A CRITIQUE OF SAM NUJOMA’S LEGACY
By: Gideon Kapuka
Sam Nujoma, the founding president of the Republic of Namibia, is undeniably a pivotal figure in the country's history. As a central leader in the struggle for independence from South African colonial rule, he is hailed as a hero who brought Namibia to the threshold of freedom. However, a critical examination of his presidency uncovers a more troubling legacy—one that is marked not only by the persistence of deep poverty and inequality but also by widespread corruption that undermined the very principles of the liberation struggle.
While Nujoma's role in securing Namibia's independence is not up for debate, the economic and social promises that accompanied that liberation were left largely unfulfilled. The slogan of "it's our time now" is emblematic of a mindset that has plagued many post-independence African leaders, and Nujoma was no exception. Under his leadership, the wealth and resources of the nation became concentrated in the hands of a few elites—many of whom were directly connected to the political establishment. The result was a growing chasm between the privileged few and the vast majority of Namibians, who continued to live in abject poverty, deprived of the prosperity that was supposed to come with independence.
One of the most significant disappointments of Nujoma’s presidency is his inability—or unwillingness—to tackle corruption within his own government. From the very beginning of his tenure, there were numerous reports of corruption, particularly within the ranks of his closest allies and family members. Nujoma’s failure to address these issues has had long-lasting consequences, with the government becoming increasingly entangled in a web of nepotism, bribery, and embezzlement. Ministers, many of whom had close personal ties to the president, were able to engage in corrupt activities with impunity, secure in the knowledge that their political connections would shield them from accountability.
The most glaring example of this corruption was the involvement of senior officials in misappropriating state funds, with little to no intervention from Nujoma. Despite public outcry and calls for action, the president largely turned a blind eye to the issue, allowing the culture of corruption to flourish. This failure to act not only fueled public distrust in the government but also exacerbated the inequality that was already present. It’s hard to believe that a leader who had spent his life fighting for liberation could overlook the systemic exploitation of the people he fought for. The reality, however, was that many of those in power, including Nujoma’s inner circle, became more focused on preserving their wealth and status rather than improving the lives of ordinary Namibians.
The lack of a strong middle class in Namibia is another direct result of Nujoma's leadership. A thriving middle class is essential to the development of any nation, yet under his administration, the conditions for such a class to grow were stifled. Rather than creating an environment where citizens could achieve upward mobility through education and employment, the government maintained a structure that was heavily reliant on a small elite class that had the resources to control much of the country’s wealth. This led to a nation of haves and have-nots, with the masses remaining dependent on handouts or struggling to make ends meet. Those few who did manage to secure government jobs were often stuck in positions that paid just enough to cover basic living expenses, leaving little room for personal or professional growth.
Nujoma’s failure to reform the country’s economic system, which was still heavily influenced by the remnants of apartheid-era structures, contributed to the deepening of poverty and inequality. While political freedom was achieved, economic freedom was a far more elusive goal for the majority of Namibians. Despite the government’s rhetoric of progress, the reality was that many of the country’s resources were being siphoned off by corrupt officials, leaving little for infrastructure development, healthcare, or education—sectors that are vital to the well-being of a nation’s people.
What makes this even more troubling is the fact that Nujoma had the opportunity to address these issues but chose not to. During his time in office, Namibia was not devoid of voices calling for reform and anti-corruption measures. Yet, despite these calls, Nujoma rarely took decisive action against his corrupt ministers. The message was clear: loyalty to the ruling party and to the president was far more important than the well-being of the nation’s citizens. In a democracy, a leader’s responsibility is not to his family or friends but to the people who entrusted him with their hopes and dreams for a better future. Nujoma’s failure to confront corruption directly undermined the very foundation of Namibia’s political independence.
Despite the challenges and flaws in his administration, Nujoma’s defenders often cite his role in achieving peace and freedom for Namibia. While these accomplishments should not be dismissed, it is important to remember that true liberation cannot be defined by political autonomy alone. It must also encompass economic and social justice, where the benefits of freedom extend to every citizen, not just the political elite. The persistence of widespread poverty, corruption, and inequality in Namibia, long after Nujoma’s presidency ended, indicates that the struggle for true freedom is far from over.
In conclusion, while Sam Nujoma will forever be remembered as the father of Namibia's independence, his legacy is complicated by the corruption that permeated his government, the deepening poverty of the Namibian people, and his failure to foster a truly inclusive society. The question remains: did he truly liberate Namibia, or did he merely replace one form of oppression with another? The hope for Namibia’s future lies in confronting the realities of this history and creating a system that truly serves the needs of all its citizens, rather than allowing a few to continue benefiting from the fruits of liberation at the expense of the majority.
I empathetically agree, but in as much as we want to target an individual we can't shy away from the fact that he was not the only one who could have changed and made Namibia a better place for us. He had representatives in all spheres be it finance, education and others. I am still waiting for better leaders that will really care and have people's interest at heart the proactive leaders that will represent majority but not rich minorities. I really want to see people that are not megalomaniacs but true called leaders.
ReplyDeleteMay our Tatekulu's soul rest in power he did his part now it's up to us.