Africa – The Incomplete Continent

I’d like to contradict Kamwanyah’s opinion. https://www.namibian.com.na/59271/read/Africa-%E2%80%93-The-Incomplete-Continent

His view of African victimhood obscures the fact that mental and psychological liberation is not at all an exclusive African problem. In a globalised world these matters are driven more by the financial industry and international corporations like Google, Facebook,Disney, Microsoft etc. than by traditional African identity. The continent is defined by a land mass, not mentally or psychologically. The African mind is a very fuzzy construct.

The core of his reflections is the desire to restore the honor of the African people.

He claims “true development cannot be achieved without mental and psychological liberation first.” Is this claim daring, naive or stupid? He doesn’t give any arguments on its validity, thus it must be wishful thinking rather than a sociological law. He goes even further “complete ye first the mental and psychological liberation, and the rest shall follow.”

This is exactly the proceedings of the prophets from Nigeria or Mali, the prosperity gospel; probably his genuine idea of mental and psychological liberation!

As long as Africa has intellectuals and teachers that base their proposals on faith rather than empirical observations the African mind is in dire straits.

The essential prerequisite for a liberated mind and restoration of honor is to give the people back their dignity. A dignified life is based on a certain amount of economic freedom. As long as the mind is occupied by the tyranny of the stomach no liberation will happen. Mr. Kamwanyah just put the cart before the horse. Remember the philosopher’s word that ‘being determines the consciousness’?

A Modern German Lesson for Namibia's Prosperity

http://www.namibian.com.na/54652/read/A-Modern-German-Lesson 12. May 2017, Opinions Columns

http://www.namibian.com.na/54379/read/A-Modern-German-Lesson-for-Namibias-Prosperity  19 May 2017, Letters

Hengari’s analysis and advice is fundamentally wrong, be it from lack of research and comprehension or an abundance of naïvety and opportunism. The title should be: “A lesson how not to repeat the German example for Namibian prosperity”.
Today we are able to review the results of Schröder’s ‘Agenda 2010’. It is a picture book example that one can not trust a politician. Schröder’s promises turned out to be the breakthrough of the neoliberal economic principle: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The Agenda 2010 abandoned the social state and created a new class of precarious employment. Today about 30% of labour contracts are part time with wages below the poverty line. This looks good in the unemployment statistics, but is not enough for a decent living or retirement pensions. Germany now has the largest low wage labour force in Europe. This resulted in stealing jobs from Southern Europe (Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece) and exporting poverty to these countries. Germany has a tremendous export surplus, while forcing austerity measures on EU partners. The success of the agenda 2010 was achieved at the expense of the lower third of the population and Southern Europe. The upper 10% of the population got tax breaks (inheritance tax, tax on assets) and could easily increase their wealth. The Gini coefficient of Germany is constantly going worse (in direction to Namibia’s). Schröder’s measures killed the 150 year’s old tradition of Social Democracy sending his Social Democratic Party into insignificance (according to the latest elections).
This shows these neoliberal ‘reforms’ were not designed to enhance the common good as they pretended to be. This model will not work in Namibia, because it is not possible to cut down on the low wage labour (Namibia is already low wage throughout) and Namibia can not export poverty to its neighbours (because they are poor already).
In my opinion Geingob and the Namibian elite are not interested in eradicating poverty. They enjoy being above the ‘hoi polloi’ (the common people). The Harambee Prosperity Plan babble is just a smoke screen for pacifying the electorate, there is no political will for substantial reforms. It is at its best an example of well-meant, but poorly performed intentions, at the worst a sham.
To eradicate poverty the government had to transfer resources from the ‘nice to have’ institutions like the NDF, SOEs, inflated government and public service to the impoverished people. Even job creation and education would be only a drop on the hot stone, because Namibia can’t compete with even poorer nations like Bangladesh or Vietnam and educational skills will be devalued by Industry 4.0. Poverty is the guarantee for eternally continued poverty. History is watching...

