Let me state from the onset dear reader that I love my country Botswana and I am a very patriotic citizen lest I start attracting horrible names and labels.
The focus of discussion on this piece is to make a brief assessment as to whether Botswana really need an authoritarian/autocratic style of leadership in order to address fundamental challenges such as poverty and many other fundamental values such as the rule of law? and or lack thereof.
For the past years that he has been at the helm of the country’s highest political office, President Ian Khama has been ruling with a firm hand. Since assuming office, Khama’s leadership style has been very unique, sort of withdrawn and detached from the status quo. As a result of this there has been a mixed bag of reactions towards his style of leadership. Some say he that he is a reluctant President who shy’s away from being engaged on debates, avoids media, and is a threat to democracy, a schemer who prefers to work closely with a cabal of friends and close family members.
His critics have been a constant thorn on him and have argued that President Ian Khama has traits of an autocratic leader where democracy and human rights are trampled upon and dissenters are harassed, victimized and hunted down. In support of their arguments his critics join the dots and find a pattern that includes state sponsored victimization and imperialist style of leadership. A “Me nice” who spends most of his time running around the countryside enjoying the ululations and endless dances from desperate rural poor. Just doing literally nothing basically by pretending to be busy, with his night vigils distributing blankets and feeding the desperate rural poor with soup, fat cakes, bibles and shirts.
Since assuming highest political office, President Ian Khama has been accused by his critics as a paranoid, selfish, self centred and egocentric failed political leader where now there is a specter that is hurting the democratic norms. That is, the spectre of autocratic nostalgia, characterised by some false pretentious claims of being the best.
Despite the criticism that Ian Khama has attracted domestically, at international level he remains a figure that seems to fascinate many people However, with the way things are evolving in the country, it is clear that interest groups and civil society co-opting democratic institutions, average citizens are desperate for a secular saviour, who will put an end to the dysfunction and insensitivity of everyday politics. The Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) has been accused of bringing in a white academic sangoma to prescribe to it the kind of leadership the party would need going forward. The white sangoma got it all wrong in his advice to the BDP because as the years went by, the recommendation made by him proved to be not only disastrous but an outright shame, pathetic and idiotic. The writing is clear on the wall, that BDP was sold a dummy by bringing in a mere spaza, Khama’s critics have argued.
When he first assumed political office on April fool day in 2008, President Ian Khama promised decisive single minded leadership to address Botswana’s greatest challenges and promised new policy reforms and transformational style of leadership. As to whether Khama has been able to translate his blue print milestone into reality is a matter of discussion for another day. But the writing is clear on the wall. There has been complete departure from his promises that even he Khama is in a complete state of confusion. He mis-understood the script of his 2008 April fool day speech.
Under the leadership of President Ian Khama, one cannot deny that the myth of autocratic miracle is responsible for the contagion of strong man syndrome where endemic corruption, lack of inclusive growth and policy paralysis has certainly contributed to the gathering storm, which is undermining the old political cloud that Botswana has been exposed to or rather known to be. Hence his critics submits that he is corrupt to the core but sees corruption in others only while he forgets his close cronies, family members, boot lickers, parasites and greedy over draft millionaires. Those that are so much obsessed with him including some wanna be millionaires always dressed with their trousers going up to their chests.
The question, however, is: Are autocracies or disciplinarians as evidenced by Ian Khama style of leadership a superior models of governance, especially in the 21st century? Does Botswana require or need to revert back to the style of leadership displayed by the former Presidents inclusive of Ian Khama’s father Sir Seretse Khama to address fundamental challenges of poverty and other pertinent issues. Or alternatively, what is instead needed is a new “Progressive Era” of systematic reform towards establishment of a genuine democracy and robust state institutions, which can cope with the vicissitudes of globalization and complex 21st century governance challenges. Reverting back to the “African Miracle’ Status, because certainly despite the many accolades the country continues to enjoy and receive, it is regressing.
A significant section of the voters across all troubled democracies and Botswana not being an exception have (mistakenly) come to believe that the solution to their national problems is electing strongman, rulers who could shake up the system showered in (fact-proof) nostalgia. However, a growing number of voters have now come to fondly remember leaders of the past when President Sir Marquette Joni Ketumile Masire, Dr Festus Gontebanye Mogae a.k.a Lefisto were in power. This is mainly on account that they have been let down by the Ian Khama administration full of empty promises, throwing money at problems, high youth un-employment of graduates etc etc.
To put things into perspective, when President Ian Khama came into power in 2008, he promised to take Botswana to greater heights by making it great, bringing with him an entourage of army men/ soldiers into the civil service. However, things have turned out not as promised, as the bureaucracy has been harassed with many permanent secretaries, directors either suspended or out rightly fired from. In 2011, there was a nationwide public service strike in the country, purging of those leading some institutions and with one of more killings that were not considered bad for the country. There was and has been complete madness and confusion with partisan politics and patriotism taking centre stage. Those with dissenting voices considered non-partisan ill mannered culprits who needed to be dealt with, sometimes accompanied with heavy punishment.
While Khama must be applauded for his poverty eradication drive, it is worth noting that almost a decade holding fort far from achieving the promises he made the country is far from becoming “great again”, the country is still mired in widespread poverty. President Ian Khama has ended up relying on greedy cronies, who only care about their own interests, as well as misguided economists, who have not been sincere and honest with him. Classical example is the fantastic newly introduced Economic Stimulus package (ESP). The current Ian Khama government is grappling with corruption scandals that has become institutionalised and now systemic.
Instead of flirting with dictatorship/autocracy, which is prone to cronyism and megalomaniac leadership, the Ian Khama administration needs to focus on reform-oriented leaders, who are committed to establishing a competent and empowered bureaucracy, fight against special interest and adopt the right kind of policies that create inclusive, sustainable growth.
