Starting around the late 1990s, Botswana found itself in the cross-hairs of a small but very effective British based NGO called Global Witness.
The NGO was campaigning against what it called blood diamonds.
At first it was clear that Botswana did not even know how to react to Global Witness.
Until then, Botswana had all the makings of an African success story.
Admiration by the world was all the country had come to know.
Here was a country that all it had ever received were accolades from the international community – Africa’s shining example, a bastion of democracy and an economic miracle, were some such accolades.
All of a sudden the country was getting negative publicity as it was lumbered with the bad, bad guys like Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo where brutish civil wars were raging.
Then as now all of Botswana’s economic success was anchored on diamonds.
And the campaign by Global Witness literally put all that success in jeopardy.
To make matters worse a blockbuster movie starring Leornado Dicaprio had just hit the box office in the United States showing the rebels cutting people’s limbs in pursuit of diamonds, the proceeds of which were used to further finance and fuel the war.
America has always been Botswana’s biggest buyer of Botswana’s diamonds.
It was all reprehensible and people in the west repulsed by it all.
The publicity machine was in full swing. They were being told in graphic detail that for every diamond jewelry they purchased in New York, they were financing and fueling a bloody conflict in Africa.
They needed little convincing to get them to stop buying diamonds from Africa, Botswana included.
Debswana Diamond Company then led by Louis Nchindo came up with what was to be called Diamonds for Development counter campaign. And he enlisted the services of Hilton and Young, a top notch British PR firm to lead Botswana’s messaging.
The strategy included at the top convincing the Congressional Black Caucus of America and convincing this particular group of leaders that Botswana’s diamonds were for development.
And they agreed. And a law passed in the American Congress specifically recognized that Botswana diamonds were not conflict diamonds.
At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Botswana Government had Clifford Maribe as its public face.
Maribe turned out to be a soft spoken, laidback, intrepid but very thoughtful chap.
He was also to be instrumental when another NGO, Survival international took Botswana head-on over the relocation of Basarwa from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve at around the same time.
In both instances Botswana government put up two spirited fights and prevailed.
I was reminded all of the above when recently Botswana Government officially apportioned blame for the country’s reputational damage to former president Ian Khama.
To me it was like a whole government conceding defeat to an operation led and manned by just one man – Ian Khama.
This is an astonishing admission coming from a rich and modern government – a government that has a solid goodwill and diplomatic networks across the world.
The difference between when Botswana had to fight the blood diamonds label and now is leadership.
Today our leadership is happy to blame Ian Khama for anything, including I suppose the ongoing inflation.
What we are witnessing at play is really confirmation bias.
Today’s political leadership especially inside cabinet has inflated egos. Their egos mean that these leaders stay away from the people and as such never really get know what the people on the ground are thinking.
Consequently they end up living in a bubble.
It is this leadership insularity that is at the centre of all Botswana’s problems today. It is a leadership crisis.
This is what Rasmus Hougaard and Jacqueline Carter write on leadership in the Harvard Business Review ,“if we let our ego determine what we see, what we hear, and what we believe, we’ve let our past success damage our future success.”
Hougaard and Carter continue: “An inflated ego also corrupts our behaviour. When we believe we’re the sole architects of our success, we tend to be ruder, more selfish, and more likely to interrupt others. This is especially true in the face of setbacks and criticism.”
By now it must be clear that the Harvard duo could easily be talking about leadership in Botswana.
But they are not done yet.
Egos make us susceptible to manipulation, it corrupts our behaviour, often causing us to act against our values. …our ego is like a target we carry with us. And like any target the bigger it is the , the more vulnerable it is to being hit. In this way an inflated ego makes it easier for others to take advantage of us. Because our ego craves positive attention , it can make us susceptible to manipulation. It makes us predictable. When people know this, they can play to our ego…”
The admission that Khama is inflicting reputational damage to Botswana is also dangerous at many levels.
It is like our government does not understand what is at stake, including just squarely on such an admission.
It smacks of helplessness.
Quite unbeknown to those making these utterances, they are creating an impression to outsiders, especially those who might want to come and put their money here that Botswana is a hellish place to do business.
Taken at face value such an admission exposes our vulnerabilities as a nation. It also attributes to Ian Khama a near messianic power he does not have or never ever had even at the height of his days as State President.
What is clear is that as a country we are gun shy.
This leads us to avoid confrontation and truth-telling, instead resorting to spin and propaganda.
Such a posture is at the very least a sign of a deeper malaise within our public institutions – but also at leadership.
How can a country fail to deploy its resources to fight an individual set on inflicting reputational damage to itself, if there is any truth to it.
Some of us had argued that a Khama forced into exile would be much more dangerous to Botswana’s interests than a Khama who is inside the country.
People thought otherwise. Now they have what they wished for.
Too many Masisi supporters take pride in political point scoring. They especially enjoy the many jabs that Botswana government and the president from time to time administer on former president Ian Khama.
It’s like they enjoy going toe to toe with Ian Khama.
This is exactly what Khama likes. He sees himself as one man up against an entire state apparatus.
Going forward the real challenge will be establishing an endgame to this madness.
Exuberance wins fans, but does not bring the much needed certainty to the country.
Playing victim as it happened when government officials blamed Khama for reputational damage is not among the options.
The options include Botswana Government outgrowing Khama and getting past him.
So far president Masisi has pointedly failed this test.
Instead of pulling the nation with him ahead of Khama we see all sorts of online propaganda monikers created in the president’s name, probably with his expressive blessing too, to attack all people who dare to question the Leader.
This is not the Masisi we were promised ahead of 2019.
I am not for a minute playing an appeaser. This newspaper, which I started together with two friends has suffered more than enough at the hands of Khama.
But I still insist that Khama can be defeated.
But he should not be humiliated which actually is what many Masisi cheerleaders and his security court jesters are trying to do. Humiliating Khama will be counterproductive. And has potential to backfire big time.
