Before you bay for my blood, let it be known to you that those words were used by the president in a TV interview during his recent State visit to South Africa. Yes he used the words: dedicated drinkers, radicals and nonsense. Some people think I’m obsessed with President Ian Khama, or rather with critiquing him. I say, it doesn’t matter, at least, not to me. For as long as he remains my president there’s no way he is going to escape my scrutiny. Should Themba Joina eventually occupy the State House as he says he will, I will easily leave Khama and focus on Joina. What I’m trying to point out is it’s not about Ian the son of Seretse Khama. It is about Ian my president. Nothing personal!
Like he always does when outside the country, my president happily sat and fielded questions from foreign journalists in South Africa. This is a privilege that local journalists can only think and forget about, unless your publication is one of those he sometimes pays surprise visits to, arriving unannounced, just the way the Bible says Jesus would one day show up here. You would be right to feel that as far as the president is concerned, local journalists are as bad as alcohol. The two are an irritation to the number one citizen.
When answering questions from a journalist in South Africa, President Ian Khama, as always, mentioned that he was asked by former president Festus Mogae to become his vice president. He says he was brought in to quell factionalism in the Botswana Democratic Party. Khama said Mogae feared that picking anyone from the people who were already active in the BDP politics would have fuelled factionalism and the worst fear was that the other faction in parliament would not endorse Mogae’s choice of Vice President. Khama was then chosen as a neutral person who was not aligned to any of the warring factions in the BDP. His ultimate task was to bring to an end, or at least bring to calm, factionalism in the BDP. I had hoped the BDP president would go further to explain if, in his thinking, he has achieved what he was brought in to achieve.
When the journalist confronted him with the formation of a breakaway party, he played it down and said a majority of the Barata-Phathi faction remains in the BDP and only radicals went with their few followers to form a new party. He says these radicals were driven by self interest and the love for power. I then ask, since Mr President acknowledges that factions have existed in the BDP throughout its existence, why did it have to be under Khama as president that the BDP finally split. Doesn’t this then raise questions about Khama’s credibility on conflict resolution? I mean, the man admits factionalism has always been rampant in the BDP but doesn’t say why it spiraled out of control during his time at the helm. But it is quite interesting that at this juncture the president mentioned his military background. Infact it was at the same time that he used the word nonsense. He said something to the effect that he would have stopped “this nonsense”. Factions exist because of difference in opinion and it is only someone who doesn’t embrace the fact that people have the right to opine differently who can refer to that as nonsense.
I also noticed during the interview at how my president was at some point being economical with the truth. He was asked to express his views on the strength of the BDP after the defection of the now Botswana Movement for Democracy members. He thanked the journalist for posing that question and I had hoped Mr President would give a true picture of the dent that has been caused to the BDP by the formation of the BMD. Instead, Khama misled his interviewer into believing the BMD stood and lost the Tonota North by-elections. Khama said the real test to the BDP was the Tonota North elections. He said the BDP won the seat against the BMD which was in coalition with other opposition parties. If my memory serves me well, the BDP stood against the BCP and MELS in the Tonota North elections and to brazenly assert that the competition was between the BDP and the BMD is not only factually weird but shameful. Infact it qualifies to be labeled as nonsense.
The president was then asked about his battle with alcohol consumption in Botswana. The president said he is trying to make alcohol unaffordable but he dodges when the journalist asks him if he doesn’t see such a move as prohibition of alcohol consumption in the country. Instead of admitting that the expected end result of these alcohol levies is to eventually have all liquor outlets close down, the president beats about the bush and talks of the millions of Pula raised through the alcohol levy. The president even talked of dedicated drinkers. It is interesting that the president has realized people are dedicated to their drinks and as such I don’t know how the president is going to win this one. Dedication is much stronger than determination and no matter the president’s determination to stop alcohol consumption, the people’s dedication to their drinks will always prevail.
Oh! And perhaps I should mention here that I was in Maun over the weekend where I met a friend of mine whom I should thank for picking up a very gross mistake that I made in my column from two weeks back. I had mentioned that “there is no love lost between me and my president” but what I had wanted to write was, “people think there is no love lost between me and my president.” I apologize for that mistake and I thank you Muller for that observation. You’re a good teacher of English. Another friend of mine had a problem with the fact that I went on radio and said journalists have no choice but to base their stories on speculation because the authorities are not readily willing to disseminate information.
I still stand by what I said because in the absence of the Freedom of Information Act (the right to know), journalists have to rely heavily on sources (speculation) to build their stories. What choice do journalists have when Public Relations officers in government departments have just one answer to all questions, “can’t confirm or deny”. Journalists do send questionnaires to relevant authorities and they choose to ignore or give that silly answer which leaves journalists with no choice but to write what they already have from their sources. Only then will you see these public relations practitioners coming up with press releases that seek to rebut the allegations but in many instances giving so much credence to the speculations and allegations. Of course I urge journalists to always get both sides of the story but I don’t think Mr Ngwakwena can write in the newspapers or tell journalists if he is a thief. (Well that’s what he said on radio. He says no one should write what he does and only him should be allowed to write that he is a thief if at all he is one). To me that is absolute nonsense, to use Khama’s words. Imagine this, had the Voice newspaper waited for Ndelu Seretse to be the one writing about his business deals, the man would still be in Cabinet never to be in the dock. Ngwakwena should not get panicky because I don’t see anyone writing about him because at least for now, he is nobody to be written about. That is how I weigh him.
