In the last instalment I focused on centrality of institutions in the development process. Today I will also like to continue with the same theme, and the motivation for the same is simply explained by endless newspaper reportings on suspected corrupt activities by senior members of our community. Before dwelling on the subject matter for today, which still talk more about institutions, I find it useful to revisit conclusions from the previous instalment. In my last article the conclusion was simple: strong institutions are a necessity for development. Put simple, weak institutions are inimical to progress ÔÇô material or otherwise.
Unfortunately, many developing countries have not heeded this call. Instead of placing more emphasis on building strong institutions the general practise in many of these countries, especially African ones, has been the drive towards institutionalisation of strong men, for example, Libya had Muammar Gaddafi while Egypt laboured under the leadership of Hosni Mubarak, at the expense of strong institutions. The result, unsurprisingly, has been catastrophic for the lesser beings of those countries. Poverty, youth unemployment and lack of basic amenities such as clean water remain key challenges for majority of their citizens. Hence, improvement in living standards for most people in those places proves to be just a mirage.
But if we are to fully comprehend the painful consequences of weak institutions, we need to look at various countries, especially the Arab African ones (Libya and Egypt). They offer a valuable lesson (for us as a nation) of the painful realities of institutionalising strong men who successfully weaken all other institutional bodies in their polity. There are many similarities in the trajectories of these two Arab African countries. Importantly, they both had very powerful leaders. Both Gaddafi and Mubarak ran their countries as personal properties. They had no regard for established institutions. In the course of their leadership, indeed, these countries made significant progress. The general living standards for majority of Libyans in particular improved greatly. Something important, however, was denied the general population ÔÇô freedom. In the process of denying citizens freedom, the leadership engaged in untold corrupt activities. And after what seemed like eternity in power, their populations grew tired and, in turn, toppled these authoritarian leaders out of office almost three years ago during what has come to be characterised as the Arab Spring.
In the wake of the Arab Spring, the glaring reality of institutionalisation of strong men is becoming much clearer. For the course of their leadership, as indicated above, Mubarak and Gaddafi paralysed the whole system. The governance structures were held at ransom. And when their reins came to an abrupt end, it became too obvious in terms of the damage they had done to their countries. Libya and Egypt went into chaos. Lawlessness became the order of the day. And we should be surprised. The disintegration is simply a result of strong men mentality that undermined the importance of crafting sound institutions. Three years after removal of those leaders, their countries remain dysfunctional.
I, like many patriotic citizens, would not want anything of that nature to visit our shores. But the recent media exposes on the working of the DIS and its director, Rre Isaac Kgosi presents a worrisome reality to the lived experience for many Batswana. If the reported stories are anything to go by, then slowly but surely were are seeing a rise of strong men in place of strong institutions. Mind you, as a country, we have built a reputation as one of the few places in this continent where there has largely been semblance of order. There was predictability in our system. When your goats, for instance, were sick you knew where to go ÔÇô veterinary offices. When you were robbed the police were just a phone call away. I would not be wrong to suggest that things have taken a different turn over the last couple of years.
We have decided on a very wrong and problematic route as a people. The presidential walk-arounds fittingly illustrate the crisis we face as a nation. At first the walk-arounds were justifiable in that the president would be able to get closer and personal with Batswana to appreciate their concerns. And to be honest, they have heeded the call, attending kgotla meetings in big numbers to meet the president. In here Batswana do get an opportunity to interact with their principal, who takes time to listen to them irrespective of their station in life. I am afraid, these walk-arounds have lost their original intentions. They have now taken a political dimension. The president now dishes soup and related stuff. Ordinary people make use of such rare opportunity to circumvent established institutions to raise their concerns with the president. For instance, it is uncommon in those forums to hear an old man relating to the president the challenges he faces with raising his goats. He will even ask him for assistance in terms of vaccinations needed to cure ailing ones. And on and on people bring before the president different challenges with the hope that he will solve their problems. In the process, relevant offices are rendered useless. But this is the new Botswana.
It was never like this before. But how as a people have we allowed ourselves to kill established institutions with the hope that the president will solve our problems? I have no answer to this one. One thing for sure, however, is that should we continue in this route we are likely to end up nowhere. The progress we made over the last four decades is likely to disappear into thin air. Sooner or later we will join the league of failed states. How then do we change course to avoid disaster? The simple answer would be a return to what Botswana used to stand for: a functional democracy in which institutions matter. We have to go back to olden days when mananeo ene ele a puso. Not mananeo aga rraetsho as is the case nowadays.
