Reject young leaders’ stigmatisation
Namibians’ hypocrisies are at times astounding. Sixty percent of our population is young, as is the case across the continent.
Over the past 10 years, since the Arab Spring toppled some of Africa’s long-serving leaders, there have been calls for increased political participation by the youth. In January 2016, the African Union (AU) Assembly, in resolution Assembly/AU/Dec.601(XXVI), resolved that 2017 be themed ‘harnessing the demographic dividend through investments in youth’.
With the youth leading mass protests that toppled dictators or joining violent extremist groups, the African political elite could no longer suppress the youth.
It is thus to be understood that youth participation in decision-making was not made out of the goodwill of the political elite. They had no choice.
The AU subsequently developed a document titled ‘AU roadmap on harnessing the demographic dividend through investments in youth’.
In that document, the AU admitted that "Africa’s youth account for more than 60% of the continent’s population. This is a huge resource if adequately incentivised for ensuring meaningful participation, representation, and observance of human rights on the continent. However, the challenge remains the limited participation of this huge resource in formal political processes and insufficient enjoyment of their rights. This challenge often leads to disenfranchisement and frustrations, which, if not adequately addressed, threatens social cohesion, peace and security of the society to expand their capabilities. Harnessing the demographic dividend on the continent requires investments in ensuring participatory, representative and inclusive political processes, as well as responsive state institutions."
The African political elite was not necessarily concerned about the participation of the youth as a form of empowerment, but to avoid the threat of "social cohesion, peace and security of the society".
In other words, had there been no threat to social cohesion, peace and security, then there would be no need to involve the youth.
As such, leadership positions for the youth are an instrument of containment and not necessarily a belief in the capabilities and potential of young leaders. After this AU resolution, a number of African heads of states started appointing a number of young people to Cabinet and parliamentary positions.
Of course, most of these appointees have not been tasked with important portfolios.
They were either assigned to youth portfolios or deputy ministerial positions with no material impact on the old generations’ interests and the elite pack.
When you look at Namibian politics today, the above makes a lot of sense. Whereas the youth are brought in, they are not necessarily expected to ‘rock the boat’. Whenever they raise their voices, they are quickly reminded that they are there because of the benevolence of the 80-year-old leader.
This benevolent leader is to be seen as the Jesus of their political career.
Society doesn’t problematise how the young leaders are treated. This is because although it is normalised to have one of two younger leaders, our subconscious is yet to accept this reality.
The mind thus registers that it is normal to treat younger leaders differently than their older counterparts, despite their acting in the same context, office, and on the same issues; even those that have organised themselves and were elected to leadership positions on their own accord.
They do not escape differentiated treatment. Every decision they take is subject to a major debate.
The same decision may be taken by another leader in the same position in another town. The decisions of an older leader will be ignored, whereas the younger leader is subjected to all manner of criticism, even from idiots. This is because society still treats younger leaders as their children. A younger chief executive officer (CEO) or councillor is still viewed as a son or daughter who can be scolded at any given time. They are not accorded any respect.
What is at issue is not the criticism of the younger leaders or the rejection of accountability, but differentiated treatments.
Crime is crime.
The crime of an elder must not be swept aside. Progress is progress despite age. Our society cannot develop if this hypocrisy is allowed to continue. Younger leaders must be advised to confront this stigma and call out their detractors.
They must, for example, say: ‘I am the CEO here and not your child. This is my decision, so deal with it!’
It will not be easy, but let the conversation begin.
Muthoni waKongola is a native of Kongola in the Zambezi Region primarily concerned with analysing society and offering ideas for a better Namibia. She is reachable at [email protected] or @wakongola on Twitter.
Over the past 10 years, since the Arab Spring toppled some of Africa’s long-serving leaders, there have been calls for increased political participation by the youth. In January 2016, the African Union (AU) Assembly, in resolution Assembly/AU/Dec.601(XXVI), resolved that 2017 be themed ‘harnessing the demographic dividend through investments in youth’.
With the youth leading mass protests that toppled dictators or joining violent extremist groups, the African political elite could no longer suppress the youth.
It is thus to be understood that youth participation in decision-making was not made out of the goodwill of the political elite. They had no choice.
The AU subsequently developed a document titled ‘AU roadmap on harnessing the demographic dividend through investments in youth’.
In that document, the AU admitted that "Africa’s youth account for more than 60% of the continent’s population. This is a huge resource if adequately incentivised for ensuring meaningful participation, representation, and observance of human rights on the continent. However, the challenge remains the limited participation of this huge resource in formal political processes and insufficient enjoyment of their rights. This challenge often leads to disenfranchisement and frustrations, which, if not adequately addressed, threatens social cohesion, peace and security of the society to expand their capabilities. Harnessing the demographic dividend on the continent requires investments in ensuring participatory, representative and inclusive political processes, as well as responsive state institutions."
The African political elite was not necessarily concerned about the participation of the youth as a form of empowerment, but to avoid the threat of "social cohesion, peace and security of the society".
In other words, had there been no threat to social cohesion, peace and security, then there would be no need to involve the youth.
As such, leadership positions for the youth are an instrument of containment and not necessarily a belief in the capabilities and potential of young leaders. After this AU resolution, a number of African heads of states started appointing a number of young people to Cabinet and parliamentary positions.
Of course, most of these appointees have not been tasked with important portfolios.
They were either assigned to youth portfolios or deputy ministerial positions with no material impact on the old generations’ interests and the elite pack.
When you look at Namibian politics today, the above makes a lot of sense. Whereas the youth are brought in, they are not necessarily expected to ‘rock the boat’. Whenever they raise their voices, they are quickly reminded that they are there because of the benevolence of the 80-year-old leader.
This benevolent leader is to be seen as the Jesus of their political career.
Society doesn’t problematise how the young leaders are treated. This is because although it is normalised to have one of two younger leaders, our subconscious is yet to accept this reality.
The mind thus registers that it is normal to treat younger leaders differently than their older counterparts, despite their acting in the same context, office, and on the same issues; even those that have organised themselves and were elected to leadership positions on their own accord.
They do not escape differentiated treatment. Every decision they take is subject to a major debate.
The same decision may be taken by another leader in the same position in another town. The decisions of an older leader will be ignored, whereas the younger leader is subjected to all manner of criticism, even from idiots. This is because society still treats younger leaders as their children. A younger chief executive officer (CEO) or councillor is still viewed as a son or daughter who can be scolded at any given time. They are not accorded any respect.
What is at issue is not the criticism of the younger leaders or the rejection of accountability, but differentiated treatments.
Crime is crime.
The crime of an elder must not be swept aside. Progress is progress despite age. Our society cannot develop if this hypocrisy is allowed to continue. Younger leaders must be advised to confront this stigma and call out their detractors.
They must, for example, say: ‘I am the CEO here and not your child. This is my decision, so deal with it!’
It will not be easy, but let the conversation begin.
Muthoni waKongola is a native of Kongola in the Zambezi Region primarily concerned with analysing society and offering ideas for a better Namibia. She is reachable at [email protected] or @wakongola on Twitter.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article