I can understand that the President may be furious over dramatic allegations that he ordered the killing of Mr John Kalafatis. I would be livid too. And that is precisely the reason I would not sue, certainly not now. He has a whole year to make that decision and act on it; a defamation claim prescribes in 12 months. The one time you do not act is when you are angry; you wait out the anger to subside, you reflect, and decide how to go forward, if at all. It is at a time like this that statesmanship beckons.
The President’s response to this tragedy has betrayed his poor priorities. He places the need to vindicate himself personally ahead of the public interest. For a man who speaks of the lot of Batswana in messianic tones, who admirably takes principled positions on Zimbabwe, and on the President of Sudan, (positions which his predecessors would not have had the moral courage to adopt), a man who revels in occasional fireside one-way banter with ordinary Batswana, he ought to have shown greater sensitivity, not for himself, but for the tragic-struck family of Mr John Kalafatis, and for a nation deeply troubled by an ominously growing number of incidents involving the killing of civilians by security forces over whom he has ultimate authority. I do not know whether the killing of this man was in law justified or not; there are circumstances in which such killings may be. This we will know following a proper investigation. But that cannot affect what I think needs doing.
Whatever the event, the family of Mr John Kalafatis is in great pain. The President’s very first act should have been to visit this family to extend his condolences and pay his respects to them and to the deceased, to reassure that family that he had altogether nothing to do with their son’s death, and to promise them a swift and independent investigation into the death of their son, which would be followed by decisive action against his killers, if found culpable. His next act should have been to address the nation, expressing his concern at the killing and the ones before perpetrated by security officials of his Government, and offer the same assurances to us.
I know that the President scoffs upon and holds politics in disdain; he certainly tells us that often enough. I know that he designedly gives the impression that he has a compelling divine mission to save Batswana from poverty, hardship, and from themselves. Having interacted with him a great deal in the six and a half years I was in the Office of the President, I know for a certainty that he truly loves his country and his people, and means well. But so did all his three predecessors. They just were not so melodramatic about it because they were leaders of great humility. The President is a politician and not a Messiah, and he must act like one. Nobody forced him to accept political office; he was at liberty to decline the invitation when it was made. The truth is, he did not because he wanted it. He has ideas he wants to experiment with. Some of the experimentation we have already been subjected to.
The denials from his office and two of his Ministers, both predictably calculated to plead his innocence as though that was all that mattered, is scandalously lacking. The President ought to know that such denials, even when true, make no impact on a public which is growing weary of a President who places himself at the centre of everything; everything being more about him and less about the country. His two Ministers looked pathetic (and they are most able individuals for whom I have great respect), and as unconvincing as troops sent out to fight a war they did not believe in. That the Press Conference they held was aired twice and the announcement of his intended defamation suit was a running news item on the Government media made the more revealing an act of entirely poor judgment on the part of the President. The President must know that his style of governance, verging on authoritarianism as it does, has reduced what before were able and credible Ministers (and I speak of most of them) into his mouthpieces.
I write with great reluctance, but the President needs to know that it is not only the Press and Opposition Parties who are concerned about his brand of democracy; many of us of the BDP and his staunch supporters (and we truly are, but refuse to be blind) are watching with growing consternation his style which is making our country look less and less like a democracy. He needs to re-think his approach; we need to see his style becoming less and less military, autocratic one-man-rule, and more and more like teamwork. The Constitution enjoins him to have a Cabinet of Ministers who meaningfully participate in and aid his governance of the country, and not people he employs as errand boys and girls.
He needs to know that he presides over Ministers and public officers who are terrified of him, an unflattering reality for a leader in a democracy. How can they not be when his obsessive routine refrain is to threaten to dismiss them? He needs to re-invent himself, and to find more professional and humane methods of motivating them to greater performance. Slaves work under the yolk of fear and coercion; the difference is that his are paid, and desperately need the pay. That is the reason they are staying. People say they had a lot of hope when he came in, but that is rapidly being replaced by fear. It is not just the people who work for him who are afraid of him; he is increasingly being regarded with fear throughout the country. The military has become the face of this Government, and it is too much in our faces. There is too much tough talking by him, his Vice President, and some of his Ministers. We speak to people both in the villages, the towns and the cities, and we know that the fear is spreading. Someone recently said to me that the ruling mantra in Botswana has become “thou shalt not”. “We cannot carry on like this”, she added.
The President’s rule of fear and patronage has distorted the characters of greats such as his Vice President (a great friend of mine who in another life under different regimes had the makings of a great statesman) to so large an extent that the latter thinks that “one or two deaths” are no big deal. That, Mr Vice President, was an outrageous statement to make; “one or two deaths” is one or two deaths too many in a country which, when I last looked, pretended to be a democracy.
