Government has recently launched backyard gardens as part of a drive to eradicate abject poverty in Botswana.
The Government has also called on the business community to help Government by building houses for the poor.
While we think there is need for debate on just how cultivating a backyard garden can help one to graduate from abject poverty, we think that businesses that have answered the Government’s call to build houses should be commended.
That said, we want to highlight the fact that the extent to which the President is personally involved in going around literally begging businesses to answer his calls could produce unintended backlashes.
It is an open secret what a high premium businesses generally place on contacts and access to high office.
And in Botswana there is no office higher than that of the State President.
Access to it brings power, influence and largesse.
One only has to look around to see how overnight all of the President’s friends and hangers on have become filthy rich- mainly by way of their association with companies and winning government contracts and tenders.
Already, the President is alleged to be overly accessible to a handful of businesspeople on account of the number of houses that they built for the President’s programmes.
There are also allegations that certain businesses that built houses for the President’s programmes were deliberately favoured by the skewed nature of the alcohol levy that was started by the President too.
It is our hope that all these are false.
But the fact that they are coming out into the open makes it all the clear the kind of pitfalls and land mines to which we open our President when he becomes directly involved in minute policy details that go to the extent of affecting individual commercial firms.
As a country, we should be careful not to compromise the integrity of the Office of the President.
The Office of the President is a national asset that should be used to unify the nation and serve us equally without favour.
There are allegations that many businesses are already lining to support the President’s calls as a way of gaining exclusive access like that being enjoyed by their counterparts who reacted positively to the presidential call.
To them, building a few houses is nothing compared to the big financial gains they stand to make as a result of connections with the State President.
We hope the President is well advised that even as he has clean motives to help the poor, the same cannot be said about many commercial interests that have come to answer his call.
Today, the President of South Africa is in trouble as a result of his relationship with the Gupta brothers, who are said to be peddling their influence to out-compete other businesses.
What started as an innocuous relationship between the President and business community now threatens to undermine the integrity of both Jacob Zuma and the office that he holds.
It is not a secret that President Ian Khama has many diverse commercial interests, including in such areas like tourism.
His younger brothers are well-known successful businessmen.
While it is not the intention of this newspaper to accuse the President of corruption, we make no apologies in warning him to be careful not to end up in the pockets of predatory business people masquerading as good Samaritans.
If the President is not well advised, it is not farfetched that before long he and his family members will be accused of shady deals.
That, of course, has happened elsewhere in Africa.
In fact, from the tone of questions recently put in parliament by opposition Members of Parliament one can easily discern a story line which drives home the point that certain individuals who are close to the executive and presidency have been winning lucrative army deals.
The structure of Botswana’s economy is such that the state plays an excessive role.
And, as we know, the President also has an excessive influence on many state owned institutions.
This influence could be as a result of patronage that comes about because it is cabinet that in many instances approves CEOs of Government companies.
There have been indications that Members of Parliament and ministers could be required to declare their interests.
That piece of law, unfortunately, has been silent on whether such declarations would be made public and whether the declarations would also apply to the State President.
These are serious questions that have to be answered if not for anything then at least to protect the integrity of both the office and person of State President.
It would have made much sense if the presidential appeals were located under a different office other than that of President so that some level of detachment is created to also avoid rumour mongering that ultimately defaces the integrity of the Office of the President.
