Paul T. Shipale (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
The fundamental question of leadership
Given the recent diplomatic engagements of the Namibian Head of State, President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, with her counterparts in Ghana and Tanzania respectively, at first glance, the question we posed in our headline seems to be simple.
Yet, its deeper paradox is that it asks us, before anything else, to question the assumptions behind the two concepts advanced herein.
As such, our head question offers not merely a privilege or a responsibility to seek for an answer, but a rare opportunity to engage with a more fundamental question:
What type of leadership is being exercised? Is it a leadership of transformation or a leadership of transfiguration?
The distinction is neither semantic nor philosophical in the narrow sense. It is one of the most consequential questions in public life. Transformation changes realities. Transfiguration changes perceptions.
One builds and the other stages. One confronts facts and the other manages impressions. The future of nations often depends on their ability to distinguish between the two.
Diplomacy as a window into governance
The distinction becomes particularly visible in the conduct of foreign affairs.
Recent engagements of President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah with her fellow African Head of States of Ghana and Tanzania provide a useful illustration not because the visits themselves are the central issue, but because they illuminate a deeper constitutional question that; what is the purpose of executive authority in international relations, and how should democratic societies evaluate its exercise?
Diplomatic engagements are often assessed through the lens of visibility. Public attention tends to focus on state ceremonies, bilateral meetings, official communiqués, and declarations of cooperation.
Yet serious governance requires a different perspective. The central question is not whether diplomatic activity occurs. The central question is whether diplomatic activity produces transformation.
Does it strengthen institutions? Does it expand economic opportunity? Does it deepen national sovereignty? Does it improve the lives of citizens? These are the standards by which leadership must ultimately be measured and judged.
Leadership beyond visibility
Political theorist James MacGregor Burns distinguished transformational leadership from forms of leadership that rely primarily on symbolism, transaction, or short term political advantage.
Transformational leadership seeks to elevate institutions, strengthen collective capacity, and produce enduring change. It is measured not by visibility but by outcomes. Under this standard, diplomatic engagements acquire meaning only when they contribute to broader national objectives.
An international visit should not be viewed merely as an event but it should be viewed as an instrument. Its purpose is not to generate headlines but to advance national interests and its success should not be measured by the number of meetings held, agreements announced, or photographs published.
Rather, it should be measured by what follows: investments secured, technologies transferred, markets opened, institutions strengthened, and opportunities created. Transformation is not demonstrated only through activity. It is also demonstrated through results.
In this regard, we are glad to note that the President’s visit to Ghana has yielded positive results, especially when she attended a High Level Consultative Conference on Restorative Justice where she articulated in no uncertain terms that Africa is not asking the world to carry its pain; it is asking the world to recognize that the pain existed in the first place.
In addition, the President said: “No people should have to convince others that their suffering is real. Real healing begins when people are allowed to tell their story”.
Indeed, it is time that Africa writes her own narrative. Africa does not need permission to write her story nor does she need external validation for her experiences to be considered legitimate.
We therefore fully concur with those who are saying, the fact that the President made her statement in Ghana, one of the places where the horrifying and inhuman Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade took place, gave her speech both symbolism and historical gravity.
Thus, transforming the event from an ordinary diplomatic engagement to an occasion that links the past with the present without romanticism and vindictive or accusatorial remarks.
In this regard, President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah said: “Africa is not seeking to open old wounds, Africa is seeking to heal the wounds that were never healed. The struggle for restorative justice is not driven by bitterness, it is driven by the belief that genuine reconciliation can only be achieved when truth is acknowledged, dignity is restored, and history is confronted with honesty.”
In fact, on that occasion, the Namibian Head of State supported the initiative championed by Ghana, the African Union and CARICOM to have the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade officially recognized as the gravest crime against humanity as Namibia also seeks for restorative justice in light of the nation’s quest for reparations of the genocide committed by the German imperial troops under the command of General Lothar Von Trotha against Ovaherero and Nama people between 1904 and 1908.
She linked the broader fight for reparations to Namibia’s ongoing moral and diplomatic discussions with Germany regarding the above mentioned genocide
She also appealed to African nations to unite in the pursuit of historical recognition and redress, remarking, “History has brought us to this moment. The question before us is whether we have the courage, readiness and unity to finish the work that previous generations began.”
Furthermore, while addressing business leaders in Accra, the President urged African nations to fully leverage the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), identifying agriculture, sports, and creative industries as vital to the continent’s transformation.
After her visit to Accra, Ghana, President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah proceeded to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, for a three-day state visit by the invitation of President Samia Suluhu Hassan, and engaged in high-level bilateral talks, addressing the Tanzania–Namibia Business Forum, and signing Memoranda of Understanding to boost bilateral trade and investment.
Her visit to Tanzania translated historic political solidarity into tangible economic cooperation as both leaders signed key MoUs targeting trade, agriculture, defence, and small to medium enterprises.
Furthermore, President Nandi-Ndaitwah called on African nations to trust and invest in one another’s economies, highlighting the deep historical ties Tanzania provided to Namibia during the liberation struggle.
The summit marked a strategic meeting between the continent’s only two female presidents, offering a platform to advance inclusive governance, gender equality, and sustainable agricultural value chains.