A Swift & Independent Investigation
I think that there is an urgent need for a swift and independent investigation into this killing, which is the latest in the growing number of the killing of civilians by the State’s security apparatus. Many years ago, during the Segametsi Mogomotsi tragedy, I advised President Masire to call on the expert resources of Scotland Yard. There was a crisis of confidence in the Government, in the police, and in the justice system; certainly there was amongst the Bakgatla, hence the extensive public unrest in Mochudi. It was essential that public confidence be restored. Although no prosecutions resulted from the investigation because the Yard was brought in too late to achieve any real results, public confidence was restored.
I am not advising the President to engage some foreign detective outfit; that I will leave to his judgment. I am, however, advising him to ensure a swift, independent and credible investigation of this killing. I am also advising him to cause an inquiry into all the other killings by security personnel which have occurred in the last year. He needs to know what the underlying causes are if he is to act to ensure that the killings do not continue. The occurrence is certainly intolerable, and we would like to see its end. And we do need to know that it is an occurrence which troubles him enough for him to want to stop it recurring.
The President is within his rights in seeking to bring a defamation action against whoever he considers has in terms offended him. The decision is his and his alone, for it is a personal matter. However, he does need to reflect upon whether it is the wise thing for a head of a democratic state to do. I do not say that politicians should be easy pickings for an errant, unprofessional and irresponsible Press. But I am saying that he needs to act with circumspection. This is all the more so having regard to his running conflict with the Press (although now showing signs of improving since he finally took the wise decision to grant interviews-of which he needs to do more), and to the recent advent of the Media Practitioner’s Act, a measure which is more trouble than it is worth. It achieves nothing beyond fouling the air of democracy and impairing the right to free speech, offering as it does intimidation which can only undermine a right of the utmost vitality in a democracy. We have enough laws to deal with an offending Press such as elements of ours often are, but the Act looks like the growing typicality of acts of the Government which eat away at the democratic space. I do need to say, though, that our Press are often their own worst enemies, and needlessly frequently call attention to themselves.
The President does have time to reflect, and there is no need for him to act precipitately. First things must happen first; he must place the interests of the family of Mr John Kalafatis and of the nation ahead of his own. When he reflects, he must remember that kgosi thotobolo e olela matlakala, and mogolo o sejwa a seo. Politicians and leaders such as he is should not be overly sensitive. He also must bear in mind that the rewards of statesmanship- an appropriately empathic approach to the Kalafatis family, a promise of a swift, independent investigation and credible consequential action to that family and to the nation, and such action, may well pay much higher dividends to him personally than a defamation action by a head of state against a newspaper or newspapers, and the money it may yield, however justified such a suit.
It is not going to be a pleasant experience for him- down in the gutter fencing with the Press and their lawyers. He will be subjected to close and probing cross-examination; the details of his life, public and private, will be laid bare before the nation. And he must ask me about it; I earn my living giving harsh doses of it to the ill-fated out of whom the truth must be extracted. This sojourn by him into this terribly unattractive territory will not serve us as a country. But the President has rights, and he is at liberty to pursue them. I would not. If not for my own sake, then for that of the country, and for the sake of the people of Botswana.
The President needs to give attention to another danger which has the potential of threatening the security of our country-the growing tension between the Police and the DIS. The province of each must be clearly delineated, and each must stay strictly within its own. Unless this is done reasonably quickly, the conflict is going to spill over into the public arena, perhaps then a physical confrontation. Our neighbours are watching. And the world is watching. They must be wondering whether this is still the Botswana they knew. And if it still is, for how much longer it will be.
WOULD LIEUTENANT-GENERAL IAN KHAMA SERETSE KHAMA PLEASE STAND DOWN AND MAKE WAY FOR MR SERETSE KHAMA IAN KHAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA, AND WOULD MR SERETSE KHAMA IAN KHAMA, HIS MOST EXCELLENT PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA, PLEASE STAND FORTH AND STEP UP TO THE PLATE!
And the President should stop trying to take complete control of the BDP and its affairs. It is not his place to decide who may offer themselves for election to certain Central Committee positions and who may not; the BDP Constitution requires him, as Party Leader, to ensure that it and the rights it gives are upheld and not undermined. He and his Vice President should not be campaigning for some and against others, and telling MaDomkrag who to vote for and who to not vote for. That he gives people a choice is a farce; his activities betray the contrary. In any event, has he not heard that the word of a King weighs a tonne! It takes heroic acts of the sort exhibited by Mr Daniel Kwelagobe to withstand the burden of that weight, and those who cannot be heroes helplessly lose their rights to the President and his preferences.
