We have seen Botswana lose the pole position of being the least corrupt country in Africa quite recently. While such might be significantly worrisome in isolation, it may not necessarily need to be so, when viewed contextually. There is need for us to be concerned, but such loss may not necessarily be indicative of a collapse or a depreciation of corruption busting mechanisms. It may be a result of other African countries intensifying their fight against corruption and thereby overtaking us as country. This kind of scenario is in my view not so very bad. The other alternative is that it might result from us as country becoming more corrupt. If we lost it due to the intensification of corruption on our part, then this has debilitating and detrimental effects on our national reputation and developmental aspirations and this should leave us very much worried. There has been talk as way back as 2016 that corruption in Botswana has become institutionalised and this gained further momentum in the campaign leading to the 2019 national elections. This institutionalisation of corruption might be the key explanatory variable to the narrative that perceived corruption in Botswana is going up.
As recently as early this month the President Dr MEK Masisi relieved Brigadier Mathambo of his duties as the head of the corruption busting agency, Directorate of Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) and in his place he appointed the founding head of DCEC Mr T. Katholo. Having had the opportunity to hear Mr Katholo present on corruption, I am doubtlessly convinced of his comprehension of the corruption dynamics and the necessary means to uproot it. He is the second head of DCEC to be appointed by President Masisi in slightly more than two years of his presidency. Mind you, DCEC has in the last four years or so had four director generals. On average it appears that one could say each director on the average stays for slightly over a year or thereabout in office. This frequent chopping of DCEC heads deprives the agency of continuity and is greatly worrisome, but more importantly it raises questions about the judgement, rationality and objectivity of the appointing authority. Something is really not right, but mind you, this is Africa. You might lose the job for doing it so perfectly well, particularly on corruption related issues, or for underperforming.
The critical component in the fight against corruption it has been argued, centres on the more often cited but elusive political will. It is a concept whose measure lacks objectivity but yet seems to be at the centre of everything that has anything to do with government success. The very same concept has been brandied to be at the heart of any possible success in the fight against corruption. But what is political will? There is a school of thought which avers that indicators of political will are enclosed in public statements and declarations by our leaders in particular the political ones. The presence of the political will is in this case reflected by the frequency by way of inclusion of statements which seem to resonate well with a particular line of government stance or policy on a particular issue of interest. This in itself in not so bad an indicator for a government anointed with a commitment to serving its own people. However, it possibly means the opposite of everything contextually rational in such statements, in a government both self-anointed and self-ordained in doing exactly the opposite of what it says. In a self-seeking government political will is a fallacy perpetuated by the masses, by choosing to believe what they know will not be effectively implemented though repeatedly presented at any given opportunity. Such masses by failing to hold the leaders accountable aid the collapse of the national welfare, for failure to implement that which is good is nationally catastrophic.
Our government commitment to zero corruption would possibly be found in most of government documents on development and good governance and any other documents. Corruption deprives and curtails development efforts of countries by pursuing that which is narrow and often aligned to personal interests at the expense of the national agenda.
I subscribe to the narrative which espouses political will as being anchored on certain key principles. In no particular order of preference, there should be an adequate set of decision makers with a firm commitment to supporting and implementing a particular reform or programme of action. Political will is therefore a collective concept, both in purpose and implementation. The leaders should have a through engagement around the problem and have a common understanding for an effective implementation of relevant remedial measures. There is also need for committed consensus on a potentially effective policy solution. As others would say “Real political will involves commitment to real solutions”.
I wish to conclude that within the Botswana set up, the unelected president wields more power than the collective legislators, either through constitutional dispensation or by lack of principles on the part of ruling party legislators, in which their personal interests supersede their core mandate. This scenario in part explains why I believe there is no political will, for the majority of legislators have divorced their conscience and lack objectivity. The fight against corruption requires that the head of the urgency should be appointed in such a way that he could execute his mandate without impediment. Given the centrality of DCEC in our development aspirations, it is necessary that the appointment of its head should be appointed in an independent manner that will allow him/her to execute his/her mandate without fear or favour. This for me is what is primarily lacking in our fight against corruption. It is more of the presidential will rather than the political will that will give us a corruption free Botswana,. In the absence of any firm presidential will, we might as well accept that our fortunes will forever be on a nosedive. Botswana is still an African country after all.