So the amazing Alfredo crossed my way again. And he follows the proven rule: publish or perish. But it surprises me, that he still doesn’t care about the intellectual integrity and factual veracity of his musings, now since he is an approved scientist. That thrusts a possible explanation on me: he is training for and preparing a career in politics, where these qualities are negligible and cumbersome. 
The standard question from his last job interview: “Where do you see yourself in 10 or 20 years?”, he answered: “As the 5^th or 6^th President of the Republic of Namibia”.(Watch out! Satire)

Still, as at the time of German language teacher in Katutura, he is a ‘man too full of himself’.

Economic Ideas

Startups, Not Foreign Investors by Ndumba J Kamwanyah (http://www.namibian.com.na/46994/read/Startups-Not-Foreign-Investors)

I‘ d like to take the column “Indepth“ as a trigger to scrutinise economic ideas floating in the Namibian intellectual space. The fact that a respected economic expert comes up with a recommendation like this shows that the discussion about the economic improvement is in dire straits. His general assumption: “that reducing poverty through employment requires that we do the following: 1) generate employment opportunities, and 2) increase the employability of those seeking jobs“ seems very outdated to me. This is an idea of the 19.^th and 20^th century. Namibia tried to create jobs by attracting foreign investors and mainly by expanding the public service. The foreign investors approach didn’t work (remember Ramatex). The public service can only do so much. Job creation is not happening.

Startups would do nothing. They require clever business ideas and lots of capital. Both are not around. The women selling oshikundu and the kapana boys are not pregnant with potential and can’t be bothered with that. The banks and the well-offs invest their money in foreign businesses to get their margins. The business acumen of Namibians is modeled after the wisdom of the initial gold diggers: get rich fast and effortless. As long as connections, corruption and fraud are the way to get a house in Ludwigsdorf no-one will venture in a startup. The fact is Namibia has no business acumen at all. The government has no clue how to run an economy, except for asking for donations. It wasted the last 26 years by watching what was going on, instead of acting.

The elite of businessmen have rarely skills exceeding kuka shop level and the labour force is generally unemployable because of a lack of labour ethics. The population has no purchasing power beyond millie meal and toilet paper.

In a globalised neoliberal world on the brink of industry 4.0, where robots take over many blue and white collar jobs the crucial question is how can Africans fit in there.

I agree with Kamwanyah that the solution lies at home. Firstly there needs to be purchasing power in Namibia. That could be achieved with a generous BIG and minimum wages that allow a decent life. Economic progress is not the result of hoped for job creation, but eradication of poverty will result in economic progress and job creation. The GRN has to think in radical categories to make a difference. The ideas of yesteryear are useless. I’ d wish the line ministry would invest more in fresh ideas and experimentation than in PR stunts like Vision 2030 and NDP4. Academia must research economic strategies for the local environment instead of warming up decade old ideas from the West. Namibians need a change of mentality to succeed: from only looking good to achieving results.

Ruling a Nation State or a Traditional Village?

The next step of the Namibian Government against “the war on poverty” has been made with the conference on 26.10.15, which is commendable in itself. As an immediate measure GRN wants to establish food banks “with the assistance of our Cuban friends”. Cuba always rings favorably in Namibian ears, as a reference to the struggle and Cuban doctors. But “there are no food banks in Cuba” (John E. Jones: Faces of Capitalism and Socialism, 2009). Maybe the president refers to the Cuban Association of the Order of Malta (a Catholic charity). In his key note address to the National Conference on Wealth Redistribution and Poverty Eradication HE Geingob likes to quote authorities. This seems partly the game of 'name dropping' to impress his audience, partly to cover up his lack of own ideas. When one reads the speech carefully Geingob's intentions become quite clear: a. the organization of the food banks can (will) be used as a SWAPO Party recruitment and supervising instrument. The complete measure of the food banks might be more than the inclusion of farmers, companies and other private donors. It could also signalize the shift of responsibility from government to the civil society. This is not only a loss of the state's sovereignty but also a gateway to extortion: in a case of economic decline or the announcement of higher tax loads the civil society could refuse to donate voluntarily. Geingob sounds already like a pastor begging for alms.

