Paul T. Shipale (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
Let us think legally or properly with Lazarino Poulson.
There are legal reflections that go beyond law because they force us to look at politics with greater precision.
Lazarino Poulson’s distinction between republic and legislature offers precisely such an opportunity to bring that reasoning into the Namibian context and ask whether what we so often call a “new era” is truly a new era or simply a new cycle within the same republic.
The question may appear semantic.
But it is not, it is constitutional, political and, above all, it is a question of institutional culture.
The republic is not the government. The government is not the party.
Namibia has been a constitutional Republic since independence in 1990.
The constitution established a sovereign, independent, democratic and unitary state, with its own institutions and an architecture based on the separation of powers.
Subsequent constitutional amendments did not transform Namibia into a “Second Republic” or a “Third Republic.” We continue to speak of the same Republic of Namibia.
If the republic remains the same, what exactly do we mean when we announce a “New Dawn”, a “New Era” or a “New Namibia”?
A new President may mean a change of leadership.
A new government may mean a change of administration.
A new National Assembly may mean a new parliamentary composition.
A new legislature means a new parliamentary cycle.
But none of these changes, by themselves, means the birth of a new republic.
The State continues. The constitution continues. The republic continues.
And this matters because a mature democracy must distinguish temporary occupants of political office from the permanent institutions of the State.
The President passes.
The minister passes.
The member of parliament passes.
The government passes.
The legislature passes.
The republic must remain.
So, when does a new era really begin?
This is the question we should be asking.
Because it is very easy to declare a new era.
Simply change the rhetoric, a few faces, announce a new policy.
Introduce a new political vocabulary, declare a “new beginning”.
But institutional transformation is something else.
A new era should be recognisable in the functioning of institutions and in the concrete experience of citizens.
If we continue to have the same patterns of appointments, the same networks of influence, the same administrative culture, the same lack of accountability, the same obstacles to merit and the same distance between citizens and the State, then perhaps we need to ask:
Has the era really changed, or have we simply changed the language used to describe it?
Namibia has a particular history that cannot be ignored
Our history makes this discussion even more delicate.
Namibia was not born simply from an electoral transition, it emerged from a national liberation struggle.
The Swapo Party played a central role in that struggle and, after independence, became the principal governing political force.
That history should not be erased.
But neither should it be confused with the constitutional architecture of the republic.
Here we need to distinguish between two forms of legitimacy: the historical legitimacy of liberation and the constitutional legitimacy of the State.
The first explains where we came from and the second determines how we are expected to govern.
A liberation movement may have led the struggle for independence.
But the independent republic does not belong to the movement, it belongs to its citizens.
A political party may win elections but it does not win ownership of the State.
A party may form the government but it does not become a republic.
This distinction is essential and it is not an argument against the Swapo Party.
It is an argument for the republic.
From liberation to constitutionalism
Perhaps this is the great transition that Namibia still needs to discuss more deeply.
During the liberation struggle, the central concern was how do we achieve freedom?
After independence, the concern became how do we govern a free State?
But there is a third question, perhaps even more important: how do we ensure that the free State does not become a permanent extension of those who won that freedom?
This is where constitutionalism enters the picture.
A liberation struggle creates historical legitimacy.
A constitution creates institutional legitimacy.
Elections renew political legitimacy.
These are different dimensions.
One does not eliminate the other.
And a healthy republic needs all three.
The party is not the State
Perhaps this is one of the most difficult conversations in post-liberation societies.
When a historic liberation movement becomes a governing party and remains in power for decades, a dangerous psychological overlap can emerge:
party = government = State = nation.
But constitutionally, these are not the same thing.
The nation is greater than the party.
The State is greater than the government.
The Republic is greater than any President.
And the constitution is superior to the temporary will of any political actor.
This separation does not weaken the State.
It strengthens the State.
Because a strong State is not one in which the party is strong.
It is one in which institutions are strong enough to survive changes of parties, governments and presidents.
And here enters the legislature
Lazarino Poulson’s reflection becomes particularly useful at this point.
A legislature is a parliamentary cycle.
It is temporary.
A republic is the constitutional structure of the State.
It endures for as long as the constitutional order remains.
