The development in Windhoek points in the same direction: the city is becoming harder to use for the very people who keep it alive.
The introduction of a strictly cashless parking system in the city centre has exposed a familiar problem. Decisions are being made for efficiency and control, while affordability and accessibility fall behind.
The frustration from motorists is not really about cards or technology. It is about cost, inclusion and the growing sense that everyday systems are being redesigned without considering how people actually live and work.
Windhoek motorists have complained that the new system, introduced by the parking operator under its agreement with the City of Windhoek, has made parking more expensive and less accessible.
Payments are now limited to issued cards or bank cards. For some, that means transaction fees. For others, it means exclusion altogether.
The complaints are consistent. Small, frequent parking payments now attract bank charges or minimum deductions. Elderly motorists struggle with unfamiliar systems.
Informal workers and those without bank cards are left with limited options. What was once a simple transaction has become another daily cost to manage.
This is not just a parking issue. It reflects a broader pattern in urban management. Efficiency is pursued, but inclusion becomes an afterthought.
The operator’s explanation is not unreasonable. Cash payments created leakages. Money went missing. Receipts were not always issued. The company says the cashless system improves transparency and reduces losses. From an operational perspective, that makes sense.
But systems that work on paper do not always work in practice. When compliance drops because people simply refuse to pay or drive away, the problem has not been solved. It has only changed form.
Parking attendants themselves say fewer motorists are paying compared to when cash was accepted. Tensions between drivers and attendants have increased. The system may be more controlled, but it is not necessarily more effective.
The deeper issue is affordability in a city where the cost of daily movement is already rising. Parking fees do not exist in isolation. They sit alongside fuel costs, transport expenses and stagnant incomes. Each small increase may appear insignificant on its own, but together they reshape how people interact with the city centre.
If parking becomes inconvenient or expensive, people simply avoid the area. Fewer visitors mean less foot traffic for small businesses. Less activity weakens the urban economy that parking management is meant to support in the first place.
But beyond affordability lies an important legal and policy question that has so far received little attention. What does the law say about payment methods in public-facing services? Can people be restricted to a single form of payment, particularly where the service is provided under a municipal mandate?
The Namibia dollar remains legal tender, recognised under the Bank of Namibia Act. In practice, this means cash must be accepted for the settlement of debts unless alternative arrangements are clearly justified and accessible. The Bank of Namibia has consistently promoted financial inclusion, recognising that a significant portion of the population still operates outside fully banked systems. Cash, in that context, remains an important instrument of access rather than simply a payment preference.
The question therefore is not whether digital payments should exist. They should. The question is whether removing cash entirely aligns with national financial inclusion goals and whether sufficient alternatives exist for those who cannot easily participate in a cashless system.
Cashless systems are not inherently wrong. Many cities have adopted them successfully. But successful transitions usually keep alternatives in place while behaviour adjusts. Removing cash entirely assumes that everyone moves at the same speed. They do not.
Windhoek’s challenge is not technology. It is balance. Transparency and accountability are necessary, but so is accessibility. A system that excludes part of the public ultimately undermines compliance and trust.
The lesson is simple. Urban systems must work for the majority, not just for administration. Consultation matters. Gradual change matters. Options matter.
Parking policy should make a city easier to use, not harder. If the goal is order and revenue, then inclusion is not a weakness. It is the foundation that makes both possible.
Windhoek risks solving one problem while creating another. And in a city already under economic pressure, even parking can become a signal of something larger: a growing disconnect between policy decisions and everyday reality.
* Briefly is a weekly column that is opinionated and analytical. It sifts through the noise to make sense of the numbers, trends and headlines shaping business and the economy with insight, wit and just enough scepticism to keep things interesting. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE NOT OUR OWN, we simply relay them as part of the conversation.
