Dom Trots ‘Visa Regime’ Hurts Namibians

Are visa requirements of Western countries towards Africans racist and unfairly discriminatory? Certainly.

Is it as simple as that? Absolutely not.

Immigration is a more nuanced and complex issue than exchanging smiles.

So, when the Namibian government announced last week that it will “impose a visa regime on all countries that have not reciprocated the good gesture granted their nationals by the Republic of Namibia”, emotional reactions were to be expected.

Cheerleaders praised the government for “sending the West a strong message that all countries should be treated equally”.

Many, especially in Namibia’s N$14-billion tourism industry that employs about 60 000 people, fear the decision will discourage holidaymakers from visiting the country.

With the effects of Covid-19 still vividly etched in people’s minds, Namibia can ill afford such goals.

The irony is seemingly lost on president Nangolo Mbumba, who at the same time he was announcing the new ‘visa regime’ was also begging for food aid for nearly half the population, who are affected by drought and increasing poverty.

Most food and other humanitarian aid comes from Western countries.

It is also the same Cabinet of government leaders who keep appealing for foreign investment – ironically from the same countries we supposedly want to hurt with our ‘visa regime’.

The idea that Namibia is positioning itself as an international logistics hub, green hydrogen producer, and is advancing with the ‘just transition’ as a new oil frontier, now surely looks laughable.

‘Dom trots’ is an Afrikaans expression equivalent to the English phrase ‘pride before the fall’.

Ministry of home affairs officials argue that the decision is meant to “ensure parity and fairness in diplomatic interactions”.

Home affairs minister Albert Kwana has told The Namibian: “Our nationals are treated like criminals even [when they have] valid visas.

The way they are treated is not right, and it is not only Namibia, it is the whole of Africa.”

Clearly, the sore point is then not about ‘reciprocity’ or equality, seeing that Africans are purportedly treated with disdain even when they have visas.

One can only imagine that a lot of government officials with a heightened sense of self-importance are upset at being scrutinised when using meagre public resources to attend conferences and shopping trips in the West.

The new ‘visa regime’ is not an informed policy and strategic decision aimed at uplifting ordinary Namibians out of poverty.

It is simply about the few rich Africans who often use government funds to travel and enjoy the luxuries of American, Asian and European states.

Key countries affected include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, the United States and the United Kingdom.

Apparently the issue is not even about poor Africans who risk danger by stowing away on ships, flights and traversing treacherous roads in search of better living in those countries.

No doubt the countries our politicians are pretending to punish will not be fazed.

Japanese tourists would simply compare ease of travel to Botswana with Namibia and enjoy the Okavango Delta rather than cross into Namibia.

On this score, our leaders clearly do not appreciate that policymaking is first and foremost for the benefit of the majority of the population, most of whom need well-off foreign tourists and care little about how badly the Kawanas of Africa are treated in the diplomatic circus.

Set aside our ‘dom trots’ for the sake of Namibia.