PAUL T. SHIPALE (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
Windhoek recently witnessed a familiar ritual: the honoring of a giant. The launch of a lavish coffee table and Pictorial book celebrating Founding Father Sam Shafiishuna Nujoma served as a potent reminder of the liberation generation – those figures across our continent who stared into the abyss of colonial power and dared it to blink.
Attended by Namibia’s political and business elite, the event pulsed with reverence for the man synonymous with the nation’s birth. Yet, beneath the veneer of celebratory unity, deeper, more unsettling questions stirred about legacy, leadership, and the future trajectory of the Namibian – and indeed, the Pan-African – project.
We feel proud to witness various initiatives and activities that have been carried out in the country since the passing of our Founding President and Father of the Namibian Nation in order to maintain his legacy and continue to pay homage to him for his immense contribution to the Independence of our country and to nation building.
In this regard, the pictorial book will not only provide information to the present generation but will also be of use to the future generation and we are pleased that this book vividly illustrates the life of the Founding President of Namibia and First President of the SWAPO Party and the leader of the Namibian Revolution as it reflects his life in exile and post-independence.
The book itself, a visual chronicle sponsored by the United Africa Group under Dr. Martha Namundjebo-Tilahun, is presented as a testament to resilience, a necessary act of memory preservation. But memory, let us be clear, is never neutral. It is curated, contested, and strategically deployed. Whose resilience is centered? Which facets of the titanic struggle are illuminated, and which remain shrouded in shadow?
The very act of framing Nujoma’s legacy through glossy pages, underwritten by capital, demands critical scrutiny. Is this genuine remembrance, or is it the sanitization required to render a revolutionary palatable for the boardroom?
A pivotal moment arrived with President Nangolo Mbumba’s keynote address, culminating in the coining of the term “Nujomayist.” This neologism ripped through the polite applause, prompting immediate questions. Was it merely a descriptor, an attempt to capture the essence of Nujoma’s fierce independence and Pan-African zeal? Or was it a calculated political maneuver, a subtle demarcation within the ongoing, often unspoken, factional currents in the SWAPO Party – perhaps a counterpoint to perceived ‘Hageists’?
The introduction of this label forces a critical question upon Namibia and observers across Africa: How do we engage with the legacies of our liberators without embalming them in dogma or weaponizing them in contemporary power struggles? Is ‘Nujomayism’ a call to emulate revolutionary courage, or a shield against necessary critique?
To truly grapple with the Founding Father Nujoma’s legacy, we must move beyond hagiography and dissect the raw mechanics of his power and strategy. Political science offers the concept of brinkmanship – the calculated dance on the edge of catastrophe – as a potentially illuminating lens. This wasn’t mere recklessness; it was, arguably, the essential tool of the liberation strategist facing overwhelming odds.
Consider the Nobel laureate Thomas C. Schelling’s framework: brinkmanship as the art of manipulating shared risk, leveraging the threat of mutual disaster to compel an adversary’s hand. It necessitates credible commitment – convincing your opponent you will jump if pushed – and a mastery of the psychological battlefield.
Did Nujoma embody this? Consider the 1966 decision to launch the armed struggle at Omugulugwombashe. With minimal resources arrayed against the formidable might of apartheid South Africa, this was a quintessential act of Schellingian audacity. By creating an intolerable risk for the occupiers, Founding President Nujoma internationalized the conflict, forcing the world to pay attention.
His earlier escape into exile in 1960, establishing SWAPO and later PLAN abroad, wasn’t merely flight; it was a strategic relocation of the conflict’s center of gravity. It was a maneuver to harness external pressure points – the OAU, the UN, the International Anti-Apartheid Movement and the Progressive countries around the globe – against Pretoria. This demonstrated controlled escalation, skillfully playing the Cold War game while remaining tethered to the singular goal of Namibian liberation.
This ‘Nujomayist’ brinkmanship, however, possessed a distinctively African character. It wasn’t solely about the cold calculus of deterrence; it was profoundly infused with the spirit of Ubuntu. Founding President Nujoma didn’t just threaten the White Minority South African regime; he mobilized a continent. By securing OAU backing and framing Namibia’s fight as Africa’s fight, he dramatically raised the ‘audience cost’ of failure for every African state. Retreat became unthinkable, not just for SWAPO, but for the collective Pan-African conscience. This fusion of strategic risk-taking with communal commitment is perhaps the core of the ‘Nujomayist’ approach – a potent, if not perilous, combination.
Even after independence, echoes of this strategic mindset persisted. The ambitious, perhaps audacious, proposal for a deep-water port at Cape Fria, challenging the entrenched economic geography inherited from colonialism, can be interpreted as peacetime brinkmanship. It represented a disruptive gambit aimed at forcing development into neglected regions, threatening the status quo not with arms, but with economic re-imagination and socio-spatial engineering. Though ultimately unrealized, it signaled a resolute refusal to accept the limitations imposed by the past and the so-called colonial masters.