b. Geingob will not touch the rich: he compares the rich in Namibia to the superrich in the oil-producing countries and the 'developed world'. Thus he endorses the entitlement level of the Namibian financial elite to those of the capitalistic oligarchs. He ignores that poverty everywhere is only the result of the elite's greed. He encourages the corrupt unqualified Namibian rich to go 'Carlos Slim'. What he avoids to do is to compare the Namibian poor to the poor of the 'developed world'. He praises the generous social grants, but defames the 100 N$ BIG proponents as 'simplistic'. So let's catch up on comparing the poor of Namibia to the poor of the 'developed world'. I would like to compare Namibia not to the USA, because the USA is rather underdeveloped on social welfare and not to the top notch Scandinavian Nations but to Germany.

The German government spent 5.9% of the net tax income to all social benefits (26,5 billion €). This amount doesn't include the payments from unemployment insurance and old-age pension insurance. The GDP (PPP) per capita of Namibia is 21% of the German one.

To illustrate the situation on an example: if someone has a total income below the poverty level, be it from exhausted unemployment aid, low pension payments or even low wage income (part time jobs) s/he can claim financial help for subsistence. The authority will pay for accommodation, health insurance and € 400 for the household head, plus € 360 for the partner, plus € 234 to € 320 for each child (depending on age). Those people also don't pay TV fees, get discounts at public transport, museums, the children get free meals at school and more help for special needs. This can easily amount to € 1000 (N$ 15,000) per month for a single person. At a 21% level of Namibian GDP it would be 3,150 per month for a Namibian single household.

This is just to put the presidents attitude into perspective: he belittles the wealth of the rich and exaggerates the government's efforts for the poor. He adopts big words:”poverty is not just about income” and “poverty is about the deprivation of basic capabilities of human beings”. What he means is: don't expect income but just warm words. Basic capabilities are nothing without an income – just deprivation! All this rhetoric points in the direction that a wealth redistribution will not really happen, but that GRN will rely on charity and mild measures to prevent that the people die from hunger. To me the program of the government looks like following the tradition of ruling an African village (Harambee) and not a sovereign Nation State with politics in economy.

Until the announced detailed plan for 1 April 2016 (not an April Fools' joke?) we have to wait and see if the president understands the economic implications of Poverty Eradication and Wealth Redistribution and the fulfillment until 2025. I hope it will not go the way of Pohamba's war on corruption or the Vision 2030.

The new website of The Namibian

The new website of http://namibian.com.na

Blatancy vs. Prudence

I guess The Free Press of Namibia (Pty.) Ltd, owner of the daily newspaper 'The Namibian' and its website is not in a position to flush money down the toilet. Concurrent with the 30. birthday of the paper they re-invented their web presence. Since such an endeavor affords several hundred man-hours of work, they were probably committed to set a milestone for themselves and the nation. The average web presence of Namibian newspapers look quite frankly like 'below Hempel's sofa (or in Frikkies garage)', therefore the chances were favorable.

With website design comes a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo. So the company hired some specialists. That is where the difficulties start – not only in Namibia, but in Namibia especially. Namibia is full of specialist: been there, done this – hakuna matata. Trust me. They say control is better than trust. In this case I'd say here a clear vision is key. In business speak: briefing, target specification. What would be necessary throughout the wide radius around 42 John Meinert? The national audience is not famous for their reading skills, their internet proficiency or attention span. They also don't sit usually in front of a 27” iMac or have fast broadband connectivity with cheap data traffic rates.

In my opinion the target should have been readability, small screen readability, low complexity, easy orientation, fast loading times, low data use. As in most things 'Occam's Razor' applies, simplicity is beautiful.

