By any measure we have had a wide explosion of different modes of media, be it radio, print or television. I however have a tough time concluding that such explosion has been matched by quality in terms of how we treat issues or tolerance of divergent views. Like most people I subscribe to freedom of expression. I must however confess that I do not necessarily like other people to enjoy this right. I just know that I have to respect their right.
If two people stand in the street, point in my direction, talk and laugh, my instinctive reaction is to assume that they are talking about me, and that I do not like them to be doing that. My instinctive reaction is not to appeal to my belief in freedom of expression. I am therefore often amused by people, like me, who say they subscribe to freedom of expression. Sure we do, but most likely there is a split second during which time we definitely do not. It is only after we appeal to our rational side that we subscribe to freedom of expression.
Our media, both print and radio, have done wonders for this country in terms of enjoyment of freedom of expression. A listen in, into private radio stations and a look into the print media will show without a doubt that we are hearing more voices than we used to. This is good but I submit that it has also created an opportunity for mediocrity to reign. The quality voices that we should be hearing are drowned by mediocre voices.
We also have a situation where in the morning we elect Bashi our leader, and in the afternoon we form a faction that calls for his removal because according to us, he cannot perform. This is made possible by the media platform that allows many voices to be heard. Unfortunately for us, these voices, whose stock in trade is to pronounce opinions rather than articulate sound views backed by theoretical or empirical analysis, drown all other voices. I wish our media houses could next year limit the space they give to these poor quality voices
Once when we were at a meeting of professional citizen engineers we objected to the government’s reservation of low quality jobs for citizens. Our argument was that if you are in standard one for five years, you are still a standard one. One of our colleagues said that one of ours who was from Borolong, he called him by his totem, tholo, actually thought that being in standard one for five years made him a standard five.
The point one is making is that by allowing the same voices that have nothing new or revolutionary to say to drown all other voices our media houses are keeping us in the same standard for many years. If you allow a teacher to teach you standard one arithmetic, and then after a few months to teach you standard one English you are still in standard one. We have a situation where one day there are accusations of defections, the next day it is divisions within political parties. In my view these occurrences amount to the same thing. They do not suggest anything new or radical.
We have a situation in Botswana where the same group of people move from one party to another or the same people differ as to the position a particular party should take. At the end of the day all we are fed is that there are differences. In my view that there are differences does not suggest or present a solution to my problem. If the issue is youth unemployment how does showing differences as regards positions taken on formation of an umbrella provide a solution?
The issue is that our current politicians are served by low standards. I do not see them subscribing to high standards of knowledge or policy debate and formulation. Unfortunately for us, our media both radio and print, have been midwives of this mediocrity. They have been ably assisted by those who lack the courage to contribute to the national debate, even though they are better informed than most of us.
Freedom of expression is useless if it is enjoyed only by those with little of substance to say. Most of us have heard the story of the football fanatic who comes from a rich family. He can afford to buy the best football kit, but he has no talent. As a country, in the freedom of expression arena, we are like the unfortunate football fanatic. We have very wide freedom of expression but we have no talent as to its enjoyment.
Freedom of expression is like open space. Nature however hates vacuums. If those with substance to say do not occupy the space of freedom of expression, those of us with little of substance to say will occupy the space. If those with an objective disposition do not fill the spaces provided by our radio and print media, the spaces will be taken up by those who are biased.
Sometimes in 1967 the chiefs of the so called major tribes signed agreements transferring rights to minerals in their tribal territories to the President of the Republic of Botswana. The agreements were signed by the chiefs or regents of the various tribes and Seretse Khama. They made it a term of their agreement that the agreements be given effect by an Act of Parliament. It seems only Batlokwa did not sign the standard agreement.
Can a descendent of one of the signatories suggest at a later date that he wants to undo the agreement of which he was not a party? Can the descendent argue that he does not recognize the fact that his father had accepted the existence of a republic? Can the descendent argue that he does not accept that his father recognized the existence of a parliament of the republic?
Effectively we have a conflict between a father and a descendent. The father recognized the President of the Republic of Botswana and its parliament. These are both creations of our constitution. It seems to me that the agreements would not have been effective without the existence of a republic and its parliament. One may even suggest that the creation of these two would have been necessary to give effect to the agreements. It would not be sound to say that the chiefs entered into agreement with Seretse in his personal capacity. That would make Seretse and his family extremely rich.
If Seretse’s descendents were to suggest that the chiefs gave the mineral rights in their tribal territories to Seretse and his family we would be up in arms, arguing that the true position is that he was holding the mineral rights in trust. We would not even want to say this, for to place the minerals in trust creates certain problems. A trustee decides how he meets the trust objectives. This gives him power to decide how he tilts the scales. We would rather we had a say in how the minerals are used. We do this through parliament, a creation of the constitution.
In my view freedom of expression is good but it can lead to advancement of ill thought positions that even places us in conflict with our fathers. I see no reason why I should join someone should he choose to ridicule his forefathers by ridiculing mine. People should be careful and take time to inform themselves of the issues at hand instead of blindly taking positions.
I recently had occasion to read an article in the Sunday Times newspaper of South Africa in which a Professor Ziyad Motala cautioned the courts against assuming political positions. He was commenting of the Supreme Court of Appeal decision regarding President Zuma’a appointment of Menzi Simelane and National Director of Public Prosecutions. His argument was that the courts reliance on findings of an ad hoc inquiry led by the former speaker of the national assembly was not appropriate.
He suggested that in view of the fact that the inquiry was neither a court of law nor a competent independent tribunal in terms of what the country’s constitution and international human rights would require, the court had no reason to accept its findings. He further suggested that the world over the judiciary does not pronounce on actions of co-equal branches of government. I suppose this supports those who were unhappy about President Khama’s comments on parliament’s treatment of essential services issue.
Much as I appreciated the intellectual depth of the article, it enlightened and depressed me also. It made me wonder as to the weight that one would place on the findings of the committee that was set up to investigate the goings on at BDC. It also reminded me of the reaction to Duma Boko’s submission on the caliber of some of our judges. The author said that some judges were biased, some lazy, and some not intelligent. Now that is quality freedom of expression for you.