Yet, herein lies the danger that President Mbumba’s neologism perhaps unintentionally highlights. Brinkmanship, as Schelling himself warned, can decay. When strategy ossifies into ritual, when a leader’s specific tactics are codified into an inflexible ‘ism,’ it loses its adaptive genius. Does ‘Nujomayism’ risk becoming a justification for present-day political rigidity, a means to shut down dissent by invoking the aura of the Founding Father? The true inheritance of Nujoma’s legacy lies not in blind adherence, but in the courage to adapt his method – calculated risk-taking in pursuit of justice – to the vastly different challenges confronting Namibia and Africa today.
In light of the ongoing discourse surrounding the public image and strategic legacy of the Founding Father of the Namibian Nation, H.E. Dr. Sam Shafiishuna Nujoma it is crucial to speak with both candor and historical sensitivity. It is inevitable that many, particularly those uneasy with an unflinching reckoning with our revolutionary past, will attempt to frame Founding Father Sam Nujoma’s image reductively, often negatively. They may seek to pathologize his methods, question his motives, or reframe his audacity as mere recklessness. We must assert, however, with clarity and intellectual rigor, that his actions were not abstract impulses. They were deeply rooted in realpolitik, shaped by the unforgiving terrain of colonial confrontation, and guided by the strategic logic of brinkmanship.
To understand Founding Father SamNujoma, and by extension the ‘Nujomayist’ praxis, referencing Thomas C. Schelling remains essential. Schelling, the most incisive theorist on this perilous art, defined brinkmanship not as madness, but as controlled instability. It is the practice of pushing a situation to the very edge – not to fall, but to force a fundamental recalibration of power by one’s opponent. Nujoma, in his calculated escalation from exile to international diplomacy, from the first shots at Omugulugwombashe to the podiums of the United Nations, engaged precisely in this method: manipulating shared risk to shift the global moral and political landscape.
The criticism he sometimes faces today arises partly from discomfort with the inherent costs of courage, especially when that courage unsettles the established order. But these critiques often misunderstand the function of revolutionary brinkmanship within a colonized context. Nujoma’s was not a nihilistic gamble; it was a wager backed by profound historical necessity and strategic foresight – an African translation of Schelling’s game theory, infused with a communal ethos and Pan-African urgency.
Therefore, the framing of his legacy – whether in books, speeches, or slogans like “Nujomayism” – must rigorously avoid both sanitization and mythologizing. Our task is interrogation, not embalming; animating the past for contemporary relevance. We honor the Titan not by freezing him in historical amber, but by studying the strategic grammar of his actions and adapting that grammar to new terrains of struggle, from climate justice to economic decolonization.
So yes, some will attempt to dismiss or diminish the Founding Father Sam Nujoma’s image – but this only underscores the enduring potency of his legacy. As Schelling reminds us, brinkmanship functions only if the threat is credible. The Founding Father Sam Nujoma was. And today, in an Africa yearning for transformative leadership, that credibility of courage, not mere conformity, must once again become our compass.
This coffee table book, therefore, should not be the final word, but rather an opening provocation. It invites us – Namibians and the wider African family – to look unflinchingly at the past, acknowledging not just the triumphs, but the terrifying risks taken and the hard choices made. The contemporary struggles for economic sovereignty, climate justice, and genuine continental unity demand their own forms of brinkmanship. They demand leaders willing to challenge entrenched global power structures, to risk diplomatic fallout for developmental gain, and to pursue audacious visions even when the path seems perilous.
As we honor the Titan, let us never forget the tightrope he walked. The crucial question echoing beyond the Hilton’s walls is not simply what Nujoma did, but how he navigated the precipice. Are we, the inheritors of these hard-won freedoms, willing to engage in the necessary, calculated risks required to secure a truly liberated future? Or will we retreat from the edge, content with glossy books, dinner parties and wining with comfortable commemorations, while the substantive work of transformation remains undone? The legacy of Founding Father Sam Nujoma is not a comfortable armchair; it is a permanent, demanding station at the edge, requiring constant vigilance and revolutionary foresight. Let those who want to challenge the Founding Father’s legacy be warned that we remain vigilant and watching their every move closely just as we saw them with eagle eyes when they were jumping three hedges and attempting to remove us from the Office and the Founding Father came to our rescue. Once again, we hope there is neither veiled attempt to occupy the Office of the Founding Father nor remove his officials from Office or even his namesake whom he personally named after himself.
On a lighter note, we are happy that Ambassador Neville Gertze was appointed as the Executive Director in the Private Office of the President. We are also delighted that Mr. Matheus Kaholongo who was acting as the Executive Director in the Office of the President has now been appointed permanently to that position. Congratulations to both gentlemen and wish them all the best. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers and this newspaper but solely our personal views as citizens and Pan-Africanists.
