When power needs a mirror: Why presidents need a free, ethical and vigilant press
Thomas Nkhoma | Monday November 17, 2025 06:00
The late US President, John F. Kennedy, in one of his most enduring reflections on the press, reminded America, and indeed all democracies, that “without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive.” President Kennedy understood that leaders need the press not for praise but for perspective, for in the echo chambers of political power, truth can easily become a casualty of convenience. His presidency, like many others after him, was often tested by critical headlines, yet he defended the media’s right to question authority because he knew that democracy decays in silence. In Botswana, our founding leadership embodied a similar spirit of tolerance and respect for press freedom, even under provocation. The late Sir Ketumile Masire, one of the architects of Botswana’s democratic tradition, once reflected: “In some countries, politicians have pursued and won major libel against the press. We chose not to bring such actions because we did not want to seem like some non-democratic regimes” (Very Brave or Very Foolish? Memoirs of an African Democrat). He went further to say, “Even if we rightly accused people, it would be said we were acting arbitrarily like oppressive regimes elsewhere that even arrested journalists. Unless there were big changes in the circumstances, if I were to do it over, I think I would do the same thing and leave them alone.
” The remarks, though simple, hold profound meaning for Botswana’s democratic heritage. Sir Ketumile’s restraint was not a sign of weakness. It was a statement of democratic maturity. It underscored an understanding that the strength of leadership is measured not by its ability to silence dissent but by its capacity to coexist with it. His words remind us that freedom of the press, like freedom itself, is fragile and must be guarded even when it stings those in power. However, in this delicate relationship between the presidency and the press lies a paradox. The same press that holds government accountable can also, if unprincipled, erode public trust. Here, a distinction must be drawn between bad journalism and flawed journalism. Bad journalism is reckless, agenda-driven, and ethically bankrupt. It distorts truth for sensationalism or political gain. Flawed journalism, on the other hand, is imperfect but honest. It is the product of human error - misquotes, misjudged context, or minor factual slips - but anchored in a genuine pursuit of truth.
Leaders who understand this distinction are less likely to view the press as adversarial and more as imperfect partners in the democratic project. In the United States, the relationship between the presidency and the press has been institutionalised through the White House Press Corps, a permanent body of journalists stationed in the White House to cover the daily workings of government. This arrangement symbolises transparency and mutual recognition that journalism is part of the democratic ecosystem. Every administration, from Roosevelt to Obama, has had its share of friction with the media, yet the tradition endures because the White House understands that the people’s right to know cannot be contingent on presidential comfort. Sadly, what has been institutionalised as the presidential press corps in Botswana comprises only state media - BOPA, Daily News, Radio Botswana, BTV, and Kutlwano - functioning largely as patriotic media.
Meanwhile, the private press, which plays the crucial role of watchdog media, continues to stand at the fringes of this democratic project, observing rather than participating fully in the nation’s highest platforms of accountability. As such, Botswana stands at such a crossroads. Despite the foregoing, the evolution of its media landscape has produced both commendable watchdog journalism and, admittedly, moments of misjudgment.
Watchdog journalism, by design, monitors power, exposes wrongdoing, and serves as the eyes and ears of the public. Patriotic journalism, on the other hand, and often misunderstood, is not about blind loyalty but about responsible reporting that builds rather than breaks national cohesion. Both can coexist - one safeguarding accountability, the other nurturing national unity - if grounded in ethical principles. Yet, what is increasingly worrying is the constant vilification of the press, which over time chips away at public trust. When leaders repeatedly accuse the media of lying or acting in bad faith, citizens begin to doubt not only journalists but also the very idea of truth. A society that does not trust its media soon stops trusting facts, and once facts lose value, democracy begins to wobble.
In such an environment, misinformation and disinformation - what scholars now call information disorders - flourish unchecked, particularly through social media where falsehood travels faster than fact and outrage often overshadows reason. A weakened media, stripped of credibility, leaves a vacuum easily filled by conspiracy theories, propaganda, and social media chaos. The consequences are dire, not just for journalism but for public health, civic participation, and informed decision-making. The COVID-19 pandemic offered a sobering reminder that when people distrust the media, they also distrust health information, scientific evidence, and sometimes even democracy itself.
Freedom of speech, too, suffers in such climates because when truth becomes relative, speech loses its purpose. This is why disparaging the press, even under provocation, is short-sighted. Democracies do not collapse overnight. They erode slowly, beginning with the delegitimisation of institutions that question power. A president without a free press is like a captain navigating without a compass. He may move forward, but not necessarily in the right direction. When Sir Ketumile Masire chose to “leave them alone,” he was not surrendering authority. He was strengthening democracy. He understood what Kennedy did, that freedom of the press, though messy and sometimes uncomfortable, is the heartbeat of democratic accountability. Presidents need the press not because it flatters them but because it tells them what others dare not say. The relationship between the two must be adversarial in method but patriotic in purpose. In philosophy, this delicate balance echoes the ideas of Jacques Lacan, French psychoanalyst and philosopher, who urged humanity to “know thyself.
” Lacan illustrates this concept through three interlocking rings - each pulling in a different direction, creating a tension that seems to threaten the whole. Yet, paradoxically, it is this very tension that sustains the structure. That is because neither of these rings (registers) can claim to be superior nor exclusive and intrinsic in each one of them are the paranoiac, hysterical and paradoxical passions or libidinal styles. If any ring were to break away, the entire system would collapse. Thus, human nature dictates that we exchange not only information but meaning as a fecund means of escaping a state of intellectual decay and aporia in a continually shifting environment. In the end, a vigilant press does not weaken the presidency. It protects it from the blindness of power, and in that truth lies the paradox and the promise of democracy itself.
*Thomas Thos Nkhoma writes in his capacity as a veteran media practitioner and a scholar in journalism, philosophy, human rights, and international relations.