Mr. Editor, it pains the heart, in no little measure that, instead of it being a thoroughly reasoned, constructive and rational discourse, the debate on Constitutional reform has been made to resemble a bitter altercation of brainless drunkards.
Those whom the nation had expected from them intelligent direction and contributions of substance on the matter instead elected to speak nonsense, blow out coarse expletives and spit hatred at those who are opposed to their ideas.
The massive scale of frivolity in dealing with the issue made one wish that the issue had never arisen for consideration at all, let alone at the time of the existence of the shameful stock that today seat in governance.
But amongst all, it is President Ian Khama who is a complete let-down. He has failed to grasp the core issues at hand. He is not taking the issue seriously. He can’t build and articulate his position.
Mr. Editor, the subject is whether there is a need for constitutional amendment.
Yet, the nation has never had the benefit of a single tangible strand of an argument from the Head of State on whether we must re-look at our constitutional scheme. At this preliminary phase of the debate the position of the Head of State on the matter could help energize the debate, usher it into the public domain and cause the debate to transcend the noxious political lines.
His Excellency ought to go beyond sounding ‘blood bells’ and seeming like a prophet of doom. He must address the merits of the debate and leave out the demerits of the debaters.
In his State of the Nation Address, delivered on the 8th November 2010, where one would have expected a serious and detailed analysis of the issue of constitutional reform, the President simply called for caution in ‘altering the founding document’ and dismissed the argument for electoral reform only on the basis of Free House findings. According to him, as the Constitution has upheld both our human rights and responsibilities to one another for nearly half a century we should therefore “…exercise caution in heeding calls to alter the founding document that has been the guarantor of our enviable record of political stability and socio-economic progress”.
The approach is purely erroneous. Firstly, the President advances a porous argument against electoral reform. Secondly, the speech ignores a myriad of issues that form the recipe of the debate on constitutional reform and therefore fails to clearly articulate the President’s position on reforming the constitution.
It does not take the debate any further to say our fundamental laws will be altered once there is clear domestic consensus since that is an obvious condition sine quo non in terms of the Constitution.
Thirdly, it is difficult to discern the foundation of the President’s call for caution. That is not to say it is wrong for the Head of State to warn. But everything ought to have a basis, including caution.
It isn’t the first time that calls have been made for amending the Constitution. The Constitution of Botswana has been amended ample times before.
At all times, the political stability of the Country remained intact. There is no evidence, both in history and in the present to suggest that Constitutional reform could destabilize the country.
Finally, the part of the speech isn’t sound. The reason why the President and his team are on an emotive and ambitious project for the extermination of poverty is partly due the fact that the Country hasn’t made any serious socio-economic progress ‘after nearly half a century’.
And it is in my view fundamentally due to the fact that the Constitution does not entrench second-generation or socio-economic rights, a mischief of which Constitutional reform is a remedy. The dignity of Batswana cannot solely and permanently remain contingent upon the fluctuating sympathies of a Head of State.
Here is another problem. Khama fails to realize that Constitutional reform will bring him both political and personal gains. And these gains will not come in the mist of the trepidation and apprehension he shows. If he chickens, he stands to lose. This occasion is for him to shine; it is a moment that he must not defile.
The kind of Constitutional reform being envisaged here is one of immense proportions that has never been undertaken in this Country. It is a project that will restate, refine, rebrand and realign the ‘hopes and aspirations’ of Batswana. It is a soul searching exercise that will refurbish this Country’s values and place it in the era of modern constitutionalism.
To debate the needfulness of such a project of obvious necessity is tantamount to a betrayal of its founders’ wishes for when they framed it they did not only expect that the ‘living tree’ will be watered by judicial fiat, but that the people will reconvene and repair it. And if Khama calms his nerves and answers this simple civic call this generation and future generations will remember him for polishing the ‘star of Africa’ and putting it back in its rightful place. Like his father, the national memory will forever remember him. Apart from the legacy and more crucially, Khama’s policies stand to benefit from Constitutional reform.
First, there is no doubt that his project for the eradication of poverty and provision of shelter to those who cannot afford it is an excellent policy. But if Khama really cares about Batswana, and if this is not merely a political campaign device, he would want to ensure that even when he departs those who come in will take from where he left not on the basis of pity but as a constitutional imperative.
Therefore, the solution lies in entrenching socio-economic rights in the Constitutional, such as the right to shelter and food, will serve this goal.
Secondly, Khama’s policy of redefining Botswana’s foreign policy needs to operate in a supportive constitutional framework. We cannot become a messiah of the new international morality when we have not domesticated important international treaties such as the ICCPR and when our fundamental law is mute on the domestic application of international treaties.
It is only when our domestic laws are aligned to the international norms that Khama can legitimately start making noise to those we perceive to be in violation of international laws and have them listen.
It’s a new year.
It’s time for a new direction to this debate, Khama must let go of his prohibitive and antagonistic attitude and put the interests of the nation at heart. He must start to speak with specificity and avoid helpless generalities. He must dispel his timidity and fear; and behave like a product of military school and the son of one of this Country’s founders.
A vital question has arisen. It is a question that demands from a Head of State seriousness, fair treatment and adequate reply. It is a question that touches on the dignity of a people and trivializing such a debate amounts to a gross, palpable and deliberate insult on their dignity.
No sensible person can fail to perceive that this is a question no longer to be evaded; it must be metÔÇöfairly and fearlessly met.
Should he answer this demand in full, perhaps then, the ancestors can forgive President Ian Khama and give him a ‘tall, slim and good-looking’ wife.