I can sympathise with the Young Turks, their heads full of ideas, HTML 5 and CSS 3, eager to grab a chance of a lifetime with a birthday budget lurking in the background battling it out with the newspaper's accountant, graphic designer and webmaster. I guess their enthusiasm won over the uncertainty of them. In the service industry one can not serve the own cravings or a diffuse intention of the customer, but has to serve the end-user. Period! Maybe web designers don't cherish the long read. They should at least as professionals study what the competition, the best of their trade do. There are plenty of websites about award winning web design (e.g.: webbyawards.com). Nobody has to invent the wheel nowadays.

As an avid reader (I read dozens of websites daily, since years) I have to confess the new website left me embarrassed. I test the new site since a week on different screens (smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop) and I hold my reading experience is messed up. Lets go into detail:

1. The general three column design is popular, but I'd prefer a two column design for less clutter. The forth column for ads is nonsense, ads can be integrated elsewhere. A sensible designer also would have made a non symmetrical column width for aesthetic reasons and at the advantage of the middle column (now it is 7:12:7, better would be 7:14:5). The middle column is too narrow, line width of the running text is too large and letter weight and size to low for low-res screens.

2. The 'Top Story' box is a catastrophe a real amateur mistake. The changing box hight causes the column below to move up and down, so the eye loses the reading line. Why must the box size change? The picture can be sized to fit the box, or there could be a pause button to stop the flipping, or the box could flip upwards – stupid idea! The same goes for the red 'read more' box.

3. Otherwise the 'Twitter' box has not enough hight, if you want to scroll it on a small touch screen you easily move the whole page. At small screen you only see the middle column, so what is the purpose of the left and right columns? You totally lose orientation and have to look for content in the header or footer bars. That is inconsistent and confusing.

4. Design: the category boxes (News – National) look like coal bricks scattered over the place – too heavy for the minimal information. Typographically the sans serif typeface might look more modern, but the implementation for (small) screens is weak. The resolution of the cartoons is much to low. Ndeshi & Jakes is not readable.

5. Data usage: I couldn't measure the data usage and loading times (because I use WiFi) but I guess the frequent reloading will annoy the tango users.

In summary my impression of the new site is: it is a strain on the eyes – less is more! CEIT and Intouch have been overzealous and certainly too ambitious to show off their skills and ran over the wisdom of the 'obsolescent' print layout guys at The Namibian. I understand the desire to be modern and world class but you must not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Not a job well done, just a training session. The guys must go back to user interface (UX) school.

Poverty Elimination in Namibia

What can you expect from the third presidency of Namibia?

Namibia is a troubled nation. Before independence SWAPO was a Marxist- Leninist movement that wanted to establish the classless society. SWAPO still is a member of Socialist International. The first president promised land reform, education for all, common prosperity. His signature slogan was “reconciliation”. He didn't deliver. Contrary to his official title of 'Father of the Nation', I would call him the 'Godfather of Corruption'. He established a personality cult of Stalinist fashion, nepotism and cronyism which resulted in a factual one party state.

The second presidency of the Nujoma hand picked Pohamba started with the promise of relentless fight against corruption. The Anti Corruption Agency culled some small game, but the general principle stayed alive. He was called publicly a 'lame duck'. No major achievements.

The third president started with strong words to fight poverty. I argue this is another political ploy with no chance of actual results.

The history of the Namibian governments show a continuing deceit of the gullible population and a betrayal of the ideals of the struggle for independence. The old boys have totally lost their vision, have become intellectually corrupt and immersed into “Realpolitik” of preserving their power and privileges. Namibians are totally kaputt.