In the past, the Presidents we have had were content to run the Government, assured that the Party would not interfere as long as they observed and upheld the Constitution, democracy, the rule of law, and did their best to develop the country. The Presidents, in turn, left the Party and its affairs to Party members, providing mainly a passive, oversight leadership. They did not select, suggest or endorse candidates, nor did they tell anybody not to offer themselves, nor campaign for anybody and against anybody; they did not get involved because they understood that they were the father figures, as it were, to all members of the Party, and could not be seen to takes sides with some against others. Although they, like other Party members, had the right to vote for Party structures, they did not exercise it. They understood that in a democracy, there was need for the Party to be a check against the power of the President, and that the Party could not be if the President controlled it, in addition to controlling the Government. Either this wisdom has escaped President Khama, or he wants over-arching power, desiring no check on his authority. We would like President Khama to adhere to that tradition. Only that can serve the country best.
To not be accused of double standards, I have to relate a little story. Only once, to my knowledge, has this noble tradition been departed from. President Mogae did so when, in 2003, he endorsed President Khama, then his Vice President, for Party Chairman. I admit that he did so on my advice. It was not easy advice for me to give, and it was even harder for him to take it. It was an exceptional occasion; at stake was the presidency, even as ostensibly the contest between then Vice President Khama and the able Honourable P H K Kedikilwe (PHK) was over the Party chairmanship. Honourable PHK, completely well within his rights and well qualified to be, had his sights on the presidency. If he won the chairmanship against a weaker candidate, his next prize was going to be the presidency, and President Mogae’s endorsement was a pre-emptive strike. President Khama also had an interest; he was never going to be President if PHK had taken that office. So he was co-author of the pre-emptive strike. It did, however, make giving the advice slightly easier, and even then only slightly, the fact that the tradition in the Party had been that the Vice President, ranking next after the Party Leader, was almost invariably elected to the chairmanship of the Party if he sought it.
DK, you have me in your corner broer! Call on my resources and assistance any time you need it. I am told that they now suddenly refuse to give you money to travel the country as Chairman doing Party work. I urge MaDomkrag and others concerned to fight for democracy to give you financial support. They should call the mobile number 73372510 with any offers of assistance. I am also told that when bagolo flew to the Women’s Wing Congress in Tsabong they did not give the Party Chairman a ride, which was unprecedented. Legale ka di-helikoptara e le tsa bona!
The President does this under the cloak of the empowerment of women, an ideal we all support. But it must not be achieved by denying the constitutional rights of others- by robbing Peter to pay Pauline. All his predecessors recognized the need. They did much, even if not enough, to redress the historical travesty of justice perpetrated against women, but they were ever cognizant of the fact that an injustice cannot be remedied by another injustice.
I am quite sure that is now how women want it. It can only further divide the Party and entrench factions, which were pretty well but gone. This time it would be men against women, with the President leading the women followed by his lackeys. That is not how women want it. There are ways in which the empowerment of women can be achieved in a manner that has the approval of most. The President can have the new Parliament in November specially elect 8 women into Parliament, who he would be free to appoint to Cabinet. These should include Tebelelo Seretse and Lesego Motsumi, both women of great resource and ability. He can do so again in 2014 rather than seek to impose candidates on the electorate. These women would cultivate constituencies of their own and get elected in their own right. One of them might even become our next president; goodness knows they have every capability to do. In this way, we would be well on our way to fulfilling the material requirements of this SADC Protocol that we will not sign under some lame and remediable excuse.
Dictatorships often start with an iron grip over the Government. The grip gradually and stealthily extends to the ruling party where political parties exist. Before you know it, the president has absolute power over the government, the ruling party, and the country. That is how Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe happened, and the trusting people of Zimbabwe were thus betrayed. The people of Botswana should beware lest Zimbabwe happen to Botswana. Call it fear-mongering if you wish; I call it due caution in the face of troubling events of growing gravity and frequency. I also call it the right to free speech in a democratic country, a right which is secured to me by our great Constitution. It is when this right is under increasing attack, as it now is in our country, that we must assert it all the more strongly. You can rely on me to do so. But that is a subject for another forum…., and for another day!
Oh, and I hear that the Permanent Secretary to the President has issued a directive to all Government Departments and Parastatals commanding that the Sunday Standard and the Mmegi stable of newspapers, should not be given advertisement business commencing 1st June 2009. I thought that Justice Isaac Lesetedi of our High Court had handed down a judgment against this sort of abuse of power. But of course ba akela PSP! Whew, they now have me shaking in my pants! Mr John Kalafatis, now look what you are doing to us!
