I have heard it whispered that there is a view out there that I insult senior figures of our government by expressing my views in the public domain. It is not the first time that I have heard this, for I used to hear it when I was chairman of the Association of Citizen Development Consultants. Usually those who hold this view never write to put such a view in the public domain.
There is a reason why they do not express such a view in the public domain. They do not seriously believe what they are saying. I recently heard that as supposedly independent statutory body decided not to engage my services on the position that they would have a tough time explaining to government why they engaged me. In my view it is these types of people who insult our president. What their action suggests is that the government of Rre Khama has taken a position that I should not be engaged because of the views that I express in the public domain. I will bet my last thebe they cannot provide any evidence of the government ever communicating such a position to them. These types of decisions are an insult to Rre Khama in that they effectively suggest he lied to the nation when he took the oath of office to uphold the constitution of the Republic of Botswana. They suggest that he has says one thing and does another.
They suggest that he has not properly informed himself of the provisions of our constitution in regard to freedom of expression. The constitution of Botswana is a test of character. Being president means you can have a citizen say all sorts of rubbish about you during the day and have the responsibility to ensure the security of that person at night by ensuring that the police are well resourced. This is the breadth of our constitutional dispensation. That is why I am often surprised when people say that they fear being victimized. The boundaries of the width of our constitutional dispensation are drawn by contestation between those who peddle the idea of victimization and those like me who say we have faith that our leaders understand the breadth of our constitution like we do.
As I have said before the idea of freedom of expression was not created by the republican constitution. Those like me ofMaaloso-a-ngwana have always had the right to express their views in Serowe. If there are people from other wards who for whatever reason have not carved for themselves this space they should not expect us to give up what we have. It is the duty of each successive generation to preserve or widen the universe of their people. I am not going to lightly give up my inheritance in order to become a commodity in the cowardly lives of others. I recently happened to switch onto an Islamic channel where they were discussing the origins of the universe.
They made the observation that their religious book supported the big bang theory about the origins of the universe in that it contained a verse that said God widened the universe. The idea being that the big bang was actually God spreading the universe to how we now know it. I do not see any reason why a Mongwato like me cannot take the same approach in regard to freedom of expression. If people can look into posterity to support their positions why can I not do the same? The only difference between me and them is that they are referring to a document. We all know that the truth of what one asserts does not depend on whether it is documented or not but on whether it is provable. Our first president is said to have suggested that we should document our past. In my view by asserting my right as a Mongwato of Maaloso-a-ngwana I am documenting my history. More importantly our first president suggesting that documenting our history was to proof that we had a past worth writing about.
I believe that by documenting that the Bangwato of Maaloso-a-ngwana ward had the right to express their views in the main kgotla at Serowe I am showing that we have a past worth writing about. I was told on some occasions by my late uncle Gaborekwe Molake that there were times at Serowe main kgotla when after other speakers had spoken, my grandfather, Molake, would say his word and the chief would stand up and say “le mo utule, phatalalang” loosely translated to mean “you have heard him, disperse”. I believe he had the last word because of the quality of his view. What I am suggesting is that I would not be surprised if a person more senior than me were to tell the people of Botswana that “ you have heard him, disperse” after I have expressed a view.
The point is, if I put forth a position that is sound I see no reason why such a position should not be the final position adopted by Botswana. I believe this should apply to ant Motswana. If there is a Motswana out there who has a position superior to that taken by our leaders I see no reason why the current leaders cannot tell Botswana that it is the position that we should take. The idea that our leaders are incapable of conducting their affairs in the manner of the Setowe kgotla is an insult to them. I hold no such idea. One of my cousins called me one early morning to tell me that one local radio station show was suggesting that I had taught them that it was alright to criticize our judiciary.
I was please to read in one local private paper a report that the Judge President of the Court of Appeal had said that the public had every right to criticize the judiciary. Anyone who follows what I write we know that in the past I have disagreed with positions taken by the Court of Appeal. What all this demonstrates is that there will be times when we differ as to the width of the space for freedom of expression and our institutions of state will affirm the extent of the space. This they will do in a public fashion. It is therefore wrong and cowardly for a supposedly independent statutory body to import limitations into its independence by using the president as a red herring or cover for their own ends.
I remember that when government finally agreed to implement direct appointment of citizen consultants and formed a committee to give effect to this those of us who had in the process of agitation for this been accused of insulting our leaders did not rush to be in this appointing committee. We knew from day one when we acted that it was not about us but the people of Botswana. One wonders how people can advocate for establishment of an independent statutory body and when government accedes to their demands they turn around and throw away that independence, supposedly because they cannot account to government for their actions and decisions.
In the first place independence suggest they do not have government interference. Such manouvres are a set back to the growth of this country. This nation can do without these types of flawed characters. In fact their conduct amounts to a betrayal of this country. It is pathetic that they would like to pretend that our president shares their clearly unpatriotic positions. I will continue to enjoy my heritage as a Mongwato of Maaloso-a-ngwana and hopefully hand over more than what I have taken from my ancestors to my children.
