The recent developments engulfing Kgosi Kgolo Kgafela II that culminated in his incarceration have ignited an interesting debate on the institution of Bogosi. Extra judicial floggings and other peripheral issues such as the alleged running away from the law aside.
 It is the chieftainship, its significance in contemporary Botswana that ought to be the core of public discourse. Are chiefs merely ceremonial figures or do they wield some real (not perceived) power, where do they fall in the leadership hierarchy, how relevant are they in modern day Botswana, are there concrete plans to develop the capacity of the institution to play any meaningful role, why are many of them opting for political office over kgotla?
┬áThese and many more questions should be at the fore of the national debate against the backdrop of Kgafela’s fiasco. As we ponder over these issues we may be able to answer the million pula question; is Kgafela a recalcitrant or a rebel with a cause in his crusade to assert traditional leadership, could this be an explosion of contradictions of political versus traditional power play that manifests into tendencies that threaten to tear the nation asunder?
This article argues without prescribing the modus operandi that in order to address the injustices of colonialism and or neocolonialism on various policies and legislations, a fresh debate culminating in the review of the constitution is inevitable, chieftainship is used as a case study, otherwise there are other equally compelling cases which could have been used, some of which are mentioned albeit scantily.
Dr Koma competently demonstrated how the power of the chief has evolved overtime before, during and post colonialism, missionaries then colonial administration and later our own kin took away what rightly belonged to the people; the epitome of values and culture as embodied in the chiefs. Money became a useful bait to lure chiefs to become political fodder for the ruling party; this has helped perpetuate BDP hegemony.
After coronation, Kgafela refused to be included in government payroll and spelt out the road map of his administration. In the process, he attracted the attention of the law and unbridled criticism for infraction on human rights from some sections of the nation particularly the academia. He is also reported to have given an interview on wide ranging issues which in his view impedes chiefs to serve their communities unencumbered.
There are laudable voices calling for the review of the constitution, Kgafela among them. This is one of the issues that beg for a national debate, after all it was deferred by Sir Seretse Khama and we should not allow Ian Khama to kill this important debate.
 The call for constitutional review is not only justified but also imperative to allow the nation to redefine its destiny and help restore the dignity of the chiefs among other things, dislodge the chiefs from the clutches of politicians; what chiefs relentlessly sought, some of them got using their chief status which then catapulted them to political office, where real power lies.
 Paradoxically the political pirates who stole away from chiefs to politics have abandoned the seemingly moribund institution that is now for all intents and purposes is a caricature, the dinosaur of monumental proportion.
 This country can no longer hide under the façade that it is a shining example in Africa, because it no longer is. A sincere introspection and candid audit of what went wrong (including with chieftaincy) will take the country to its rightful place in the League of Nations, constitutional talks will do exactly that.
┬áThe tired argument that if it isn’t broken why fixe it is self defeatist and can only be ascribed to likes of Vice President Merafhe. It no longer is a question of being broken but rather of being obsolete.A sizeable number of dikgosi, past and present acquiesced in the death of chieftainship as they watched with silence befitting a corpse as the institution was mutilated at the political alter in exchange for personal short term gains with dire consequences on the institution that should otherwise underpin our democracy.
 Kgafela represents a few (among chiefs) of the last Mohicans in an attempt to revitalize the role and dignity of the institution of chieftaincy.
 Kgafela is fighting a noble cause. This is not to say that he should not be tried for suspected transgressions. That is still sub-judice and the courts will give their verdict. Beyond the courts it is a matter for the constitution to give appropriate immunity to the lords if the nation so wishes.
 It is unfortunate that some chiefs are trapped and hamstrung by lust for money and superficial power at the expense of the greater power on matters that affect their communities where they could have a high positive impact on all and sundry, including on politicians in an apolitical way.
In conclusion, an extensive quotation from Multi-Party Britain, edited by H.M. Drucker depicts the attitude of the BDP in relation to other stakeholders in the democratic dispensation of this
country substitution of the British players with local ones inter-alia completes the puzzle.
The Conservatives have long regarded the British state and their encircling society as their own. They supply its leaders and rulers. Its institutional labyrinth is peopled by the party’s natural supporters. Liberals and Socialists and other alien breeds of rationalist radicals, descendants of Puritans, Levellers and Chartists were always regarded as intruders into the ordered, calm world of the British State.(Contrast this with the recent attach by His Excellency on the proponents of constitutional review).
 He further says the people can be consulted, and grievances ventilated, opinion presented, interests pressed. But out of this arena of support flow no consequences of policy in government that the Conservatives considers binding. The principles which govern the organization of the civil society and state are thought too important to be subject to electoral caprice.
 The problem of mobilizing and winning support in the mass electorate is subordinated to the tasks of government, and despite occasional lapses, it has been this ever renewed perception of Conservative leaders that the political system is not one and indivisible, and that the tasks confronting them in government and in the political market must be kept separate.
