Beyond favour:Ministers must face the Fourth Estate
THOMAS NKHOMA | Monday September 22, 2025 08:55
Debates about the role of public officials in engaging with the media are not new, yet they continue to reveal tensions about the meaning of accountability in democratic societies. One such debate arose recently when one colleague suggested that ministers appearing in studios or granting interviews to the media are, in fact, doing journalists a favour. At first glance, such arguments might seem persuasive, especially if one reduces the media to a private industry that seeks content. However, a closer reading of democratic theory, constitutional obligations, and national development frameworks demonstrates that such a view is both narrow and misleading. Under Section 12, the Constitution of Botswana guarantees freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions, receive ideas and information, as well as to communicate such ideas and information without interference, among other things. While the Constitution does not explicitly compel ministers to sit in studios, its emphasis on the right of citizens to “receive ideas and information” implies a duty on the part of those who hold public office to ensure that such information is accessible. Public officials, particularly those entrusted with executive authority, cannot meaningfully uphold this constitutional right if they remain silent or retreat into private communication channels. By engaging with the media, they operationalise the constitutional promise of free expression and access to information. Such an obligation is also reflected in Botswana’s long-term vision. Under the pillar of Governance, Peace and Security, Vision 2036 makes it clear that: “By 2036, Botswana will be a country where governance is open, transparent, and accountable.
The rule of law will be entrenched, human rights will be promoted and protected and there will be zero tolerance for corruption.” This statement is not merely aspirational. It lays down the principles by which State actors must conduct themselves. Ministers who grant interviews on radio or television are, therefore, not merely speaking to journalists. They are aligning their actions with national aspirations of accountable governance and an informed citizenry. Such constitutional and developmental framing aligns with the Social Responsibility Theory of the media, which emphasises that the press is not simply a commercial enterprise but a societal institution tasked with ensuring that citizens have the information necessary to participate in governance. Journalists, therefore, do not ask questions for their own amusement. They act as intermediaries for citizens who cannot all be in the same room with a minister. As one editor once observed, “When we interview a Cabinet minister, the people are in the room with us.” From this perspective, media engagement is not a favour extended to reporters but an obligation owed to the public in fulfilment of both constitutional principles and national development priorities. In Botswana, this responsibility has historically found expression in the central role played by Radio Botswana. Since independence, RB1 has been the platform through which the government communicated policies and reassured the nation in times of uncertainty. The President’s speeches, broadcast nationwide, offer not just information but a direct link between the presidency and ordinary citizens scattered across villages and towns. To this day, radio remains the most accessible medium, trusted across age groups and communities.
A minister who sits for a one-hour interview on RB1 or RB2 potentially reaches more citizens than weeks of kgotla meetings would allow. In fiscal terms, too, the contrast is stark. Consider the cumulative costs of fuel, accommodation, driver overtime and meal allowances that would accrue if officials attempted to deliver the same message through physical meetings across the country. Media interviews, by comparison, are efficient, economical, and far-reaching. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored this logic. Had the government relied solely on the kgotla system or social media posts, the results would have been confusion and mistrust. Again, arguments that social media could serve as an alternative also ignore structural realities. Not every Motswana has internet access, nor does every household have the literacy and devices required to navigate digital platforms.
The digital divide, evident in both rural and urban contexts, means that social media cannot be the primary communication tool of government. Moreover, the risk of misinformation and disinformation spreading unchecked on digital platforms makes structured media interviews indispensable as they allow for clarification, context, and accountability. Of course, criticisms of the media’s own conduct cannot be ignored. Some observers dismiss certain journalists as prima donnas, likening them to American commentator Tucker Carlson, who frequently inserted himself into stories and confused impudence with toughness. There is truth in the critique that some anchors mistake arrogance for professionalism. Yet, this weakness does not negate the duty of ministers to answer questions. If anything, it highlights the need for professionalism on both sides. Journalists must be respectful but probing, tough yet fair.
Thus, combine firmness with civility and hold leaders accountable without theatrics. International practice further illustrates that public officials cannot treat media engagement as optional. In the United States, White House press briefings are institutionalised, ensuring daily accountability. In the United Kingdom, prime ministers are expected not only to face Parliament but also to field difficult questions from the press. Even in Rwanda, where political space is tightly managed, President Paul Kagame regularly addresses media conferences, observing that “if people cannot ask me questions, then they cannot trust me.” These examples point to a universal principle that confronting questions from journalists is not a favour but a function of governance.
The suggestion that ministers are doing journalists a favour by appearing in studios, therefore, misrepresents the relationship between public office and public accountability. Ministers are not indulging the media. They are fulfilling their obligation to citizens, consistent with Section 12 of the Constitution and with the Governance and Accountability pillar of Vision 2036. The media, for its part, acts as the bridge that allows citizens to demand explanations from those who govern. To dismiss this process as an optional courtesy is to weaken the very foundations of participatory democracy. Democracy does not thrive in silence. It flourishes in dialogue, even when that dialogue is uncomfortable. As one British scholar once put it, “Democracy dies in silence, and silence begins when those in power stop answering questions.” That is why ministers must continue to engage with the media, not as a gesture of generosity but as an expression of constitutional duty, developmental responsibility, and respect for the citizens they serve.
*Thomas Thos Nkhoma is MISA-Botswana Chairperson