Paul T. Shipale (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
The question few dare to answer
What troubles you more, acknowledging your own lack of competence, or admitting that your proximity to power is a personal privilege that, more often than not, comes at the expense of the national interest?
This question is not directed at one individual or one institution. It is directed at every society that has allowed personal loyalty to overshadow merit, competence and accountability.
It is also a question that demands intellectual honesty.
Most people find it easier to defend their position as the human ego naturally seeks validation. It prefers to believe that every achievement is the product of talent and hard work, even when invisible privileges have opened doors that remained closed to others.
Yet nations are not built upon comforting illusions. They are built upon uncomfortable truths.
The difference between trust and favoritism
Every functioning society depends on trust.
Leaders must surround themselves with people they know and trust. Businesses recruit individuals whose judgment they respect. Governments rely on advisers whose integrity they have tested over time.
Trust, therefore, is not the enemy.
The problem begins when trust replaces competence instead of complementing it.
A healthy institution appoints competent people it can trust.
A dysfunctional institution appoints trusted people regardless of competence.
That distinction determines whether institutions become engines of national development or instruments of personal preservation.
The psychology of privilege
One of the greatest obstacles to institutional reform is psychological rather than political.
Very few people willingly acknowledge that privilege has contributed to their success.
Doing so requires humility.
It demands admitting that others, perhaps more qualified, never received the same opportunity.
Instead, many convince themselves that every promotion, appointment or recognition resulted solely from merit.
This self justification protects self esteem, but it also protects injustice.
The refusal to recognise privilege is often the first step towards normalising it.
Eventually, favour becomes entitlement.
Entitlement becomes culture.
Culture becomes institutional decay.
When merit stops mattering
The greatest tragedy of favouritism is not merely that some people are promoted.
It is that competent people eventually stop trying.
When professionals repeatedly witness excellence being overlooked while mediocrity is rewarded, motivation slowly disappears.
Some remain silent.
Others emigrate.
Many simply lower their expectations.
This silent withdrawal represents one of the greatest losses any nation can suffer.
Countries rarely collapse because they lack talented people.
They decline because talented people cease believing that talent matters.
Authority without legitimacy
Power can appoint but only competence can legitimise.
Holding office should never be confused with earning respect.
Authority can compel obedience while legitimacy inspires confidence.
History repeatedly demonstrates that institutions led by individuals who lack credibility eventually become dependent upon fear, patronage or propaganda rather than performance.
Leadership that depends exclusively upon loyalty becomes increasingly insecure.
Leadership grounded in competence becomes increasingly respected.
The hidden cost of proximity politics
The consequences of favouritism extend far beyond individual careers.
They affect the entire architecture of national development.
When competence is replaced by proximity, public resources are allocated inefficiently, innovation slows, investors lose confidence, public administration becomes bureaucratic rather than productive, corruption finds fertile ground and young people begin believing that connections matter more than education.
Perhaps the most dangerous consequence is cultural.
Society gradually accepts injustice as normal.
The phrase “knowing the right person” becomes more valuable than “being the right person.”
Once this mentality becomes institutionalised, national progress becomes increasingly difficult.
The fear of competence
Ironically, incompetence often fears competence more than criticism.
Competent individuals expose inefficiency simply by performing better.
Their success becomes an uncomfortable mirror.
Rather than improving standards, fragile systems often eliminate comparison.
Independent thinkers become inconvenient.
Professionals become threats.
Excellence becomes political.
This is how mediocrity reproduces itself.
Not through superiority, but through protection.
Blind loyalty versus responsible leadership
Every institution eventually faces a defining choice.
Should loyalty be directed toward individuals or toward principles?
Blind loyalty rewards agreement.
Responsible leadership rewards truth.
The healthiest organisations encourage disagreement because disagreement improves decisions.
Weak institutions punish independent thinking because independent thinking threatens established hierarchies.
The paradox is obvious.
Those who demand absolute loyalty frequently receive the poorest advice.
Those who tolerate criticism usually make better decisions.
Patriotism beyond personal networks
True patriotism is frequently misunderstood.
It is not unconditional loyalty to leaders.
It is not defending incompetence because it belongs to one’s political faction, ethnic group or personal network.
Patriotism means defending the long term interests of the nation, even when doing so becomes personally uncomfortable.
Protecting an incompetent official does not demonstrate solidarity.
It demonstrates indifference toward the citizens who will ultimately bear the consequences of poor governance.
A nation cannot prosper when personal relationships consistently outweigh public responsibility.
The responsibility we rarely discuss
It is tempting to blame political elites alone.
However, societies also sustain systems of favouritism.
Every time citizens seek influence instead of fairness…
Every time qualifications become secondary to personal recommendations…
Every time integrity is mocked as naïve…
The culture of patronage becomes stronger.
Institutional failure is rarely created by leaders alone.
It is reinforced by collective acceptance.
Character is often revealed not by the opportunities we pursue but by those we refuse.
History’s verdict
Throughout history, civilisations have seldom declined because they lacked intelligent people.
They declined because they abandoned merit in favour of privilege.
Empires weakened when loyalty replaced competence.
Governments stagnated when appointments became political rewards.
Corporations collapsed when family ties outweighed professional ability.
Conversely, societies that have achieved sustained prosperity have generally strengthened institutions where merit, accountability and transparency prevailed over personal proximity.
History offers a remarkably consistent lesson.
No nation can permanently outperform the quality of the people it entrusts with responsibility.
The question that defines nations
Perhaps the original question should now be expanded.
The issue is no longer whether an individual possesses competence or benefits from proximity.
The deeper question is what kind of nation are we building when proximity is rewarded more than competence, loyalty is valued more than truth, and privilege is protected more than justice?
That said, it doesn’t mean there are no visionary leaders with the ability of “ talent management and talent spotting” (Cappelli, 2018). We are here referring to leaders such as Founding President Sam Nujoma.
There is no single person in Namibia who has become a President or Prime Minister, including the Vice President, who didn’t go through what one can call ‘Nujoma’s talent spotting model’. This includes the current leadership in the eighth administration.
Founding Father Nujoma, given his pragmatic personality, he had a hands-on approach in identifying leadership potential as described by Charan et al. ( 2011) as accumulated skills, experience, evidence of past achievements, ability to learn new skills and willingness to tackle bigger, more complex, or high-quality assignments( Professor Keto E. Mshigeni et al.
Teaching and Leading by Example; the Story of Sam Nujoma). Indeed, some of us consider ourselves very lucky and blessed to have been spotted and mentored by our Founding Father Dr Sam Nujoma. Ahsante sana, Mheshimiwa Rais wa Kwanza! ( Thank you very much Your Excellency, the Founding President!)
Every generation inherits institutions.
It also decides whether those institutions will become stronger or weaker.
The future will not be determined by those who stood closest to power.
It will be determined by those who possess the courage to place competence above convenience, integrity above influence, and the national interest above personal privilege.
For in the end, history does not remember those who merely occupied positions of authority.
It remembers those who transformed authority into service, privilege into responsibility, and power into a force for national progress.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers or this newspaper. They represent our personal views as citizens and Pan-Africanists.
