To the uncritical mind, it would appear that it is the government of Botswana that is at war with the private media. However, the truth is that the standoff is between President Khama and the private media which then spilled over to all branches of government, the Executive in particular because President Khama is synonymous with government. When the President of the Botswana Confederation of Commerce, Industry & Manpower (BOCCIM) initiated a mediation process to resolve the impasse between the private media and the government, purportedly at the command of the Head of State, he remarked that ‘the current standoff between the government and the private media is a grave concern to the Botswana business…’.
The consequence of this narrative is that the mediation process started on a wrong premise and was therefore bound to fail. It is wrong, insincere and deceitful to insinuate that there is an impasse between the Government of Botswana and the private media. Admittedly, there could be differences between the government and the private media in terms of what has to be published and what has to be protected from disclosure to the public but such differences are expected and natural and shall remain a defining feature of state-media relations and should be handled and managed in such a way that they did not transform into open warfare. However, the relationship between the presidency and the private media worsened since Ian Khama became president. President Khama’s hatred for the private media is now legendary. He never misses an opportunity to publicly reiterate his dislike for the private media and has never been apologetic about it. Since his ascendance to the presidency, he has been in a crusade to discredit and destroy the private media. Several years ago, he publicly stated that he does not read local private newspapers because they have nothing to offer except criticism.
Sometime in 2009 President Khama’s government undertook to limit its advertising expenditure on private media perhaps to starve the media houses and have them close shop. This was followed by another overt anti-private media campaign involving the barring of the private media from covering Cabinet visits to councils which culminated with opposition councillors walking out at Gaborone City Council full meeting attended by President Khama and his Cabinet ministers. While addressing the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) National Conference in 2013 president Khama remarked that, ‘these people are shallow in their reasoning and do not contribute anything that is good to the society’. President went further to state that the private media ‘constantly lead people astray in pursuit of their unpatriotic and nefarious agendas against everything that the government does whether good or bad’.
In the same year while addressing the BDP elective congress in Maun President Khama remarked that ‘… however, I want to continue appealing to you fellow democrats not to be intimidated by what you hear from some of these men and women from the many media houses in this country…I must, however, point out that it is not all of them who are in the habit of pulling us down…’. In his State of the Nation Address in November 2013 president Khama dropped another nerve wrecking bomb shell when he stated that ‘…even the most abusive output comes with silver lining in that the barrage of criticism this government receives from much of the press has contributed in no small measure to our country’s superior global ranking…’ In the same year he told the High Level Consultative Council that there is growing tendency to deliberately distort and mislead the public by some media practitioners and concluded that his government will extend legal services to public officers who have been wronged by the media. In the same year he mobilized the BDP parliamentarians to reject the freedom of information bill.
These few instances are testimony to President Khama’s public contempt for the private press. Unfortunately, his personal squabbles with the private media has elevated to a national crisis. While President Khama is the face of government and whereas the Office of the President is the chief source of governmental information, a distinction must be made between government business and President Khama’s personal matters. President Khama’s tiff with the private media is a personal issue and must be understood as such. At the core of the standoff is the charge that the private media is putting President Khama at a disadvantage through its determination to contest abuse of office for personal gain and this is not a governmental concern.
Thus, the current impasse is not about differences in terms of the roles and responsibilities of the private media in a democracy. The standoff centres on what President Khama probably perceives as insufficient respect for his person by the private media. President Khama is probably appalled by the ability of the under-resourced private media to outcompete him in drawing the attention of citizens by empowering them with information he had wished to conceal not in the interest of the nation but for personal gain. The standoff is essentially a result of President Khama’s desire to entrench his power and do as he pleases. In this case, the private media is an obstacle to unfettered powers that are self-serving in every respect. Thus, any mediation process where President Khama is not personally at the centre of the negotiation is destined to fail because it is anchored on a misdiagnosis. This explains why government representatives at the mediation table had no authority to accede to even the tiniest of demands from the private media representatives. In effect, the mediation process was a hoax and by and large a unique replay of the rude attitude of the presidency toward the private media in ways that clearly reveal the extent to which relations between President Khama and the private media are based on dishonesty and petty hatred. Yet, in a vibrant democracy the private media is an invaluable arm of the presidency in so far as it often has to report on things that would otherwise escape the attention the government.
The private media and the presidency need each other to deliver on their mandates. Whereas the presidency need the private media to relay its messages including promoting government policies and programmes to the people, the private media on the other hand need the presidency to protect it in its role as watchdog. This relationship of co-dependence requires both to forge an honest and mutual working partnership while avoiding an intimate relationship. This arrangement would place a burden on both establishments to play their part well. It will ensure that the media disseminate accurate information; is not overzealous and is guarded against manipulation by interest groups resulting in media compromising its ethics and muddying its role. Similarly, the presidency would do well to help the private media get first-hand information so that they have no excuse for publishing lies. Any attempt by the presidency to withhold and or treat basic information as classified is bound to lead to speculation and suspicion about the real intentions of the presidency. This could easily lead to yellow journalism because when basic information is withheld the private media resort to cooking up stories in an attempt to make sense the behaviour of the presidency.
The private media has played its part in an endeavour to find common working ground with the presidency. It is the presidency’s turn to reciprocate this noble gesture or let the opportunity pass away and taste the full might of an adventurous, animated and tireless private media.