It has not escaped our attention that a recent decision by Government to let pass its opportunity to increase shareholding in De Beers has not attracted public debate; that is to be expected in a country that relies so heavily on diamonds for its upkeep.
Batswana are not enthusiastic on debating matters that directly affect them, not even bread and butter issues.
Save in certain isolated incidents, our academics also are, in the main, a letdown.
Elsewhere, academics are always at the forefront of influencing public policy.
They also are helpful in leading public debates, using their expertise and many years of research.
Organisations like the Botswana Institute of Development Policy Analysis (BIDPA) are fast becoming white elephants.
In the past BIDPA was a think tank that was trusted to provide leadership through its many capable research fellows on issues of public policy.
Not anymore.
All of a sudden, BIDPA has gone mute.
We are not privy to what has happened behind the scenes.
It, however, cannot be a plausible explanation that BIDPA has all of a sudden gone silent on account of the fact that its biggest client and financier happens to be Government.
Our recollection is that BIDPA was created by Botswana Government, but was given a clear mandate and space to enjoy that independence and freedom not enjoyed by Government departments.
We are not aware if that arrangement has since been taken away as to render BIDPA a mere appendage or extension of the Ministry of Finance.
Because no information has been tendered publicly to the effect that BIDPA will henceforth be constrained from behaving like a quasi-autonomous body such as it was when it was established, we can only surmise that a change in outlook is more a result of weak leadership compared to the organisation’s earlier years.
More pathetic are members of Botswana’s legal fraternity.
When government goes ahead with important restructuring exercises, such as that we are seeing at Botswana Telecommunications Corporations, we would under normal circumstances expect legal minds to be at the forefront of the implications of such unbundling initiatives by government.
But not so in Botswana!
Instead, our lawyers are only content in small, behind-the-scenes gossip that does nothing to add value, let alone provide leadership on such important matters of legal analysis and public discourse.
Botswana is today at the crossroads ÔÇô both economically and politically.
The world over, issues pertaining to good governance have been found to be too important to be left to politicians alone.
Although it is customary that in every democracy it is the elected politicians who ultimately make the final decisions on the direction the country takes be it politically and/or economically, it is important that such decisions by politicians are subjected to scrutiny by way of informed public debates from all quarters including from those sections of society that either endorse or oppose such decisions.
An absence of robust public debate makes Botswana all the poorer.
Such does not serve the interests of those in power, and certainly not those of the country.
Botswana Government recently made an announcement that it will let pass its chance to increase its holding in De Beers.
To their credit, Botswana Government made known reasons for their decisions, which is very rare, since this particular Government came into power just over four years ago.
One of the explanations provided has been that increasing the stake, which would cost around P9 billion to settle, would set back the plan to balance the budget by many years.
The Government statement reads in part: “Under the terms of the Shareholders’ Agreement between Anglo American, CHL (representing the Oppenheimer family interests) and the GRB, the GRB had pre-emption rights in respect of CHL’s interest in De Beers, enabling it to increase its interest in De Beers, on a pro rata basis, to up to 25% at a cost of US $1.275 billion.
The $1.275 billion which is equivalent to about P9.8 billion represents about 10% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a large cost for a country whose government budget is still in deficit, and is trying to bring the budget to balance within a year and a half.
Such a purchase would, inevitably:
Push back the restoration of balancing the budget, drain the country’s international reserves, raise the government debt to GDP ratio thus precluding the Government from raising additional debt in the international markets for other projects.”
This, in our opinion, is a loaded statement by government that should have attracted a lot of public debate.
This is not to say people should have differed with government. Rather, it is to say that in other countries, given the importance of diamonds to Botswana, this is a kind of statement that would not have passed without a debate as has been the case in this country.
As part of that debate issues would have been raised on the future of the world’s diamond industry without the Oppenheimer family who, for over 100 years, have been de facto midwives of the industry.
Questions would also have been raised on a possibility that the industry is coming to an end; at least in so the kind that we have known it over the years, what that meant for Botswana given the amount the industry contributes to the country’s GDP, foreign earnings, and the like.
In a nutshell, we had expected to learn from our experts what institutions like the Botswana Development Corporation, and the Ministry of Finance should, going forward, be doing to help prepare the country for a future without diamonds.
That has not happened. And it should be a source of shame.
