This is particularly so in the light of the unfavourable comment the bench had to make, namely that “Executive powers should not be used to achieve ulterior motives”. Surely, a discreet handling of this matter would not have attracted such a comment because the Bench is well aware that the President could not have been acting out of sheer malice. I am almost certain he does not know whether Good is an Englishman or aborigine.
I urge all our Ministers as people who hold portfolio responsibility for the actions of executive officers under their charge to read with a critical mind comments in Dingake’s article “Reaping The Whirlwind” (Mmegi 0l/03/’05). I would find it hard to gainsay Dingake’ s contention that “The reputation of the Professor has soared to dizzy heights, while the government’s image as a shining example of democracy has plummeted”. This is true, however painful.
It goes without saying that Good’s no-good acts have by some strange twist of fate derived some good for him because of the no good performance of those who had the misfortune to handle his matter. I certainly have no quarrel with the political ideas espoused by Good in respect of Botswana in the course of his lectures to students at the University of Botswana. This is what he has been appointed to do. On the other hand, if Good chooses to denigrate the leadership of this country in a publication meant for the consumption of the world at large, to me he is exceeding the bounds of propriety.
He is here to lecture to UB students and not the world at large about the leadership of Botswana. According to our cultural norm “Moeng ga a di bedi” (When you are a stranger, you should not be of a dubious character or two-faced). Good remains a visitor (Moeng) in terms of the document allowing him to stay in this country, period.
There is so much hoo-haa! about freedom of expression and conscience. In Botswana, it seems freedom of expression means the liberty to say anything that comes into your mind regardless of how that is likely to impact on the dignity and self-respect of the others.
For some people, uttering a statement which makes another person an object of ridicule and hatred is perfectly in order for as long as that person is styled a politician and according to our myopic thinking liable to be attacked in the name of freedom of expression.
In the late sixties, our late President had a brush with one opposition’ politician at a public rally in White City. Like Good, the man was quite vocal about the leadership of BDP government and its perceived shortcomings. The said politician is fortunately still alive and no doubt will recall this incident. Seretse said to this man “I am not afraid of being abused by Batswana, what I resent is to be abused by someone whose place of origin I do not even know.”
This response was clearly motivated by a mindset that is deeply rooted in our cultural norm and tradition (Moeng ga a di bedi). This is exactly what he would have told Good and he would have described the action taken by government against Good as “barbarism” which by implication means those who undertook such actions are barbarians.
Dingake says in reference to Good’s paper “It merely reiterates what everybody else is saying from the street sweeper to the university academics, not necessarily the Professor, that automatic succession be damned”. It could well be true that this is “what everybody in Botswana is saying”, but then the response from Batswana to the argument would be that “Sepa legolo ke ja moeng, ja mong gae pipitlwane” (A misdemeanor committed by a visitor (Moeng) is always viewed far more seriously than that committed by one of our own (Mong-gae).
It is an eye-opener to me to learn that “street sweepers”, who to me have always struck me as people who do not understand and appreciate the importance of a vote are nonetheless competent to understand a subject like automatic successions, I believe I would not be mistaken if 1 conclude that in the context of freedom of expression in Botswana, a concept like interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state would simply be dismissed as a myth. Where is the line of demarcation between “Freedom of Expression” and interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state?
Finally, would it not have been more discreet and tidier if government had waited for Good’s permit to expire and not renew it?
