Intellectuals in politics: More leading or more reading?
Intellectualism is not merely about knowledge but understanding
Last week of November, Namibia held elections for regional and local authorities. Looking at the list of candidates, one observation became clear: not many were intellectuals — most were politicians.
This raises a question about the kind of leadership Namibians elect, and the type of leadership the country needs.
The distinction between a politician and an intellectual is subtle. Politicians can work without a clear concept. They can speak to a gathering without structure, but with confidence and energy. Their advantage lies in the fact that they may begin a project without a fully conceptualised end in mind. Yet, they are credited for initiative, movement and urgency — what Namibia’s Founding Father called “Vita and Stamina”.
Political analysts, who are mostly intellectuals, often find themselves shocked or frustrated by the lack of conceptual grounding in what politicians say. They hear unfinished ideas, unsupported statements and speeches lacking coherence, yet the movement and energy lure the public in the delivery of these statements.
On the other hand, intellectuals cannot address a gathering without first conceptualising. They cannot embark on a project without a plan with a clear beginning, middle, and conclusion.
Because of this, politicians sometimes view intellectuals as planners who never finish planning — who perfect speeches and frameworks instead of acting. In mainstream discourse, intellectuals have even been viewed as people who “plan, and plan, and even when they are planning, they have already planned, and will still plan after planning.”
Political responsibility
A contemporary case study of an intellectual in leadership is James Sankwasa, currently serving as Minister of Urban and Rural Development. His academic and professional résumés are extensive. He holds a Master of Business Administration from Thames Valley University in London (1997), a Master’s Degree in Health Management, Planning and Policy from Leeds University (1994), and a Diploma in Public Administration from the University of Zululand (1982), among several other certificates and postgraduate qualifications.
His experience spans health administration, foreign relations, public service, academia, policy drafting, and executive leadership.
From being a lecturer and MBA thesis supervisor to serving in Parliament, in foreign affairs, in media management, and in regional governance, his journey demonstrates the breadth expected of an intellectual leader.
James’ most notable act is not the list of qualifications or appointments. It is what he did when his intellectual reasoning met political responsibility.
In a widely circulated letter dated 22 July, addressed to the Katima Mulilo Town Council, he threatened to either suspend or dismiss the council for failing to implement his directives regarding alleged governance and financial management irregularities (another word for corruption).
He asked the council to provide factual justification grounded in governance structures and fiscal prudence. When no evidence-based response was submitted by the requested date, action followed — the council was dismissed.
This behaviour is not commonly associated with intellectuals in political office. However, it is an example of what Namibia may need from intellectuals entering governance: thinking coupled with decisive execution.
Intellectualism is not merely about knowledge; it is about understanding the reason behind one’s actions. Sankwasa demanded reason, accountability and justification, and when these were not provided, he acted. That marriage between intellectual clarity and administrative enforcement is rare, yet necessary.
This deed by James raises an important question: should James Sankwasa serve as a blueprint for future intellectuals entering the political arena?
Should intellectuals avoid limiting themselves to speaking elegant English and delivering beautifully structured speeches that display intelligence but result in no meaningful governance outcomes?
Fairly, many intellectuals and academics conduct research and produce brilliant work, but they have never had the real-world test of applying their thinking in governance or leadership settings.
The political arena requires the ability not only to conceptualise, but to confront power, manage disagreement, and translate theory into public outcomes.
Namibia has seen another example of an intellectual leader in former President Hage Geingob — perhaps the country’s most academic president to date.
Co-exist
In 2004, he wrote an academic thesis titled State Formation in Namibia: Promoting Democracy and Good Governance. In it, he conceptualised the “Namibian House” — a metaphorical house with invisible tribes forming one foundation, furnished by shared identity and unity.
Years later, when he became President in 2015, he governed with that concept as his guiding philosophy. His speeches, policies and nation-building messages reflected the work he had conceptualised long before assuming power. His leadership style demonstrated that thought and action could coexist.
One of his famous chapters in his dissertation was: “Leaders are bridges that connect people to the future.”
Many Namibians remember his political mentorship programme — often informally described as the Hage Geingob “Kindergarten” — where he elevated and empowered emerging leaders such as Audrin Mathe, George Simataa, James Uerikua and many others.
So, what does this mean for Namibia’s future leaders?
Should leaders conceptualise thoroughly before entering the political arena, or must they enter first and conceptualise through experience?
Perhaps this question applies beyond politics into institutions, leadership spaces, civil service and public administration.
Maybe the answer is not one or the other. Perhaps Namibia needs leaders who conceptualise and act; leaders who do not prioritise charisma over clarity, nor delay action in pursuit of perfection.
