Namibia must find a way to preserve traditional leadership without financing tribalism, rewarding succession battles or turning cultural titles into gateways to state resources.
When six traditional authorities received vehicles valued at N$4.29 million in Otjiwarongo this week, the handover was presented as an investment in traditional leadership and community development.
The vehicles, supplied by Oonani Investments Group, the business arm of the Namibia Traditional Authorities Trust, were valued at N$715,000 each.
The minister of urban and rural development, James Sankwasa, attended the ceremony. The initiative is supported by revenue from government fishing quotas allocated to the trust.
There is nothing inherently wrong with providing traditional authorities with the resources necessary to serve their communities.
Chiefs and headpersons cannot be expected to perform legitimate administrative duties, attend community meetings and address rural development needs without adequate logistical support.
But the handover raises a much bigger question about the relationship between traditional leadership, public resources, ethnic identity and nation-building.
How does Namibia sustain traditional authorities without inadvertently sustaining tribalism?
And, more provocatively, can Namibia build a common national identity while the institutions responsible for preserving traditional identities sometimes become arenas for ethnic competition, succession battles and contests over access to resources?
These are uncomfortable questions, but a country serious about nation-building cannot afford to avoid them
When the tribe must give way to the nation
The Tanzanian statesman Julius Nyerere is widely associated with the provocative formulation that, for the nation to live, the tribe must die.
The precise wording and attribution of the familiar quotation are sometimes disputed, but the underlying argument is unmistakable: a newly independent African nation cannot flourish if ethnic allegiance consistently takes precedence over common citizenship.
Nyerere was not advocating the destruction of African cultures, languages or traditions. His political project was to cultivate a national identity capable of uniting diverse communities around a shared future.
That distinction matters enormously in Namibia.
Our Constitution recognises the equal dignity of citizens and protects cultural, linguistic and religious diversity.
Traditional authorities also have a recognised place in our constitutional and legislative framework. They are not relics that can simply be abolished by presidential decree.
Indeed, traditional leadership can contribute meaningfully to social cohesion, the preservation of indigenous knowledge, customary dispute resolution and community development.
The danger arises when cultural identity becomes a political instrument, when belonging to a particular community is treated as a qualification for preferential access to opportunity, or when traditional institutions become vehicles for competition over state recognition, financial benefits and influence.
The objective should therefore not be to kill the tribe in the literal sense. It should be to eliminate tribalism as a governing principle while preserving the cultural inheritance that gives communities their identity.
Namibia needs its traditions. It does not need a politics in which ethnicity determines who deserves power, resources or recognition.
The expensive business of succession
One of the most troubling features of Namibia’s traditional leadership landscape is the recurring spectacle of succession disputes that end up in the courts.
These battles are not merely family disagreements about genealogy, customary rules or the rightful occupant of a throne.
They can divide communities, create rival factions, delay administration and consume public resources through investigations, litigation and prolonged uncertainty.
At the 27th annual meeting of the Council of Traditional Leaders in Otjiwarongo this week, President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah warned that succession disputes were draining state resources and weakening communities.
She also called for traditional leaders to address corruption, land grabbing, illegal fencing and the unauthorised sale of communal land.
The President’s warning deserves serious attention.
A traditional authority exists to serve a community, not to hold that community hostage to a leadership dispute.
Of course, litigation is a constitutional right. Nobody should be prevented from approaching the courts when customary procedures have been violated, when a decision is unlawful or when legitimate rights have been infringe.
Nor should the government impose its preferred candidate on a community simply because a succession dispute has become inconvenient.
But there is a difference between protecting the right to justice and allowing succession disputes to become a recurring drain on public administration.
The question is why so many disputes prove so difficult to resolve within the customary systems that traditional authorities themselves administer.
If a community’s customary law determines succession, those rules should be documented, understood and applied consistently.
The process should not suddenly become mysterious when a leader dies and competing claimants emerge.
The government should work with traditional authorities to establish clear succession procedures, credible mediation mechanisms and customary appeals processes, while preserving access to the courts where necessary.
More importantly, it must confront the incentives surrounding traditional office.
We must be careful not to accuse individual claimants of pursuing titles for financial gain without evidence. Some succession disputes arise from genuine disagreements about genealogy, custom and legitimacy.
Nevertheless, it would be naïve to ignore the possibility that access to state-funded allowances, administrative resources, land-related influence and other benefits can increase the stakes of a succession battle.
When a title carries material advantages beyond the responsibility to serve, the temptation to fight over it becomes greater.
This is not unique to Namibia. Research examining traditional governance in the country has documented how state recognition, financial incentives and political relationships can shape competition among traditional authorities.
It has also highlighted the proliferation of claims for recognition and the difficulties associated with resolving succession disputes.
The implication is not that traditional leaders are inherently self-interested. It is that institutions must be designed to reward service rather than make office an attractive prize in itself.
Who is accountable to whom?
The vehicle handover brings this question into sharp focus.
The funding arrangement involves a trust whose business arm receives revenue from government fishing quotas. The trust says it is using those resources to support traditional authorities and their communities.
That may be a legitimate and worthwhile objective. But where public resources, state-granted commercial opportunities and community benefits intersect, transparency becomes indispensable.
Namibians should be able to understand how the quotas were allocated, how the trust generates and manages its revenue, how decisions about expenditure are made and what criteria determine which traditional authorities receive support first.
