The question arises from the fact that being only into the third month of 2010, the year is already experiencing what is perhaps the most intense and prolonged debate about perceptions of corruption in this country. True, part of the inspiration for the debate has come from the ongoing (and already a few years old) trial of the late Louis Nchindo et al, which has swamped the local media in the past few months.

But there's no doubt that a considerable degree of the intensity and the length of the debate was sparked off by the disturbing revelation in the press some weeks ago, that the government minister responsible for security, among others, was a part owner and a director of a company that had allegedly won a tender or tenders to supply unspecified security equipment to some of the state's security agencies.

This revelation, in turn, prompted Dumelang Saleshando, an opposition member of the National Assembly, to move a motion requesting the Assembly's permission to introduce draft legislation that would require elected politicians, senior civil servants, officials of government-owned corporations, judges and others to declare their assets and liabilities to parliament. The MP argued that such legislation would make the country better able to prevent future instances of potential conflicts of interest arising among any of the political leaders and others mentioned above.

While this may have seemed a sensible proposal to the vast majority of the people of this country, it wasn't so to the leadership of the political party in power, the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), who instantly saw red because of it. They were so deeply troubled by Saleshando's parliamentary motion that they immediately instructed the party's parliamentary caucus to reject it outright. 

They did this for two reasons. First, here was an opposition MP moving a motion that clearly drew considerable support from the electorate. Vice President Mompati Merafhe put it very bluntly: he wouldn't support a motion that would make Saleshando popular and sought to bring about legislation that would intrude into his privacy.

Second, the motion would open up an old but still festering wound: the deep embarrassment to the BDP of having fully supported a similar proposal 14 years ago and then subsequently and consciously doing everything possible to stifle its implementation.

Ironically enough, the strategy adopted by the party's parliamentary caucus to deal with Saleshando's embarrassing motion was none other than to tell parliament and the nation that the government would itself introduce the kind of legislation that the opposition MP wanted. Isn't it incredible that after 14 years of consistent and unapologetic dragging of its feet over this matter, the BDP now expects us to believe that it has suddenly had second thoughts on the issue?

Of course it is, until one considers the real significance of Merafhe's remark about the invasion of his privacy.Which is that whatever draft legislation the government will come up with, it will not address the fundamental concerns reflected in Saleshando's motion or the nation's responses to it. More importantly, I doubt whether Merafhe would have stuck his neck out in the way he did if his views were opposed to those of his boss, President Ian Khama.

So it would be unrealistic of the nation to expect much other than a piece of half-baked draft legislation from the minister concerned. It's therefore encouraging to read from the press that some BDP backbenchers say they'll oppose Saleshando's motion strictly provided that the government introduces meaningful declaration-of-assets draft legislation before the end of the year.

I appreciate the difficulty they face of supporting Saleshando's motion and risking the resultant wrath of their party. Nevertheless, I think I represent the majority view of the nation when I encourage more of them to support the principled approach proposed by some of their colleagues in parliament. 

Regarding Transparency International's possible 2010 perceptions of the level of corruption in Botswana, the strongest perceptions are those currently being expressed by the nation regarding, in particular, the obvious reluctance of the government to do what's necessary to combat any potential for corruption in its circles. Obviously, there's no country that's totally corruption-free.

What's important is to do everything necessary to guard against it, and wherever it becomes apparent, to combat it head-on in every possible sector of society. In Botswana, the establishment of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime was a significant development in this regard.

But we're still lagging behind in the equally important aspect of ensuring that our political authorities play their full part in combating corruption. The best way for them to do so is to lead by example and be clearly seen to do so - which isn't the case now.