After painting a gloomy picture of both the local and global economic horizon, the 2013 budget speech narrates with naked simplicity the fiscal position, priorities and economic intentions of Government to get the country back on track whilst identifying the need to foster high growth through increased productivity.
Interestingly and quite rightly, the speech identified the best way for domestic producers to achieve sustainable international competitiveness as through gains in productivity and the efficient use of resources by all sectors of the economy.
In line with tradition, the speech also mentions existing and in some cases new initiatives in the areas of public sector reform, the realignment of public agencies, the strengthening of local governance, project implementation and the fight against crime and corruption.
Obviously these initiatives consume large amounts of national resources but there is no analysis of the measurable value that they have brought or will bring. Rather, the speech reports on numbers of people enrolled in schemes or the amounts of money spent or number of locations covered, or policies and strategies formulated or infrastructure built. Citizens are more interested in hearing about service improvements or the difference that these investments have brought to their standard of living.
The reader-friendliness of budget is so romantic that it masks its austere vision and myopic focus hiding its reality as a highly transactional tool showcasing the distribution of ‘what is in the bag’ to waiting recipients who are accustomed to looking up to government for benevolence.
On the surface, the budget is a masterpiece of artistry that purposively focuses on the obvious and well known economic issues without digging deep to identify the underlying barriers to sustainable prosperity for all and thereafter offering sustainable solutions that would lay the foundations for fiscal stability and resilience.
The budget does not spell out concrete initiatives for breaking the chains of poverty and deprivation and freeing people from the prison of dependency, hopelessness, ignorance, apathy, dishonesty and disease which keep a large proportion of the population, especially the youth, women, people with disabilities on the periphery of the economy.
Reading the budget and taking note of the harsh economic realities that stare the poor in the face, the words of historian Plutarch of the 1st century Before Christ come to mind when he said, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’ It should be recognised that endemic mass poverty is not just physical but psychological, emotional and spiritual.
To uproot it requires a holistic approach that deploys integrated multidimensional strategies with measurable outcomes and a shift from the short-term hi jinx approach being popularised in Botswana.
No analysis is made of the unique contextual factors  affecting productivity in the economy save  for a crafty segmentation of the political market to isolate the poor, the vulnerable, the less fortunate, the youth and so on followed by a narration of existing initiatives and a rededication to continue along historical pathways towards growth and prosperity.
In some cases broad pronouncements are made to prioritise high job creation potential projects to stimulate economic growth and diversification. Very little was said of any high impact game changing initiative aimed at removing the unique barriers to citizen economic prosperity.
The budget glaringly lacks a transformational agenda to stimulate sustainable economic growth and development, increase productivity, foster prosperity for all and provide skills development opportunities for every citizen especially the vulnerable and less fortunate.
A major barrier to achieving sustainable economic development which the budget could have addressed is the lack of effective shift in the national mental frame or paradigm. When Batswana moved from the traditional subsistence economy in which they had thrived for decades, they continued to cling to kith and kin attitudes laced with the curse of jealousy and other negative emotions mixed with a dash of pettiness.
Without ambition except the satanic pleasure of enjoying to watch others failing and unable to venture outside formal employment, the majority of Batswana have remained poor in one of the wealthiest African countries. Time is ripe for the country to deal with our underlying thinking and motives as a people.
The original traditional paradigm was shaped by historical forces such as social, political and economic hierarchies, communality, extended family, division of labour, gender inequality and an adult dominated world in which parents created the future for their children whilst the young persons remained silent observers. The onset of formal employment and formal education only partially transformed people resulting in most having one foot in the rural village and another in the town or city where they worked or sought work.
The traditional economy had been sustainable because people controlled the means of production and had the skills to produce goods and services both for survival during lean times and for decent living during periods of abundance. These people had the high value skills required to exploit resources and add value to raw materials and these livelihood skills were passed from generation to generation.
Sadly, most of these skill have been lost even in cases where they are still needed, resulting in Batswana buying high demand products such as handicrafts from foreigners from neighbouring countries. With dwindling employment opportunities in the cash economy the poor now reside permanently in physical and mental ghettos.
Botswana’s education system transitioned people from being hewers of wood and drawers of water into wage workers without engendering an attitude of mind fundamental to invention, innovation, self-employment and excellence. Unless it is fundamentally reformed the system has reinforced an unsustainable paradigm shift from a self-sufficient citizenry to uncritical, ignorant, bitter, petty, vindictive and jealous citizens.
It has for long been public policy to train people to stay in their current jobs and follow a pre-determined career pathway towards compulsory retirement instead of training them to be more productive and employable beyond public service formal employment.
This approach together with controlling publicly owned mass media and preventing freedom of information have perpetuated unconscious incompetence and curtailed freedom of choice which are fundamental ingredients of sustainable individual and societal prosperity.
The budget reveals the ongoing preparation of a comprehensive education and training strategic sector plan without saying how that aligns with the national human resource development strategy.  The speech says nothing on development of high value skills required for employment in the formal and informal economy or for self-employment.
A point of reference here is the STEP (skills for employment and productivity) framework introduced in 2010 by the World Bank which promotes lifelong learning characterised by good basic education, job-relevant skills, encouragement of entrepreneurship and innovation and facilitation of labour mobility and job matching. The budget does not say much on the business case for the education and training sector plan.
In order to eradicate poverty and foster employment creation the country needs to focus on building the capacity for sustainable competitiveness based on the productivity of human capital. For this to happen the budget could have presented a clear strategic agenda to tackle the widespread paradigm paralysis that holds us back from leveraging our upper middle income status to shift our competitive advantage away from exploiting primary commodities towards growing the productivity of our human capital.
Our current paradigm is characterised by lack of ambition, fear of change, reluctance to innovate, inability to invent, weak leadership model and decision making on the basis of raw data harvested from grapevines. Increased productivity and competitiveness cannot be grown under the oversight of boisterous and arrogant leadership who use legal power and bullying bluff and buster approaches to compel people to comply.
Massive investments in productivity improvement and public service reform are “busted flush” because of failure to identify paradigm paralysis as the major cause of low productivity and using power wielding managers armed with straight jacket approaches professing to manufacture high performance cultures.
Signs of an effective paradigm shift will become visible when government recognises the importance of systematically building a strong positive relationship with both employers and employees. The lack of trust that is a product of the new national leadership model popularised five years ago comes with high transactional costs. Symptoms are visible in the deteriorating quality of education and other public services and removing the underlying causes is what we need.
No country can attain sustainable competitive advantage unless it undergoes a paradigm shift to position its human capital to effectively deal with its unique challenges using uniquely tailored solutions informed by global thinking.
Mbongwe is a human capital, organisation development and strategy consultant