The public should also know what obligations accompany the assistance.
Are the vehicles intended for official community duties? Who is responsible for fuel, maintenance and insurance? Will their use be audited? What happens when a vehicle is used for purposes unrelated to the community?
These are not hostile questions. They are basic questions of accountability.
If the vehicles are genuinely instruments of service delivery, their use should be demonstrable. Traditional authorities should be able to report on the communities reached, administrative duties performed and practical benefits delivered.
The same principle should apply to other forms of assistance. A vehicle should not become a symbol of status. It should be a tool of service.
Nor should access to support depend on political loyalty, personal relationships or a traditional leader’s closeness to those in government.
Such perceptions, even when unsupported in a particular case, can undermine confidence in both government and traditional institutions.
Support must be allocated according to transparent, defensible criteria.
The state must stop confusing recognition with nation-building
The government has a delicate responsibility here.
Traditional authorities are neither ordinary private associations nor departments of the state.
They derive legitimacy from their communities’ customary systems, while their recognition and certain functions are governed by national law.
The Traditional Authorities Act provides for the recognition of traditional leaders, their responsibilities and the handling of disputes.
It also recognises the role of customary law, subject to the Constitution and other applicable legislation.
This framework should be strengthened where necessary, not manipulated for political convenience.
The government must resist the temptation to treat traditional leaders as political intermediaries whose value lies in their ability to deliver community support to a governing party.
Traditional authorities should not be rewarded for political allegiance, nor punished for expressing legitimate criticism.
Equally, traditional leaders must understand that cultural authority does not place them above constitutional obligations, financial accountability or the rights of the citizens they serve.
The state should not decide who a community’s rightful traditional leader is merely because one candidate is politically convenient.
But neither should the government allow unresolved leadership disputes to become permanent administrative arrangements that leave communities without effective leadership.
There must be clear rules, fair processes and reasonable expectations of resolution. And where a traditional authority receives public support, the corresponding obligation to demonstrate public benefit must be unmistakable.
Preserving culture without institutionalising tribalism
The most important distinction Namibia must make is between cultural pride and tribalism.
There is nothing wrong with an Oshiwambo-speaking Namibian celebrating language and heritage, a Nama community preserving customary practices, a Herero community maintaining its traditions, or a San community protecting its indigenous knowledge.
These are legitimate expressions of cultural identity.
Tribalism begins when identity becomes a basis for exclusion, hostility, preferential treatment or the belief that one’s community is inherently more entitled to power and resources than another.
Traditional authorities can either help bridge these divisions or reinforce them.
A responsible traditional leader should be a custodian of culture and a guardian of community welfare, while also recognising the equal citizenship of people beyond the boundaries of that community.
That means rejecting hate speech, discouraging ethnic scapegoating, cooperating across traditional boundaries and supporting national policies that advance the interests of all Namibians.
It also means ensuring that customary practices remain consistent with constitutional rights, including equality and human dignity.
We should not expect traditional authorities to abandon their identities. We should expect them to demonstrate that cultural preservation and national unity are compatible.
What must change?
First, the government should establish transparent standards for public funding and material support to traditional authorities. Every allocation should have a clear purpose, published criteria and appropriate oversight.
Second, succession procedures should be documented in accordance with the customary laws of individual communities.
Mediation and customary dispute resolution should be strengthened without removing the right to seek judicial protection.
Third, traditional authorities receiving public support should report periodically on their administrative activities, community engagement and use of resources.
Accountability should be proportionate to the assistance received and the functions performed.
Fourth, the government must maintain political neutrality in recognition and support decisions. Traditional leadership should not become an extension of party politics.
Finally, Namibia needs a stronger civic education programme that teaches citizens that cultural identity and national citizenship are complementary.
A Namibian does not become less Ovambo, Nama, Herero, Damara, Kavango, San or Caprivian by embracing a common national identity.
The nation is not the enemy of culture.
It is the framework within which different cultures can coexist as equals.
The tribe must not become bigger than the nation
The six vehicles delivered in Otjiwarongo may well improve the ability of their recipients to serve their communities. If they do, the initiative deserves recognition for what it achieves.
But the bigger test is whether Namibia can support traditional institutions without creating incentives for ethnic competition, political patronage or endless battles over office.
The country cannot afford a system in which traditional titles are coveted more for their material advantages than for the obligations they impose.
Nor can it afford succession disputes that repeatedly fracture communities while consuming the time and resources of public institutions.
Traditional leadership must be about service, not entitlement; stewardship, not status; and cultural preservation, not ethnic exclusion.
Nyerere’s challenge remains relevant because independence is not completed merely by raising a national flag or adopting a Constitution.
Nation-building is a continuous process of persuading citizens that they share a future greater than the sum of their separate identities.
Namibia should not seek to kill its tribes.
It should seek to kill the tribalism that places ethnic allegiance above equal citizenship, the patronage that turns recognition into a political reward, and the opportunism that makes public resources more attractive than public service.
The ultimate test of traditional leadership is not the grandeur of its titles, the age of its customs or the price of its vehicles.
It is whether the people it represents are better served, whether its institutions command legitimate respect, and whether it contributes to a country in which every citizen belongs.
The tribe can survive. The nation must prevail.