Elimination of Poverty

The Political Perspective column of Gwen Lister in the Namibian of 2. August 2015:http://www.namibian.com.na/indexx.php id=32310&page_type=story_detail&category_id=3#sthash.wey2BFgp.dpuf triggered my interest in this topic. I wrote a readers letter that the Namibian published on 9.Oct.  Following my readers letter:

It is obvious that most Namibians agree that poverty must be eliminated. I would like to add some thoughts to the excellent column of Gwen Lister from 2. October. As she observes there even are some setbacks since independence. This hints at the fact that not everybody is committed to poverty elimination – some are more committed to their enrichment.

The facts also show clearly: Namibia has one of the widest gaps in income and wealth in the world. We still remember that SWAPO before independence was promoting socialist ideas of common welfare. Now Namibia follows the neoliberal faith of 'free market' predatory capitalism. That means government rigged the system to favor a small elite instead of distributing the economic exploits for common welfare.

The president (and any one) who wants to change the system is in a difficult position: on one side is the majority of the impoverished population, on the other side is the powerful, rich elite that is willing to defend their privileges tooth and claw.

In a stalemate situation like this the essential factor is political will. Only a very strong political determination can redirect the economical output. The president made a strong bid to the nation and the international community and he established a government department.

But other activities allow skepticism. The complaint about the “casualty” of upper-middle income classification looks to me like he is searching for an excuse, like a lack of political will. He wants to eliminate poverty but he does't want to pay for it – somebody else please should pay. That demonstrates the national mentality of the sponger. Also the appointment of Zephania Kameeta says something (I wouldn't question his sincere intentions): as a religious leader he frames probably poverty elimination from a moral perspective, what is definitely relevant but not sufficient. The president knows quite well that morals fade quickly in the face of cold cash. If he had appointed an economist of the socialist school he would have set a mark.

Kameeta needs some hard nosed economists in his team that can convince the wealthy (in dollar figures) that it is not detrimental to their interest to transfer monies to the poor. The BIG will improve the whole society and economic development, reduce crime, gender based violence, public health and moral decay.

The vehement political opposition to BIG is rooted in fears (the rich suffer most from existential angst) that are based on plain false assumptions. The rich always purport their riches stem from their achievements and they deserve it. That is not true even in a capitalist economy that plays by the rules, least in a country crippled by corruption. The rules are man-made and not a 'natural' force of a 'free market'. They can be changed. The state has an obligation to care for the whole population and therefore help those who can't help themselves. The argument (Pohamba): 'we can not give out money for nothing' is a breach of the social contract.

The BIG is discussed all over the world and the positive outcome of the pilot in Namibia is encouraging (despite the ridiculous small amounts granted). The reason for Namibia's economic problems is poverty and government should hand out billions to the poor. That is the only way to finalize the struggle for independence or SWAPO will be a historic failure. The money is there.

I would like to add some more details to my reasoning:

Close to 30% of Namibians live beneath the poverty line, this is 690,000 people (the president claims 400,000). The local poverty line is set at US$ 1.25 per day (N$ 17.00). To free these people from poverty it would need a maximum of 11.7 m N$ per day or 4.3 billion N$ per year. This amount could be lower if the figure for children under the age of 14 would be set to 10 N$ per day. So everyone without an income could receive N$ 500 (children N$ 300) per month.

1. The money is there.

As you know from daily experience in Namibia nobody has money, never. You also know this is often a lie. That is exactly what the president does. The “casualty” he complains about in real world numbers: the Gross Domestic Product – per capita in purchasing power parity (GDP -per capita (PPP)) for 2014 is about 145.000 N$. That means every person, man, woman, baby, grandmother is contributing 145.000 N$ per year to the economic performance of the country.

The next question is: where does all the money go and from where could it be redirected into poverty elimination?

The 2015/16 military budget is 7.2 billions N$. This money is spend to defend the Namibian territory and interests. There are actually no threats of the Namibian territory from anyone. The “interests” must be understood as internal threats. Then one must ask what are the reasons of a threat from the Namibian population, what could lead to a revolt against law and order?

The only answer is poverty. So why spend money on a military that should contain the poor masses instead of eliminating the threat by eliminating poverty.

