It is now customary that at every gathering where he delivers a pre-packed speech or just an open talk, President Khama cannot conclude without generating controversy either by making a sensitive announcement in a casual fashion and for an inappropriate audience.
So, for some of us, it was not surprising that he used the Botswana Democratic Party congress in Mahalapye to announce that while government will be paying public employees 3 percent effective September 2011, Cabinet has resolved that this increase should not be extended to the political leadership. The president emphasized that as political leaders they should lead by example and opt out.
Under normal circumstances and in an authentic democracy, such announcement would most likely cause us to celebrate the steadfastness and humility of our political leaders; their unfaltering commitment to show us the way in respect of wage restraint.
But we should not be fooled by this deceitful gesture of benevolence that has all the ingridients of a polluted political game. We need not be reminded about the characters of people who pass as the political leadership particularly their greed and craving to set themselves apart from the rest of us who pull their carts and provide them with comic relief.
Some of us have lived a little long enough to be fooled by these con men. Thus, the decision by Khama’s Cabinet to exclude the political leadership from the 3% pay rise is deceptive and ill motivated. Fellow Batswana let us not be deceived by these people for we certainly know that they would never sincerely let slip an opportunity for personal gain.
Thus, this essay intends to argue that the decision to opt out has two sides both of which are insincere and treacherous. I would start by arguing that this decision by Cabinet was most likely informed by recognition that the proposed pay rise is not lucrative such that even if they are left out, it would not make any big difference.
I submit that if the offer was lucrative under the most difficult fiscal circumstances, our honorable leaders wouldn’t opt out. You tell me dear reader, why did they not, for the sake of our limping economy, instruct the Ministry of Lands and Housing to defer construction of their miniterial villas? Why have they never declined the posh furniture recommended for their houses?
We still remember the story of that huge luxurious fridge the size of a local mortuary. Did its user object? President Khama never objected to the purchase of his caravan that bears a resemblance to a mobile presidential home. We cannot be fooled because our leaders have always gleefully accepted costly luxurious items and never thought of the huge budget deficit.
Now you can see that these were lucrative offers that ensured that our political leaders enjoyed lavish lifestyles. Do I hear you tell me about the 3% pay rise for our celebrity politicians? It sounds like naked insults to them hence their decision to opt out. It is an irrelevant and inconsequential increment! Ivan Goncharov says that ‘it is a trick among the dishonest to offer sacrifices that are not needed or not possible, to avoid making those that are required’.
The other side of the story could be that President Khama wants to use MPs and Councillors as guinea pigs. Khama had maintained a hardline stance and ferociously defended government’s decision not to award a pay rise. He had even announced that there would not be a pay rise before the Minister of Finance and Development Planning presented his budget proposal. Thus, the 3 percent offer somewhat contradicted President Khama’s insistence that there is no money.
President Khama has to work out a plan that would eventually bolster his stance hence the decision to exclude the politicians. Khama says that ‘even the 3% is unaffordable, that is why we have chosen to opt out’. This statement is instructive for it sought to pre-empt any skepticism about the real motive behind this exclusion.
Thus, before you can even engage your brains, your mind is whitewashed too see the good in their decision. It is a building block for a case for President Khama’s stubbornness and a launching pad for sickening mind games. An honest announcement will need little backing up! When President Khama said that even the 3 percent is unaffordable, he is merely buttressing his argument that he is not being stubborn in maintaining a hardline stance because the reality is that there is no money. You don’t have to rehearse the truth, isn’t it?
The decision is typical of a leadership that is dishonest and very treacherous yet wants us to believe that they are caring, patriotic and disciplined than every one else; a leadership that can give blown up figures to manipulate reality for personal gain.
Recently President Khama remarked that the unemployment rate in Botswana stands at 93 percent which is way too off the mark. But the Office of the President has failed to put right the figures in ways that suggest that the President was right in his figures.
This demands that we tread with utmost care and trepidation. We shouldn’t be surprised in the future when the political leadership awards themselves the 3 percent retrospectively once the economy has sufficiently recovered. It is probably a debt that has to be paid in the future. Politics with dishonest leaders is drawn to depravity and the ruin of public wealth.
I mean can you really trust them? They have always considered the use of public monies and stores as an entitlement in accordance with the generous provisions of the Greenbook. The manner in which they use their official vehicles bears testimony to a mind-set that derives from feelings of entitlement.
Thus, they can publicly announce that they are opting out in the full knowledge that they will work out ways to recoup the money they are set to lose. Surely every little bit would make a difference to our fragile economy but we have known our political leaders so well that we cannot be duped any longer.
We should not allow ourselves to be taken for a ride one more time. If we condone dishonesty of our leaders it means we are dishonest ourselves because we tolerate dishonest leaders and wrong doing at the highest levels. Dishonest leaders ultimately lead to corrupt people and a ruined nation. It really pains me that we still cannot see that Botswana is falling apart because of a devious leadership.
Based on the above perspectives, I want to suggest that the 3% pay rise should be extended to our political leaders who would then decide to opt out or accept the offer individually.
They will also have the option to return the money to the government or give it to charity if they really mean it. The decision to opt out should be a personal choice rather than a cabinet resolution.
Otherwise it places MPs and Councillors who publicly supported the workers’ demands in bad light. If they want us to believe that their support of the striking workers was not motivated by personal gain, why would they then opt out? I mean is it not a frank admission that indeed there is no money for a pay rise in which case it validates President Khama’s hardline position against a pay rise?
Are they not giving out contradictory signals that in many ways corroborate President Khama’s accussation that their support of the striking workers was motivated by naked opportunism?
How else can we interpret their double speak? Why would they want us to believe that the economy could sustain a pay rise and then opt out because there is no money? We know that our political leaders need money more than the public employees for on a daily basis they have to induce and entice voters and potential supporters.
Our MPs and councillors still have a chance to clear themselves and protect their images. All they need to do is to organize a media briefing to communicate their official position on this issue and lay it to rest. We want to know where they stand and as such they need to come out in the clear. This is a pure mischievous political game and a dishonorable one at that for this decision will go a long way in repairing Khama’s battered image while presenting the MPs and Councillors as incorrigible vultures who wanted to use public employees as political step ladder.
