Following a long and ultimately profitable public debate that started in the 1990s about improving the efficiency of state enterprises, there was consensus that any move that did not address the quality of the Boards would not bear much fruit.
It was agreed that appointment to such Boards should be depoliticized.
While up to then Chairpersons of such Boards were mainly civil servants, chiefly Permanent secretaries of line ministries, a step was also taken to appoint chairpersons based on business acumen rather position held in Government.
For close to ten years, it was clear that the reforms were bearing fruits.
The privatization agency PEEPA was to later be given the authority and mandate to interview candidates to such Boards.
It was a wise decision.
Appointing political surrogates had almost lulled in the early parts of the 2000s.
There was a concerted movement towards appointing on merit.
With benefits clearly there for all to see there was beginning to be movement high up the ladder of governance by also reducing the number of Boards that a person could sit on.
Being a director is a very important responsibility.
In other countries the fiduciary duties of a director are so serious that when something bad happens to the company, directors (independent and non-independent) are held personally liable.
Sitting on a Board requires not just providing strategic leadership, but also reading through hundreds of Board packs and also taking decisions that ultimately decided on the very health of the organization.
Consequently having one person sit on numerous Boards does not in any way increase the value of that person to those companies.
If anything it reduces the value that one can render and subsequently exposes those companies.
In short it spreads failure because the individual ends up reducing their commitment to those companies simply on account of workload.
There was also a call towards doing away with cross board directorships where for instance two Chief Executives would sit on each other board as directors.
But it would seem like the scourge is once again back.
There is even an unabashed call by some key functionaries of the ruling party to make it a policy to appoint party members to such boards.
This time around the scourge is ably aided and abetted by a politicized intelligence services that is used to vet applicants to these Boards.
PEEPA has lost all authority on who can sit on which Board.
That is effectively now the role of the intelligence services.
Anybody who is seen not to be a card carrying member of the ruling Botswana Democratic Party is artificially culled out for some vague “security reasons.”
This is an archaic kind of political patronage that was rife across Africa especially following independence that blew across the continent in the 1960s.
We are aware of many capable and experienced citizens who upon being interviewed by PEEPA have gone on to be vetted out by the intelligence services simply because their loyalty to the ruling party and its elite is not considered sufficient enough.
What is worse is that in some cases even card carrying members of the ruling party who are viewed with suspicion by the intelligence and security complex end up being vetted out.
This is ludicrous.
This kind of profligacy does not only undermine good governance it also denies ordinary citizens the potential that they could gain if state enterprises where run on merit.
