At the height of displeasure about the killing of John Kalafatis I penned an article titled “Who guarantees Khama’s peace?” (Mmegi, 05 June 2009) I argued that we needed to reign in our emotions and allow justice to take its course. I had been concerned at the accusations being thrown about by some who should have known better. I also made the observation that Rre Khama had asked that Batswana change the way that they looked at themselves.
We very often in enjoyment of our nationhood forget that constitutions create spaces that sometimes exclude us. We are comfortable in our ignorance of these spaces until those who occupy them move in a particular direction, that we may disagree with. It is at these times that we need to be honest with ourselves and say “Is the space we have created so wide?” If we take this position we move away from emotion to a position of reason. We preserve the rule of law.
The State has had a chance to prove before our courts, the guilt of the individuals accused of unlawfully killing Kalafatis. The Courts have pronounced their guilt and sentence. It is important to note that the accused persons were charged with murder. If there were no extenuating circumstances they would have been sentenced to death. Extenuating circumstances are factors that reduce the moral blameworthiness of a person found guilty of murder.
Personally I have a problem with the pardon of the three who were found guilty. I am however not unmindful of the fact that we have given our president the power to pardon people found guilty. The problem I have with the pardon is not a legal problem but a moral problem. The court has in recognition of their lack of moral blameworthiness not sentenced them to death. What moral ground then exists for the pardon?
In mitigating the harshness of the death sentence on the basis of our society’s morality, the judge acts as a witness of the limits of what is morally acceptable. The president being part of our society is also represented by the judge. What I am suggesting is that it would be unreasonable for the president to pardon on the basis of moral consideration, when such has been taken into account by the court. In this space of moral blameworthiness the president cannot step aside and say he was not represented by the judge.
Once we look at issues of spaces in the manner that I set out above we can realize that we have the means to fight corruption in high places. A man must know that you are corrupt, but he must never know that you cannot break free of the hold he has over you. A president who finds himself unable to deal with corrupt people because they have information about the corrupt activities of close relatives and associates, can in terms of our constitution break free.
Civilians deal with hypocrisy in a very subtle way. They will never go out of their way to call you corrupt, but they will conduct themselves in a manner that clearly demonstrates that they have lost respect for you. You can threaten and give directives but they will drag their feet in the knowledge that you can only do them so much harm. They know that you cannot succeed in whatever development efforts you make without their support. They know that corrupt people around you do not have the capacity to enable you to succeed. They know that they will outlast you, no matter how powerful you are.
Civilians know that Rre Khama has set the bar high for leadership. Because he has made certain pronouncements about how other leaders treat their people and supported their prosecution at the International Criminal Court, he has limited his ability to use force. His greatest weapon is therefore motivation. For so long as people believe that he is soft on certain people he cannot motivate people to move at his pace. He is running out of time and civilians know this.
I have observed that he maintains a tight leash over the security forces and is very careful about promotions. This however is of no use in dealing with a civilian population that thinks the president is soft on certain corrupt people. The security forces are a consumer of resources not creators of wealth. I would be surprised if there was no corruption in our security forces. Control of security forces may give him some measure of personal protection, but such is also limited, for in six years Rre Khama will lose such control of these.
I have heard of situations where an Indian, White or Chinese businessman throws a party and invites a Minister or top indigenous civil servant to come and feast on the booze, food and young native girls. I recently told fellow passengers in a pirate taxi that if I were such a Minister or indigenous top civil servant, I would upon arrival at the party enquire as to why there were no young Indian, White or Chinese girls? You see, at the heart of the corrupt hosts conduct lies the belief that not only is the Minister or top indigenous civil servant corrupt, but he has a huge inferiority complex.
On the corruption stakes the Indian, White or Chinese businessman is as corrupt as the Minister or indigenous civil servant. But the Minister or indigenous top civil servant is at a lower rung on the morality stakes. He is therefore unable to see that the Indian, White or Chinese businessman is actually insulting him. In much the same way, a president who takes praise from a corrupt relative, Minister or top indigenous civil servant is accepting an insult.
The moral of what I am setting out is that a president may be corrupt and his enemies may have evidence of his corrupt activities, but he must not suffer from an inferiority complex like the Minister or top indigenous civil servant. In Botswana a president can apologize to the nation for his corrupt activities and break free. Batswana would rather forgive a president than have their lives ruined by a cabal of corrupt people who have nothing to offer this country.
There is no real benefit for a president to hide and fear to apologize to his people if in the end he falls under the spell of the corrupt. If he fears exposure of his and his relatives corrupt activities to the people he leads, he will forever remain captive to the corrupt to the great disadvantage of himself and his people. If a president can supplement the legal and moral determination of the court and in the process pardon people convicted and sentenced by the courts, surely he must have the capacity to ask the nation to forgive him.
Rre Khama has the highest approval rating of any president that this country has ever had. I was pleasantly surprised to read in one of the local papers that he had said that he was not Jesus. This suggests that he knows that he is not perfect. These attributes are however useless if people’s belief that he is not strong on corruption is allowed to persist. There are rumours that he is unable to deal with corruption because he himself is corrupt, together with close relatives and associates. For so long as this perception obtains he can have the highest approval ratings but he will remain a shadow of what he can be.
There is a school of thought that it is not fear of exposure of his corrupt activities that strengthens the corrupt in his administration, but their knowledge that he will do all to protect his family. If I were a close relative of a president and because of me he was held captive by corrupt people in his administration, I would gladly encourage him to allow the investigative and prosecution arms of government do their job. Only a self-centered and selfish relative sacrifices the president’s potential to preserve his skin. I am sure Batswana would trade a pardon for a president’s relatives for removal of corrupt senior officials from a position where they are hurting our nation.
Rre Khama has the gravitas to pull the stunt that I set out above, of a president asking the nation to forgive him. His close relatives must free him and allow him to give this nation an opportunity to start afresh. If they cannot then it means they are ready and willing to sacrifice him for their own ends. When Mary, mother of Jesus went to the synagogue and asked that Jesus be called to her, Jesus replied that he was already with his family. By becoming president Rre Khama became a family with us, the people of Botswana. He does not anymore belong to his biological family. It is time for Rre Khama to change the way he looks at himself in much the same way that he has asked Batswana to change the way that they look at themselves.
