The Botswana Presidency is too secretive for a modern democracy in which it exists. So we must talk about what the State house and many other public institutions represent in this here young democracy of ours, and why opening it up to the public is not only rational, but works to demystify an institution that should be open to the people in the first place.
The Presidency is a construct of citizens. Everyday the institution is faced with an opportunity to reinvent itself. Citizens must never think that they have to shrink themselves to fit to the expectations of the Presidency. In fact, the Presidency must evolve to fit their aspirations.
We are correct to wonder why it is difficult to have unfettered access to an office that belongs to the citizens. This conversation on people’s ordeals with powerful institutions and that of many people who suffer economic & other injustices, is perhaps an aggressive indictment of whether the Presidency lacks commitment to true reform.
Closing off a public institution using legal frameworks from the 70s and 80s is a great disservice to the expectation that democracies must grow and evolve. Botswana’s five decades old democracy remains young at heart with so much to discover about itself and those who shape it.
Fortunately, occupants of the presidency in their unique differences and similarities have indirectly opened up the institution to scrutiny. It is credible to argue that President Ian Khama’s presidency exposed more of the unwanted traits than any other Presidency we have lived through. This isn’t to say he was a completely bad President, but in this case, we must choose to embrace the lessons his presidency taught us, even if these lessons came to us in unwanted forms. There are several questions that have emerged, as naturally, enquiring citizens must. Why is the state house not open to the public? Calls to open up the state house and the Presidency aren’t synonymous with deliberately asking to compromise the President’s personal security and comfort.
The Presidency is a mirror image of the people it represents: their dreams, their fears, their hopes and aspirations. It only makes sense that the state house and any institution of significance to our democracy should be openly accessible to the public; not out of any malice, but out of pure constructive intent to build onto the fabric of the kind of presidency we want. What does the state house and the seal of the Botswana Presidency represent as a symbol of our democracy?
Residences of many heads of state and government across the world are a source of marvel and admiration. Many Batswana have been to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (the White House), Number 10 Downing Street (the official residence and the office of the British Prime Minister), Moscow Kremlin complex in Russia, Cheongwadae or the Blue House in South Korea. It is odd that the same number cannot say the same for Botswana’s State House unless they have been privileged to dine with heads of business, government, political and international diplomatic corps.
The State House must represent a culmination of our founding fathers’ dreams of self-governance and political independence. Opening it up must be an extension of those, and a commitment to democratic openness and more importantly, an opportunity for the Presidency to evolve. Who dresses the President? Does the State House have a special room that hosts visiting officials? Does the State House collect art and record its own history? What did Sir Seretse Khama, Sir Ketumile Masire, Festus Mogae and Ian Khama do in which part of the House that must be recorded down in our annuls of history? These are all pertinent questions that form a broader cohort of other questions about the Presidency and its performance as a critical institution for governing the country. Like, why is the office and its organogram so cluttered with departments and offices that don’t need to be under the office of the President? Does the Presidency have a delivery and performance problem? A careful but quick study of the South African Presidency and its simple organogram (available on its website) points to the longstanding conversation on the need to reform the organizational structures of many top government institutions, chief among them, the Office of the President.
At the moment, the President is surrounded by trusted political aides, his close confidants etc. and long-serving skilled bureaucrats who no-doubt help the with the Presidency’s performance and overall governance of the country. I argue that the office needs neither of those, especially unqualified political appointees who only serve to whisper unproductive narratives into the institution and it’s occupant’s ear. The Presidency is desperate for disruptive thinkers who can navigate the political, diplomatic and bureaucratic nature and dynamics that the office demands. Deep within this thinking, is a need to take the Presidency back where it belongs, to the citizens!
*Bakang Ntshingane is a Political Economist with interests in the intersections of politics and the economy. He writes in his capacity as a Motswana.
