Few weeks ago, I authored an article titled ‘dangers of sloganeering presidents and brainwashed citizens’ providing lessons of history using the examples of Kenya’s Daniel arap Moi and Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda. I argued that evidence exists necessitating remembrance Moi’s Nyayo and Kaunda’s Humanism when looking atPresident Hage Geingob’s Harambee. Both doctrines led to disastrous consequences for Kenya and Zambia. It would be foolish not to learn from history. Archaeologist Robin Collingwood is instructive; “the only clue to what man can do is what man has done. The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus what man is”. Namibia can thus ignore history lessons at its own peril.
Joshua Razikua Kaumbi responded to my article on Tuesday 29 may 2018. That morning, an agitated acquaintance called labelling Razikua as a Geingob writing-cheerleader who was recently rewarded, like Afredo Tjiurimo Hengari, with SOEs Board positions. “Herold Binda and Shampapi Shiremo”, he persistently continued, “are the only writing cheerleaders whose writing is without reward". I had to interrupt him submitting that that while I cannot vouch for others, Razikua is a principled pan-Afrikan thinker who has agreed and disagreed with me on numerous political issues. I am disclosing private aspects, in support of debate, to illustrate the dangers of binary approach to public discourse. Razikua’s response must thus be welcomed.
He raises three points; Geingob regime exceptionalism, the defence of Harambee and call for million-dollar advisors to rise to his defence. Razikua main problem is that my article starts and ends with Geingob. I could simply respond by stating that a comparative analysis of Nyayo, Humanism and Harambee would of course start and end with Moi, Kaunda and Geingob. Such a response would be insufficient. For years, there has been a lazy narrative that sought to exonerate Geingob from accountability for 'former presidents didn’t face similar scrutiny'. Some even poorly conclude that it is because Geingob is from another tribe. This narrative, often driven by those with low political understanding hasn’t been challenged. Rizukua reinforces this narrative. It is time this narrative is dealt with decisively.
In 2016, Salomo Shilongo wrote an open letter to President Geingob which still circulates. He wrote that “when you heat the water, it goes through three stages. The first stage the water is cool, the second stage it becomes warm, then the third it turns hot. Namibia had three presidents since independence. During the time of the firstpresident the water was still cool. With the second president it became warm, then with the third president the water turns hot. So Mr President, people don’t hate you. You just took over when the water was hot. Be careful not to get burnt”. Shilongo’s water-stages analogy is a fitting response to ‘why Geingob’ pedestrians and cheerleaders.
In the 1950s and 1960s nationalist movements were at a cool-water period holding theoretical discussions and submitting petitions. Most SWAPO leaders, during this period, were in nice houses in Zambia frying eggs and wearing suits. SWAPO’s warm-water period came in the mid-1960s and hot-water period came in the 1970s. Imagine what would have happened if the youth, who constituted 95% of PLAN – SWAPO’s military wing, had asked the question ‘why now’ or 'why us'. Imagine what would have happened if traditional leaders had asked nationalist leaders where they were when they were fighting the Germans. Imagine a rapist asking why the victim did not report other rapists who raped her before.
If yesteryear youth failed to hold President Nujoma and Pohamba accountable, are we, hot-water-Geingob-era youth, supposed to continue being silent zombies just because previous youth were docile and failed their duties? When President Nujoma took office in 1990 I was only three years old and he left when I was 17; was I supposed to lead everyone at 17? At 25, during Pohamba’s era, I was at the forefront of radical discourse to the irritation and annoyance of many. At 27, when PresidentPohamba and Geingob couldn’t take the heat of radical politics, they led the charge of suspending and expelling me. The ‘why Geingob’ narrative is, therefore, a cheap attempt to shield Geingob from scrutiny and it will fail.
The arguments I submitted still stands unchallenged. Indeed, Harambee is evocative of Nyayo on many levels. The verbatim quotes of Nyayo and Harambee sloganeers-in-Chief demonstrates irrefutable similarities. By international standards, Kenya during the Nyayo dictatorship became synonymous with corruption prompting Michela Wrong, in the text analysing the Nyayo dictatorship, to publish a book titled ‘It’s Our Turn to Eat’. In Namibia, corruption has been increasing and is now on #SuperAweh. Geingob has admitted this fact and has identified the corrupt in his kitchen. The parallel between Nyayo and Harambee corruption remains founded and unchallenged.
In calling for appointees to defend Geingob, Razikua proposes that Geingob pursues Machiavelli politics whereby, in his words, “the prince [president] needs not to be loved but feared”. This is what Moi did under the Nyayo. If I failed to make out a case, Razikua’s own proposals draws Harambee more closer to Nyayo. Critical voices must still continue to speak truth, even if Geingob and Razikua are in discomfort. As he buys his N$ 120 000 bed, we must immediately recall what President Moi said in the 1970s about African President buying beds; “one can accumulate enough wealth to buy a golden bed, but one cannot buy sound sleep with money. It is better to eat boiled vegetables in an atmosphere of peace than to eat fried vegetables in an atmosphere of chaos”. Critical voices are beneficial for Praise-singers are costly. Listen to former Ghanian President regretting praise-singers; “the success or failure of a leader depends on the kind of people he or she surrounds themselves with...The praise-singing sycophants who act on the dictates of their stomachs are only specialized at telling you what you want to hear. Unfortunately, I did not listen to voices of reason”. Last year, President Pohamba miserably realised the brutal truth about the praise-singers; “being an observer you see a lot and hear a lot. I question, why was I not told all these things (problems) when I was in the office (as President). Perhaps, I would have made corrections”.
Job Shipululo Amupanda is a Senior Lecturer (political science) at the University of Namibia and a Decolonial Scholar and Activist with the Affirmative Repositioning movement. Email: jamupanda@unam.na
*An edited version of this article was originally published in the The Namibian newspaper (24 July 2018)