Of course having a Defense Force has some other aspects to it, especially in a country imbued with martial legends like the 'Land of the Brave', it is a question of national pride. Here the question is if Namibia should take pride in dignified living conditions of the population or in a useless military? That leads to other endeavours of national pride. While the military must not be abandoned totally, money-wasting SOEs like Air Namibia or the NAC could be sold.

A further money generating field is taxation. Namibia has very low corporate taxes and tax collection is weak. Not only Namibian businesses pay low (if any) taxes, but also foreign companies (mining) which send their profits home. Nobody likes to pay taxes, therefore there is a whole industry of tax avoidance that is better armed than the taxman. There is a golden well of income for government (you know the guy with 5.000 head of cattle who never paid a dollar of taxes). A moderate raise of the VAT could be used to fill the remaining gap.

2. “Poverty is a structural legacy of apartheid”

This is what the Namibian government always uses as an excuse for its failures (as reiterated in the keynote address HE Geingob gave on 14.08.2015 at Nampower Convention Centre). This is plain nonsense. If they were not able to change the legacy of colonialism within 25 year it is a confession of incompetence or the admission of deliberately rigging the system. Or should I say they kept the system of colonialism and only exchanged the beneficiaries from boers to SWAPO cronies? I may quote myself from a readers letter in The Namibian of 14. August 2015 about BEE and AA:

Inequality, not Colour, Sustains Apartheid Practices

YOUR editorial of 7 August 2015 addresses an important question of post-colonial politics in Namibia, but it misses out on an essential aspect of rectifying the discrimination of colonialism. The main reason that “the effects of apartheid and colonialism won't disappear soon, after all” is inequality.

Inequality is the continuation of apartheid and colonialism, which is at the centre of African economic problems. In this sense the colonial legacy still determines policies today.

The statistics published by the Employment Equity Commission must be complemented by the findings of the New World Wealth report about the high net worth individuals (HNW) in Africa. (see:http://uk.), with the heading “Africa's millionaire explosion: The 16 countries where the ultra-wealthy are booming.”

Namibia is ranked number six in Africa with 3 100 HNW individuals, a 244% rise compared to 15 years ago. This means Namibia had 3100 ultra wealthy individuals (each worth more than N$12,6 million) in 2014 and about 2 200 have become rich since 1999. The report does not specify skin colour, but I suppose there were not many black ultra wealthy individuals before 1999. It is also not clear how many whites have become very wealthy after 1999.

But these figures allow some speculation about a correlation of the accumulation of wealth and BEE (black economic empowerment).

What I want to hint at is that BEE and AA (affirmative action) may have effected more the enrichment of a small black elite than the intended rectification of colonial discrimination.

Therefore the emphasis of economic policies should turn to reduce inequality instead of focusing on skin colour. I guess for the poor it doesn't make a big difference if they are exploited by blacks or whites.

3. The upper-middle income classification logic

The president complains the income classification is not justified because Namibia is a special case. Who else is in this group: Angola, Botswana, South Africa, Cuba, Jamaica, China. At the current growth rate Namibia could slip into the high income group (from US$ 12,736). One speciality of Namibia is the skewed distribution that is not a natural disaster like the scarce rainfall in the Namib desert or the fault of the colonisers, but it is a deliberate making of the ruling class. Same with the lower school enrolment. Evidently the president begs for handouts from the international community. He behaves like a man who was drinking all night and has no money left for food for his family.

4. The “handout” scare

I do not really understand why the Namibian leaders are so scared about 'handouts'. What are the usual arguments against handouts? One reason could be based on the warning against idleness from Paulus (Tess. 3:6-10): “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”, which is not applicable here, because it is directed to the early Christians not to live on their host's expense. Others might fear that the people will become lazy drunkards not being motivated to work. Or that is simply unfair that some people get money for free while they themselves work for it. I guess most people would like to work, but the society failed to create enough labor and will fail to do so in the future.

