Until when shall Namibia allow some to remain beggars?

Kae Matundu – Tjiparuro

The lamentations of Namibia’s President, Her Excellency Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, over the burden placed on a privileged few to provide handouts to the many reflect only a fraction of the country’s deeper socioeconomic problems.

Speaking at a fundraising event for the One Economy Foundation, the President appeared concerned that only a few people are expected to extend a helping hand to the many Namibians who continually stretch out their hands for assistance.

Her remarks suggest a situation in which the privileged few, presumably considered hardworking and deserving of their incomes, are expected to help sustain the masses through donations and handouts.

But are these Namibians genuinely beggars?

In a literal sense, they may appear to be. Yet, viewed in the proper context, many have been reduced to this position by a system designed to benefit a few at the expense of the majority.

Under this arrangement, the privileged few, including the President and others in positions of influence, are expected to take care of the rest.

It is difficult to understand how the President, who is evidently aware of this predicament, can allow a system that perpetuates such inequality to continue while seemingly seeking to address its consequences through donations to the poor.

Whether by choice or circumstance, those who occupy positions of privilege risk becoming part of a system that denies everyone an equal opportunity to fend for themselves.

A significant share of the country’s wealth remains concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the majority struggling to survive.

The people who are left behind then become, at best, objects of sympathy and, at worst, a burden that the privileged feel compelled to manage through occasional handouts.

But until when?

Has it never occurred to the President and her fellow privileged citizens that a system that condemns fellow citizens to perpetual dependence on charity cannot be sustainable in the long run?

Sooner or later, such a system risks reaching breaking point. When it does, the masses may demand what they believe should rightfully have been theirs but has instead remained concentrated among the privileged few.

Regardless of how the President and her associates view the situation, the growing dependence on handouts points to the true nature of a system that does not serve everyone’s interests equally but favours a selected few.

Whatever justifications may be offered, nothing can justify a situation in which only a minority enjoys the country’s wealth while the majority struggles to make ends meet.

The President’s concern is legitimate. As the captain of the ship, she has a responsibility to ensure that everyone aboard reaches the intended destination safely.

Her observation that a few people are expected to provide assistance to many others suggests an awareness of the existing predicament.

However, rather than lamenting that fellow citizens continually stretch out their hands for help, the President should confront the structural conditions that leave them with little choice but to do so.

There is no way that every individual can become a benefactor to everyone in need. The fundraising event for the One Economy Foundation was attended by those with the means to contribute.

But what about those who could not attend because they, too, are struggling to survive? How many Namibians have the same financial freedom and choices as the President and her fellow privileged citizens?

That is the problem that requires urgent attention: how to create a society in which people can provide for themselves and their families without having to depend on the generosity of others.

The extent to which the President is insulated from the daily struggles of ordinary Namibians is also troubling.

Her fellow citizens, whom she is expected to serve, continue to endure debilitating socioeconomic hardships under a system that appears to have elevated a small elite into a position of relative comfort.

The President risks becoming a willing captain of a system that offers temporary relief to the suffering masses while leaving the underlying causes of their suffering untouched.

At best, the privileged elite appears to embrace benevolence as its preferred response to poverty, rather than acting as an agent of lasting change.

The question, however, is this: saving the masses and workers from what?

They must be saved from the very capitalist system that the middle-class elite has been led to believe it has a meaningful stake in.

In reality, this elite serves as a buffer between the capitalists and the masses, helping to contain demands for the fundamental changes that workers and ordinary citizens increasingly need.

Those changes require more than temporary relief. They require confronting the economic structures that continue to expose workers and the poor to exploitation, marginalisation and indignity.

The masses and workers are not, and cannot be, second-class citizens.

If any social category deserves scrutiny, it is the privileged middle-class elite, which occupies an intermediary position within the capitalist system while often presenting itself as sharing the interests of the masses.

Members of this elite may themselves be convinced that their position represents progress, while simultaneously encouraging the masses to believe that occasional assistance is an adequate response to their circumstances.

The apparent membership of the President and her associates in this privileged circle is therefore nothing to celebrate. L

From the perspective of the masses and workers, such a position risks becoming a betrayal of the trust placed in those expected to help bring about change.

The emphasis, however, must be on helping the masses and workers bring about fundamental change themselves.

Given its position within the existing economic order, the middle-class elite cannot be expected to deliver the kind of transformation that would permanently free the majority from its socioeconomic hardships.

Instead, by embracing the prevailing relations of production, the elite risks reinforcing the very system that perpetuates inequality.

Ultimately, the small and privileged middle class, despite its own socioeconomic challenges, risks becoming an obstacle to meaningful progress when it seeks to manage the suffering of the majority rather than challenge the structures that produce it.

The peasants, workers and broader masses cannot depend indefinitely on the goodwill of a privileged minority.

Nor can a nation build lasting dignity and equality on a foundation of charity and handouts.

The solution lies in fundamental structural change, driven by the people whose lives are shaped by the existing system.

The question remains: until when shall Namibia allow some of its people to live as beggars while others enjoy the wealth of the nation?

The answer cannot be more fundraising events, more handouts or more expressions of sympathy.

It must be a transformation of the conditions that make such dependence necessary in the first place.

Ultimately, meaningful change must be driven by the masses themselves.

A revolution of the masses, for the masses, remains the author’s proposed path towards a fundamentally different society.