Not so long ago I watched the just past Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) Congress on national television. I was out and about visiting friends at the time, and when the channel was changed and dancing and jubilant democrats appeared on the screen, all those present turned their attention to the television. Then, when prominent members of the business community, former top-level civil servants and former members of the military were displayed in party colours, the eyebrows of those I was in the room with rose into their receding hairlines in astonishment and disbelief. Looking back, I’m not sure why we were all surprised. In the past, the people I associated with (with obvious exceptions) were primarily non-partisan, even though they held strong views with regard to politics, economics and governance. Presently though I find more and more people and companies coming out more openly in support of one party or the other. These individuals and entities have different motivations for joining the parties they do. There are those who are die hard supporters of the parties they join and or support; be it an opposition party, because they believe it’s time for a change or the ruling party, because they believe they’re the only ones capable. With respect to the military, retired general officer participation in partisan politics is increasing and many in the military and civilian sector believe this participation will politicize the military.
This is true not only in Botswana, but as a world-wide trend. With respect to business people and corporate entities, there are those who are unapologetic and in no doubt that by joining and/or supporting the ruling party they facilitate and enhance their chances of success in business. That if they scratch the backs of those in power, they’re backs will get scratched in return. They believe that by rubbing shoulders and associating with the who’s who and being granted entry into the ‘inner circle’ of the moment, the world of wealth and influence will be theirs. Their motives are centered around and upon self-interest, survival and monetary gain. This is not a new phenomenon, internationally the relationship between politics and business has always been a messy one and the juxtaposition of the two is inherently full of pitfalls.
If political organs and elements are in charge of such areas as the formulation of laws, taxes, licensing agreed and upon codes of conduct that administer and oversee business activities, there is no way in which businesses and business people can avoid people and organs political. “The bare minimum of politics requires business to give careful attention to ensure compliance. Here a business person has no choice as to whether he or she wishes to engage in politics” (Naude, 2013.
The inherent pitfalls appear when there are choices to be made and thus we must differentiate between the levels of involvement of business in politics. Should a corporate choose to become a member of for example BOCCIM (Botswana Chamber of Commerce Industry and Manpower) it becomes part of the communal voice of industry. And while a business may not be noticeable as a specific entity, interactions with politics at all levels will occur. This is legal and for the most part accepted and common practice.
In an alternate scenario, when and whereby a specific company or sector is in a crisis (remember America’s banks that brought the world economy to its knees?). A company CEO or sector leadership may need to take their case directly to those in power. Or possibly, when opportunities or challenges present themselves specific to a particular business or sector, the captains of that industry may then petition politicians and policy makers more directly to ensure the most favourable outcome possible ÔÇô we’ve seen this locally with regards to the tourism sector, whereby HATAB (The Hotel and Tourism Association of Botswana) and its member operators feel hampered and that business is suffering from the slow processing of visas or denial of visas to certain nationalities or groups.
But then we get to the more opaque forms of interaction, in particular the when businesses fund or contribute to political parties. Let me make it abundantly clear, I speak from ignorance here and have not researched electoral/political financing laws in Botswana and am thus ignorant of particular statutes in this regard. However, the issue of party funding, even here, has always caused a certain amount of controversy. Last election I read an article or press statement put out by a regional corporate entity that announced its funding of political parties. Their donations were dispersed through-out the party spectrum, though not equally. The ruling party received a grant of many thousands more than the other parties. I have also seen televised, substantial donations made by wealthy families, engaged in enterprise to the ruling BDP. At the heart of democracy lies choice and these entities are free to choose to who and whom they give their monies.
But it has always been unclear as to how many donations, in what amounts, by which companies and/or individuals are made to political parties. There’s no dishonesty in the principle of supporting and/or joining a political party, but rather it is mendacious and underhanded that in a democracy such as ours it is not always apparent and the public does not always know who is influencing whom.
“Where money is to be made, business people will move in irrespective of the human (and environmental) cost. In these cases, business profits from political injustice and in fact often relies on the injustice to operate successfully (it is called “stability”). Business does not see it as their duty to address the underlying political situation. They will only move out under direct pressure which is seen as more detrimental to the reputation of the business than staying involved” (Naude, 2013). In Botswana, there exist several entities that operate under monopolistic conditions, despite competition laws. Why?
When politicians themselves are the owners, directly or indirectly (maybe the husband/wife is named as the owner/operator) of businesses that supply or service organs of government and they win large contracts, it leaves everyone uneasy. When top officials retire and suddenly become captains of industry, we wonder. When former soldiers become ardent members of party structures and leading business people overnight it gives us all pause. We’re suspicious of motives when a corporate entity makes a donation to a prominent politician’s charity organization. And with election season upon us and business needing to be on the winning team, we have to be even more alert, more watchful of the relationship between business and politics. Outright violence and intimidation are not the only ways in which an election can be stolen. We pride ourselves on a voting process that is free, fair and credible and are quick to point fingers when we think our neighbors have erred in this regard. The space within which political entities and entrepreneurs operate is murky at best and it needs to be made transparent with the utmost haste.
