to come. If they cannot respect the sanctity of parliament today, what confidence should the public have that they will protect its integrity tomorrow?
Nation-building is a serious project. It requires maturity, discipline and intellectual rigour. It demands that those entrusted with authority understand both the limits and the weight of their mandate. It calls for leaders who can disagree fiercely while upholding shared rules.
Whatever unfolded in Parliament this week had nothing to do with nation-building.
It was not about strengthening oversight. It was not about improving educational outcomes. It was not about youth empowerment, sport development or cultural advancement. It was about spectacle.
And spectacle is cheap. The deeper concern is cultural. If young leaders model contempt for procedure and flirt with racial insinuation, they normalise it. They shift the boundaries of acceptable discourse. They invite citizens to view institutions not as guardians of democracy but as battlegrounds for ego.
Namibia is a young country. Our democratic institutions are barely three decades old. They require nurturing, not neglect. They require leaders who elevate debate, not degrade it.
This editorial is not an indictment of youth as a category. It is an indictment of behaviour. There are young Namibians across sectors, in business, civil society, academia and the professions, who demonstrate discipline, competence and vision daily. They do not confuse volume with value.
The National Assembly should reflect that standard, not undermine it. If the next generation of political leaders wishes to be taken seriously as custodians of the Republic, it must act like it. Preparation matters. Respect for rules matters. An understanding of constitutional principles matters.
The House must restore order, not merely procedurally but culturally. Political parties must exercise internal discipline. Leaders must insist that their members elevate discourse rather than inflame it. The youth of Namibia deserve representatives who embody the future they claim to champion: inclusive, thoughtful and grounded in law.
If this week’s chaos is a preview of what lies ahead, then the country has every reason to be concerned. Democracy is not sustained by noise. It is sustained by responsibility. The question remains: is this truly the future our young leaders intend to offer?
