It comes as no surprise that the Media Bill, as recently published by the Minister of Communications, has been received with consternation by almost all the newsrooms in the country.
Key aspects of the Bill as they pertain to control, accreditation and code of conduct are ill-tempered and the media practitioners have no choice but to be alarmed by the perils they are set to suffer as a result of this piece of law.
The spirit of the law seeks to give the minister extensive powers to essentially micromanage newsrooms – and no self-respecting journalist wants to work under the capricious dictates of an unpredictable master such as a politician.
Worse, not only does the Bill further degrade the already wretched standards of commitment this government has to civil liberties, it also opens President Ian Khama’s person to all sorts of attacks and public ridicule, not least his personal commitment to democracy.
He should be concerned that the Bill risks undoing the impressive ground so far covered in entrenching the 4Ds he talked about in his inauguration speech.
It would perhaps be ungenerous to assume that Botswana is sliding into a dictatorship, but the casual callousness with which this government is attempting to control and eventually muzzle the media comes as a disappointment to those who had begun to approach the future with renewed vigour and hope under Khama.
Which is why the least optimistic amongst us have already started to gloomily compare Botswana’s latest turn of events as distinctively similar to those in Zimbabwe before that country’s famous slide into anarchy.
As presently drafted, the Media Bill is the closest Botswana government has gone in directly copying some of the worst laws that have brought Zimbabwe to its knees.
It’s a squalid descent into decadence from which I pray we will reemerge.
Coming to think of it, it’s a remarkable art of coincidence that the temper of the Media Bill is an exact replica of what government is doing to the alcohol industry where, as a result of prejudice, prices are artificially raised on the basis that people will stop buying liquor.
I have grave doubts this is the best way to run a modern, democratic country that has grown used to freedom and civil liberties.
Unfortunately, it seems like it will be some time before our government learns that public education is by far the best policy when faced with a crisis such as this.
The current President would do himself a favour by taking history lessons from his immediate predecessor who, when faced with the HIV/AIDS scourge, chose a long term approach over populist short-termism.
Government knee-jerk, dressed up as a moral responsibility, can only drive the country into more protracted problems of alcoholism.
After all HIV/AIDS was by far a much more intricate and complicated national ailment than alcohol which I guess a closer analysis would reveal its being blown out of context.
Back to the Media Bill, it is very important to acknowledge that there are many sections of the Bill which are not only welcome but also overdue but it is childish for the Minister of Communications to go as far as to want to legislate the right of reply.
The right of reply is an inherent, non-negotiable aspect of journalism.
The right of reply is an elementary principle of journalism that needs not go into the laws of a serious government that has a serious business of running a serious nation.
Of course, the Media in Botswana has not always lived up to public expectations. But even then it is churlish, frivolous and irresponsible for government to want to give one of their ministers the powers to go as far as start running newsrooms, (including private ones) over and above the Daily News which is their known playground.
While there are some in our midst who refuse to see government’s dangerous shift towards micromanaging people’s personal lives, we can only guess that the true reasons behind the laws are to erode at some of the fundamental aspects of our democracy which, it would seem, do not sit comfortably with where the current government wants to take this country.
Government cheerleaders would naturally defend the initiatives against the media and alcohol industries, arguing with no good reason that government actions are all reasonable, in order and overdue.
To the cheerleaders, any suggestion that government is taking a bad turn against freedom and civil liberties would border on libel and slander against the President.
To the cheerleaders government’s ham-fisted treatment of media and the alcohol industries is as a long overdue exercise meant to cut down to size what they think are two of the country’s most irresponsible groups.
It is, however, worth remembering the words (later retracted) by one Botsalo Ntuane that we are headed for the times when we will be told what time to sleep, what music to listen to, what clothes to wear and, God forbid, when to have sex!
If this is not state harassment then I don’t know what is!