Once again, given that transformation requires institutional balance and transfiguration often begins when institutions become spectators to decisions rather than participants in them.
We can therefore confidently state that the engagements of the Namibian Head of State with her counterparts in Ghana and Tanzania were fruitful and transformative.
The constitutional architecture of foreign affairs
This brings us to another dimension of diplomacy in constitutional terms. Modern constitutional democracies recognize that foreign relations require both executive initiative and institutional restraint.
The conduct of diplomacy cannot be managed by permanent legislative negotiation, nor can it be entrusted entirely to executive discretion. Effective constitutional systems therefore distribute authority across institutions. Pursuant to Article 32 of the Namibian Constitution, the President acts as the Chief Representative of the State in international affairs.
This role encompasses the authority to negotiate, conclude, and sign international agreements on behalf of Namibia. The President may also delegate these responsibilities to Cabinet ministers or other duly authorized officials when specialized knowledge, technical expertise, or specific sector competence is required.
Such delegation facilitates the effective conduct of international relations while preserving the President’s overarching constitutional responsibility for the State’s external affairs. Such authority is neither ceremonial nor symbolic. It reflects the practical realities of statecraft.
States must negotiate trade agreements, investment frameworks, development partnerships, security arrangements, and multilateral commitments.
The executive branch is naturally positioned to perform these functions because diplomacy requires agility, coordination, and strategic leadership. Yet constitutional government does not end where executive authority begins.
The limits of executive power
The power to negotiate is not the same as the power to bind the nation. This distinction is fundamental, especially in view of the debate last week in Parliament whether the role of the legislature is simply to rubber stamp any international agreement negotiated, concluded and signed by the State.
This is after the Works and Transport Minister Veikko Nekundi recently motivated a motion in the National Assembly for Namibia to accede to full membership in the Maritime Organisation of Eastern, Southern, and Northern Africa (MOESNA).
Nekundi stated that this move will provide a structured platform to collaborate on maritime safety, security, and the harmonization of regional maritime policies. He emphasized that this will bolster Namibia’s ambitions to position the Port of Walvis Bay as a regional logistics hub without compromising the country’s sovereignty.
While the executive may negotiate and sign international instruments, constitutional systems typically reserve the authority of ratification, approval, or accession to Parliament. Under provisions such as Article 63, legislative institutions are entrusted with the responsibility of examining and approving international commitments before they acquire full legal and political effect.
This arrangement is not merely procedural, it is democratic as Parliament represents the will of the people who elected their representatives to Parliament as the ultimate sovereigns of the country.
International agreements may affect public finances, influence economic policy, regulate natural resources, create legal obligations, and shape national development for decades.
Such decisions cannot belong exclusively to the executive because sovereignty in a constitutional democracy is ultimately shared among institutions acting on behalf of the people.
Parliamentary scrutiny therefore serves not as an obstacle to diplomacy but as a source of legitimacy for diplomacy. The purpose of constitutional oversight is to ensure that international commitments become binding national decisions rather than merely executive decisions.
The deeper constitutional question is not whether agreements are signed. The deeper question is whether they are subjected to meaningful scrutiny. A Parliament that merely endorses agreements without rigorous examination weakens democratic accountability.
Equally, an executive that views parliamentary oversight as an inconvenience rather than a constitutional necessity risks undermining the legitimacy of foreign policy itself.
From agreements to outcomes
Ultimately, international agreements should not be evaluated by their signatures alone. They should be evaluated by their consequences. A trade agreement should increase trade.
An investment agreement should generate investment. A technology partnership should transfer technology. An educational partnership should strengthen human capital. An infrastructure agreement should improve productive capacity.
Diplomacy without measurable outcomes risks becoming ceremonial. Transformation requires evidence. It requires indicators that citizens can observe and evaluate as jobs created, exports expanded, investments realized, institutions strengthened, services improved and opportunities widened.
Without measurable outcomes, transformation itself risks becoming another narrative.
The ultimate test
The enduring constitutional question is therefore not who negotiates, who signs, or who appears on the international stage.
The deeper question is whether the exercise of constitutional authority translates into stronger institutions, greater economic sovereignty, democratic accountability, and improved conditions for citizens.
Where it does, diplomacy becomes an instrument of national transformation. Where it does not, diplomacy risks becoming an exercise in transfiguration; a politics of appearance that substitutes visibility for progress and spectacle for substance.
The true measure of diplomatic engagements is not found in state banquets, communiqués, ceremonial signatures, or official photographs. It is found years later in factories opened, jobs created, technologies acquired, institutions strengthened, and opportunities expanded.
Constitutional democracy therefore requires citizens, Parliament, and the executive alike to ask not merely what agreements were signed, but what realities were transformed.
Only then can diplomacy become an instrument of national renewal rather than a spectacle of national aspiration. History is rarely interested in how progress was described, it is interested in whether progress was achieved and perhaps the most important question any nation can ask is not whether its leaders claim to be transforming the country.
The decisive question is whether society can still distinguish transformation from its appearance. For when that capacity is lost, nations risk celebrating progress while remaining trapped within the very structures they believe they have overcome. Everything else is transfiguration. Only that is transformation.
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.