Namibia’s future depends on intellectuals who can govern — and politicians who can think.
David Junias is Thought Leader. Email, [email protected]
This raises a question about the kind of leadership Namibians elect, and the type of leadership the country needs.
The distinction between a politician and an intellectual is subtle. Politicians can work without a clear concept. They can speak to a gathering without structure, but with confidence and energy. Their advantage lies in the fact that they may begin a project without a fully conceptualised end in mind. Yet, they are credited for initiative, movement and urgency — what Namibia’s Founding Father called “Vita and Stamina”.
Political analysts, who are mostly intellectuals, often find themselves shocked or frustrated by the lack of conceptual grounding in what politicians say. They hear unfinished ideas, unsupported statements and speeches lacking coherence, yet the movement and energy lure the public in the delivery of these statements.
On the other hand, intellectuals cannot address a gathering without first conceptualising. They cannot embark on a project without a plan with a clear beginning, middle, and conclusion.
Because of this, politicians sometimes view intellectuals as planners who never finish planning — who perfect speeches and frameworks instead of acting. In mainstream discourse, intellectuals have even been viewed as people who “plan, and plan, and even when they are planning, they have already planned, and will still plan after planning.”
Political responsibility
A contemporary case study of an intellectual in leadership is James Sankwasa, currently serving as Minister of Urban and Rural Development. His academic and professional résumés are extensive. He holds a Master of Business Administration from Thames Valley University in London (1997), a Master’s Degree in Health Management, Planning and Policy from Leeds University (1994), and a Diploma in Public Administration from the University of Zululand (1982), among several other certificates and postgraduate qualifications.
His experience spans health administration, foreign relations, public service, academia, policy drafting, and executive leadership.
From being a lecturer and MBA thesis supervisor to serving in Parliament, in foreign affairs, in media management, and in regional governance, his journey demonstrates the breadth expected of an intellectual leader.
James’ most notable act is not the list of qualifications or appointments. It is what he did when his intellectual reasoning met political responsibility.
In a widely circulated letter dated 22 July, addressed to the Katima Mulilo Town Council, he threatened to either suspend or dismiss the council for failing to implement his directives regarding alleged governance and financial management irregularities (another word for corruption).
He asked the council to provide factual justification grounded in governance structures and fiscal prudence. When no evidence-based response was submitted by the requested date, action followed — the council was dismissed.
This behaviour is not commonly associated with intellectuals in political office. However, it is an example of what Namibia may need from intellectuals entering governance: thinking coupled with decisive execution.
Intellectualism is not merely about knowledge; it is about understanding the reason behind one’s actions. Sankwasa demanded reason, accountability and justification, and when these were not provided, he acted. That marriage between intellectual clarity and administrative enforcement is rare, yet necessary.
This deed by James raises an important question: should James Sankwasa serve as a blueprint for future intellectuals entering the political arena?
Should intellectuals avoid limiting themselves to speaking elegant English and delivering beautifully structured speeches that display intelligence but result in no meaningful governance outcomes?
Fairly, many intellectuals and academics conduct research and produce brilliant work, but they have never had the real-world test of applying their thinking in governance or leadership settings.
The political arena requires the ability not only to conceptualise, but to confront power, manage disagreement, and translate theory into public outcomes.
Namibia has seen another example of an intellectual leader in former President Hage Geingob — perhaps the country’s most academic president to date.
Co-exist
In 2004, he wrote an academic thesis titled State Formation in Namibia: Promoting Democracy and Good Governance. In it, he conceptualised the “Namibian House” — a metaphorical house with invisible tribes forming one foundation, furnished by shared identity and unity.
Years later, when he became President in 2015, he governed with that concept as his guiding philosophy. His speeches, policies and nation-building messages reflected the work he had conceptualised long before assuming power. His leadership style demonstrated that thought and action could coexist.
One of his famous chapters in his dissertation was: “Leaders are bridges that connect people to the future.”
Many Namibians remember his political mentorship programme — often informally described as the Hage Geingob “Kindergarten” — where he elevated and empowered emerging leaders such as Audrin Mathe, George Simataa, James Uerikua and many others.
So, what does this mean for Namibia’s future leaders?
Should leaders conceptualise thoroughly before entering the political arena, or must they enter first and conceptualise through experience?
Perhaps this question applies beyond politics into institutions, leadership spaces, civil service and public administration.
Maybe the answer is not one or the other. Perhaps Namibia needs leaders who conceptualise and act; leaders who do not prioritise charisma over clarity, nor delay action in pursuit of perfection.
Namibia’s future depends on intellectuals who can govern — and politicians who can think.
David Junias is Thought Leader. Email, [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article