The last two weeks have been the most tumultuous I have experienced since I assumed this particular guise: that of political analyst in Botswana’s private press. Two articles, drafted by myself and printed in this publication caused more of a stir than I anticipated; namely “Questions for His Excellency from John Q Public” parts I and II.
A friend of mine, and die-hard BDP stalwart, informed that that certain elements in the party, the term “warriors” was used, had taken great offense with regard to my articles and considered it a personal attack on His Excellency. I then asked, which questions, none of which were mine, but rather inputs from members of the public, had caused this transgression?
And why, if I had indeed crossed some private boundary, had they not come out with some rejoinder, either on cyber-space or by means of the private press? Who would have gladly printed any such comeback, controversy making for good paper sales. I was then engaged by a senior advisor to the president and the BDP who informed me that the articles had come to his attention via his mother who had asked him: “Go re Chedza, a reng janoong?”. When I enquired if the articles had upset him, he indicated in the negative, but as our conversation unfolded, it became clear that this individual had indeed taken exception to the questions about his multifarious roles and responsibilities with regard to government, the party and so forth.
How do I know this? Because in the course of his 20 or so minute diatribe directed at myself, he called me “stupid, uninformed and ignorant” and he continued by telling me that “people” just assumed that I was parroting the opinions of a certain relative of mine who used to occupy a certain significant political post in this country, further that I was ‘burning bridges” and that finally when I said, perhaps indeed I was all these things and sought to better my political understanding via an interview with his person, he rounded out his invective by telling me that he didn’t give “interviews to people who write rubbish”. I responded by telling him that I was indeed sorry if I had upset his mother, mothers being the sacred feminine and thus sacrosanct. With regard to my close relative, I laughed, and told him if that was what people thought, they were to use his term, “uninformed”.
And as for his name-calling, I was astonished at this coming from an individual of his stature and stupefied that for him it was acceptable to talk to anyone in this manner. And finally, a senior adjunct to the president asked me why I had written said pieces and if I was aware that they were now in the ‘international space”?; a question which puzzled me as firstly it is my job as a political commentator to write about issues that concern the citizenry, secondly I was surprised that someone in his position didn’t seem to understand the basic tenets of what a journalist does and thirdly because I had explained in the first part of said articles; that post the president’s interview on BTV, which the press and others had decried as disappointing.
I thereafter, for several months carried a notebook with me, and asked John Q. Public what he/she would have asked H.E. And ultimately with regard to the pieces having gone “international”, I assume via cyberspace, I made no remark. As I had contacted this aide de camp as a member and volunteer for a local NGO that is trying to engage Office of the President with regard to substance and alcohol abuse, I was a trifle alarmed.
I then asked if I should withdraw as the organizations volunteer trying to engage OP, since it appeared I had caused some distress in the anals of power and would not want said NGO’s efforts at advocacy and assisting those afflicted with the disease of substance abuse to suffer as a result of my being in disfavor. He then informed me to write a letter requesting a meeting with the president (on behalf of this organization) to his office, at which point, considering the presidents busy schedule, they would see if such an appointment was feasible. I then had to go back and reflect on these events, in my capacity as an individual; were my intentions in the drafting of said articles malicious, were the pieces deprecating or defamatory and had I through them attempted to harm the republic?
I had to examine whether I had indeed carried out my role and responsibilities as a political commentator; those being to inform, act as a mirror for society and to bring to light the issues on the minds of the citizenry and electorate in as clear and concise a manner as possible. And finally these exchanges forced me to examine the freedoms as guaranteed in our constitution, allowed members of the public and freedom of the press and how safe I felt continuing in this role and whether the displeasure of the important could in anyway harm or disadvantage me, those around and/or affiliated with me?
And I came to this determination: that on a personal level, the aforementioned articles which consisted of questions – not really opinions or statements of fact (give or take some statistics and background information to the questions posed) ÔÇô were relevant and begged for answers. Further, that my pride in this country and its achievements has rendered me incapable of doing it purposeful harm or deliberate detriment. And here you will have to take my word for it; I put together said pieces with no malice afore-thought and as a political commentator I tried to put forward the case of John Q Public without passion and without prejudice, and my client (the public) indeed have a case. So yes, I did my job as a political journalist.
As for my third and final concern, how safe and secure do I now feel in this role considering the incidents I described earlier? I’m happy to say that I remain to feel confident enough in what this job entails and the climate in this country to continue on this regard. However, I’d be lying to you if I said I didn’t feel any trepidation with regard to the repercussions my words could have on those around me.