When the president is serious about the “Namibian house”, then I think it is a good African tradition that anybody in the house has something to eat and a place to sleep.

Besides that, in the 'Industrialised Nations' the welfare state is a generally accepted model of social order.

5. Advantages and Gains

SWAPO would secure its stronghold on the country for generations and HE Geingob would become a Messiah (worshipped beyond S.D.S. Nujoma). Namibia would gain a lot of respect and admiration from the international community. Support and promotion will flood the nation. This way Namibia will achieve more than with a degraded income classification.

The economy would make a big leap forward: imagine a warm rain of 4.3 billion N$ spending power on local businesses. It would create several thousands jobs, a building boom, establishment of new companies and investment opportunities. Millions of dollars would flood the pockets of the already rich and compensate them nicely for potential tax losses. People would start to pay their bills, payment moral would go up. Municipalities, Water-, Electricity suppliers could reduce their arrears. Poverty related crime would diminish. Gender relationships will improve. Education will flourish.

Shortly, I can not see why anybody could oppose handouts or a BIG. If government would only start conceptualise the 'Namibian house' instead of the stupid neo-con market economy ideology it could move mountains. Will individual greed always trump collective reason?

National Prayer Day and Violence

I had a discussion about the National Prayer Day with an Owambo atheist (no, he is not a fictional character). Of course he condemned it as wrong. I admire this guy for his success in wrestling religious faith, which is a big intellectual achievement, especially in an environment where everybody always praise the Lord and religion. It affords big efforts to abandon traditions and beliefs and develop new ones. That is, because traditions and beliefs are quasi inbred. We acquire them as children from our parents and other role models, before we are able to form our own worldview. But why should we change traditions when our forefathers fared well with them? Simply because they became dysfunctional. They disturb the social fabric of a society, they bring conflicts in our communities. Traditions are based on experience and knowledge often many thousand years old.

The world has changed since the times when only a few millions of humans inhabited the planet. Only human knowledge has doubled in the last two hundred years and it will double again in the next few decades. That has taught us there is no eternal wisdom, we are forced to lifelong learning and adaption. The same goes for morality! Or would anyone still condone the ethics of the Old Testament with a malicious, jealous, revengeful God who wants people to be stoned (no, not from green) and crucified (maybe except Sam Nujoma)? We also had to learn that punishment and prohibition seldom to never improved the situation, more so mostly deteriorates it. Violence yields more violence and fear reaps anger and rage. This is especially true for “passion killings”. The so called justice does not bring the dead back or true consolation. Revenge is not sweet.

So what else cold we do?

Firstly abstain from violence. The Namibian constitution does not allow corporal punishment. Parents, elders, teachers don't beat children. I know most people see a good beating as an essential tool of education – it is not. This is a tradition that is highly damaging. Another one is the myth of the brave warrior who draws honour and reputation from killing enemies. One can only kill an enemy by pacifying him.

The biggest enemy of Namibian people is poverty. How could poverty be pacified?

Easy! Take one third of the military budget and give every Namibian an income of N$ 1.500, children, mothers, unemployed, pensioners, low income workers. The military is not essential to Namibian society. Namibia is under no immediate exterior threat. The NDF is a toy for the old brave warriors and directed only against internal threats. So why burn money for them. A basic income grant would do wonders to the local economy, it will flow directly into consumption instead the international weapon dealers. It will also upend society and the power balance. A single mother with three children and a monthly budget of N$ 6.000 will not be beaten up or killed easily. Instead of being drained by the daily struggle for life she will resist abuse and the security guard, frustrated from his tedious job will not break into a house or steal a friend's cellphone. It would improve the Gini coefficient of Namibia enormously and government would earn international accolade.

But instead of doing something reasonable government resorts to prayer. That means in strait language they don't want to change anything, they are in love with the status quo. They enjoy being superior to the ordinary people instead of promoting the common wellbeing. What would Jesus do?