Before you read this article and start cursing the columnist, let it be made clear that this is not a rant about President Khama, your favourite local God. This is a candid acknowledgement of the painful reality that Botswana has become the property of His Excellency Kgosi-kgolo Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama. Nonetheless, those of you who are peeved by this sincere acknowledgement can go eat grass for deliverance. The Badge of Courage takes no holy cows! Botswana state is highly personalized with citizens behaving like they have been sedated exceedingly so much that they have become sleepwalkers.
Reading Sonny Serite’s essay titled ‘Madomi ba loilwe’ (The Telegraph, February 12th 2013) I thought he was unfair to BDP members because the problem is nationwide. Batswana are like rare dogs that do not bark and cannot make any gesture as a form of communication. We behave like people who have lost speech and intelligence. I read that the reason why sheep was one of the first domesticated livestock species is its inclination to follow the leader to new pastures and came to think that Batswana must have been cloned from sheep and turkey ÔÇô one of the most stupid birds that will wait before a gate with no fences on either side. You see I like Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe for his truthfulness. In 2008 speaking at his party’s annual conference held in Bindura, Mugabe is reported to have said, ‘Zimbabwe is mine. I will never, never sell my country’ (http://www.nbcnews.co). We may hate him for these words but he was bloody honest and many Zimbabweans have come to live with this painful reality. In her own way, Botswana has become another Zimbabwe.
President Khama may not be as blunt as President Mugabe but Botswana’s politics revolves around the commanding hammer of President Khama. He hangs like Damocles’ sword over legitimate institutions of the state and has become synonymous with government. When in April 2008, Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama began to serve as Botswana’s fourth President, the policy making process experienced a marked shift from a process informed by public debate and bureaucratic management to one that seemed to largely depend on the whims of the President, significantly founded on his personal opinion. Suffice to state that Khama entered government as Vice President of the Republic of Botswana on his own terms, bringing with him his personal assistants from the Botswana Defence Force where he was the commander. While the procedure inherent in Botswana politics prevents a traditional chief from directly entering politics, Khama was exempted from the provision. It would seem that Khama was convinced that the BDP which was losing its popularity needed him more than he needed them hence he bargained from a strong position allowing him to get whatever he wanted. Ultimately, this arrangement enabled Khama to ‘wield more power than ordinarily due to a Vice-President…and [secured] privileges hitherto inconceivable’ (Magang, 2008, p.97).
When Khama became President, he discontinued the position of Special (Legal) Advisor to the President in preference for his close cronies who are precisely his informal advisors. Over time, the power of the presidency has grown so much that it has become law unto itself. Its role in policy making and day to day governance ensures that Khama has become more powerful than the state. Any existing control mechanisms, counter-veiling forces and political institutions seem completely feeble and inefficient to contain the presidency powers. State institutions operate at the behest of the president. Promotions and retention in the public service are determined by an officer’s ability to venerate Khama which ultimately means that public officers serve Khama rather than the government. Public officers have become servants of Khama totally devoid of any sense of responsibility to the state. This style of leadership establishes rule by the individual and undermines democracy because it allows Khama to usurp the powers of the state thus leading to authoritarianism. Khama’s leadership style is characterized by leading from the front and a proclivity towards ensuring that his name takes centre stage.
For instance, while officiating at a hand over ceremony, Minister of Transport and Communications Mr Nonofo Molefhi enjoined Batswana to help needy members of the society, further commenting that, ‘by so doing, …Batswana would be responding to President Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama’s call to uproot poverty, (Daily News, 11 December 2013). The import of this extract is that it made reference to Khama the person not the government or government documents relating to poverty alleviation ÔÇô documents that predates Khama’s presidency and would likely outlive him. The challenge is here is that campaigns to alleviate the poverty of the people of Botswana are personalized rather than institutionalized so that they remain relevant even after Khama has departed the scene. Personalized political culture is expressed in the admiration and recognition of Khama rather than the government and its institutions and this has the potential to lead to uncertainty and/or political instability.
In September 2013 while speaking at the official launch of Botho University in Gaborone, Minister of Education and Skills Development, Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi remarked that, ‘Batswana should appreciate the contribution President Ian Khama has made in the education sector’ (http://www.gabzfm.com), further commenting that the education sector has the largest budget every financial year, and this would not be possible without the approval of the President. Related to the above, a Member of Parliament from the ruling BDP, Pono Moatlhodi is quoted as saying, ‘we are not going to allow the people who advice the President to mislead him, they must know that he is the best citizen of the country’ (The Botswana Gazette, 18-24 December 2013). This shows that for one to be taken seriously, they must bring Khama into the equation.