Therefore, a new legislature is not a new republic.
An election does not reinvent the State.
A parliamentary majority does not receive a licence to reshape every institution in its own image.
It receives a mandate to govern within the constitution.
The distinction may appear small but it is precisely from these apparently small distinctions that a strong constitutional culture is built.
The new President and the meaning of “new”
The arrival of Her Excellency Dr Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah to the Presidency on 21 March 2025 marked an important change in Namibia’s political leadership.
It is legitimate to speak of a new political cycle.
It is legitimate to expect new priorities from the “eight administration”
It is legitimate to expect new policies.
But one concern should accompany all these expectations; what is new about the way power is exercised?
Because changing the holder of office is one thing.
Changing the culture of power is another.
A new era cannot simply be a succession of speeches about change.
It must produce observable changes.
More merit, accountability, transparency, efficiency and more oversight.
Greater respect for procedures.
Stronger institutional independence.
More opportunities for people who do not have privileged access to power.
More State.
Less personalisation of the State.
The real test of the “New Dawn”
If we are truly entering a “New Dawn”, then we need indicators.
Citizens should be able to ask are institutions stronger?
Is parliament exercising stronger oversight?
Is the public administration working better?
Does merit count more than proximity?
Are economic opportunities more inclusive?
Has accountability for public office increased?
Is the distinction between party and State clearer?
Does the ordinary citizen feel that the State belongs to them as much as it belongs to the political and economic elites?
If the answer is yes, then we are witnessing something greater than a change of government.
We are witnessing institutional transformation.
But if only the speeches, slogans, faces and office holders have changed, then perhaps we need to say something uncomfortable, we may not necessarily be witnessing a new era; we may simply be witnessing a new administration of the old reality.
Independence cannot be the end point
The generation of independence had a historic mission to liberate the country and build a sovereign State.
The next generation had the responsibility of consolidating that State.
Our generation has perhaps an even more difficult task to transform political sovereignty into institutional sovereignty.
Because a country can be internationally independent and still remain institutionally dependent on personal networks.
It can have elections and still possess an excessively personalised political culture.
It can have an advanced constitution and still have weak institutions.
It can have a democratic republic and still confuse the governing party with the State.
Independence was a victory.
Institutionalising independence is a process.
Perhaps this is the real “New Era”
Perhaps a new era does not begin when a new President enters State House.
Perhaps it begins when an ordinary citizen can walk into a public office and discover that they do not need to know anyone to be treated with dignity.
When a qualified person gets an opportunity because of merit, not because they belong to the right network.
When a member of parliament can disagree without being treated as an enemy.
When a public servant can enforce the law without fearing political authority.
When an institution can say “no” to a powerful person because the law says “no”.
When a political party recognises that it has won an election, but has not won ownership of the State.
When a government understands that it has received a mandate, but not ownership.
When a President understands that they occupy the highest political office in the State, but remain subject to the constitution.
That is when a genuine new era begins.
Let us think legally or properly
This is why Lazarino Poulson’s question deserves to be transported into the Namibian context.
Not merely to debate words.
But to debate concepts.
Republic, State, government, party, parliament, legislature, mandate and constitution.
These are different words because they represent different realities.
And when we begin treating them as synonyms, we also begin confusing those who exercise power with what power is supposed to serve.
Perhaps, therefore, the question we should leave before our society is not “Are we in a new era?” But “What evidence do we have that we are in a new era?”
And more fundamentally “What has changed in the relationship between power and the citizen?”
Because a new Republic is not born simply from a new election.
And a new era is not born simply from a new Government.
The republic remains. The State remains. Governments pass. Legislatures pass. Parties pass. Generations pass.
The true legacy of a political generation will therefore be measured less by what it says about itself and more by what it leaves institutionalised for those who come after it.
Perhaps this is the great transition Namibia is still undertaking from the legitimacy of liberation to the responsibility of constitutionalism.
And perhaps the most provocative question of all is this; has the generation that created the republic succeeded in building institutions that no longer need its names in order to survive?
Because the true success of a liberation struggle does not occur when the liberators remain permanently indispensable.
It occurs when the republic they helped create becomes strong enough to belong to everyone and that is the transformation the country needs right now.
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.
