Invertebrate Ministers

Invertebrate Ministers

Some leaders whether Presidents or Prime Ministers think about the way history will judge them. But that would not even be the majority whether it be in Africa, Europe or Asia. Most political leaders seek power and its maintenance and to hell with history. Power is the most addictive and powerful of drugs and once hooked political leaders cannot or will not give it up. As all such addictions are destructive and biggest victim is invariably the nation which has to suffer these power hungry creatures, often for decades. The idea of giving up their post to a younger generation is simply inconceivable. Having been a leader how do you define yourself the day after its all over?

If leaving a leadership position is tough on the ego fancy the prospect of being a mere cabinet minister who has, almost no place in history and the will only be remembered if he has made a god-awful cock up of his job. In  relatively recent times there was a the infamous Profumo Affair where the British  Minister of war in 1961 was having an affair  with two young ladies Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies who were very indirectly connected to Soviet intelligence. His name has gone down in infamy as a man driven by his lower rather than upper head- a not uncommon male affliction. The affair ended his ministerial career and his name is remembered even well after his passing.

Generally speaking most ministers in governments are unexceptional creatures who descend from a species of invertebrates who share no love other that their bosses love of power, money and if the circumstances arise a chance to replace their boss. As a minister to stay in power one needs a modicum of intelligence, a great deal of guile but most importantly absolute subservience and loyalty to the boss. Importantly you must not embarrass your boss as was the case men like Profumo nor can you be seen by other cabinet colleagues as a block to their activities- nefarious or otherwise. Failure to demonstrate sufficient cabinet loyalty brings a swift termination of one’s ministerial career. The most challenging of ministerial portfolios is often the most powerful, the Minister of Finance as when it comes to allocating budgets he/she must appease not only the boss, cabinet colleagues but also the bankers and accountants. 

In the 20^th and 21^st century there have been very few exceptional ministers. By and large they have been celebrated for balancing the books and doing precious little beyond making polite speeches about the virtues of the free market and globalization. One of the great exceptions was Manmohan Singh who when he was Minister of Finance of India in the early 1990’s introduced transformative changes to the Indian economy. These men or women are few and far between.

Recently  President  Geingob reshuffled his cabinet and demoted Mr Calle Schlettwein from the position of Minister of Finance to that of Minister of Agriculture. To be moved from a powerful central agency like Finance a line ministry like Agriculture is unquestionably a demotion no matter how it may be painted. Other more polite souls suggest that he was ‘reassigned’ to agriculture as it was more appropriate given his education as an entomologist. Certainly this education would have given him unique insights into the behavior of at least two former cabinet colleagues.

During his time in office Mr Schlettwein saw the decline of GDP/capita from US$6400 in 2015 to around US$6000 in 2019. Unemployment rose from 19% to 23% over the same period and government debt as a percentage of GDP went from 37% to 45% in 2018 and are expected to be around 50% in 2019.  He will not go down in Namibia’s history as a successful Finance Minister not because of the above figures but because he neither reformed the economy to deal with its most fundamental structural problem of its inequitable distribution of income nor did he steer it back on a path of sustainable growth. In all fairness to Mr Schlettwein he inherited many of the problems of economic mismanagement from previous administrations but the incontestable fact is that he did not address the two key elements of Namibia’s macroeconomic unsustainability – massive government wage bills and the  debt ridden state owned enterprises. It is doubtful that his cabinet colleagues would support the painful measures that would be needed to address these issues.    

 He did however demonstrate sufficient loyalty to the President that he was appointed the Minister of Agriculture and with it he is given the poisoned chalice of Namibian land reform.  It would indeed be a great historical irony if a Namibian of German origin were to resolve one of the greatest problems created by German colonialism. Let us hope he does and one can only wish Mr Schlettwein good fortune as he will certainly need it.

Now the job of Minister of Finance has been given to Mr Ipumbu Shiimi who was until this appointment the Governor of the Bank of Namibia. He comes from the world of money and this can only be positive. His first act as minister was the N$8 billion in Corona virus funding to help Namibian over what will be a far more drastic economic decline than anything ever experienced by the country in its history. This was the correct thing to do but it is certain that $N750 Emergency Income Grant will not go far and there is little  tax revenue to pay for this or more later on . This was almost certainly from international loans and given the disastrous state of the global economy following “the Great Lockdown” ( read Great Depression) as the IMF is calling it  there will be much more debt to come. There are misgivings about Mr Shiimi given his approval of the SME Bank permit as well as his approval of the permit for Isabel Dos Santos BIC Bank  when he was governor of the Bank of Namibia. Only time will tell whether he proves to be yet another ministerial invertebrate or a man who has sufficient trust from the cabinet and the president to lead the nation on a more prosperous and equitable path. He should be judged only on results.  One can only wish him well because if the years under Mr Schlettwein were difficult enough what is now to come after the ‘Great Lockdown’ will be far worse.