What role should journalism play in Botswana’s national security architecture?
THOMAS NKHOMA | Thursday July 23, 2026 12:30
Security was tangible because it had uniforms, checkpoints, surveillance and strategy. Conversely, some of the greatest threats confronting nations today arrive without passports.
Interestingly, they arrive through smartphones, social media platforms, anonymous online accounts and increasingly, through artificial intelligence capable of generating convincing text, images, voices and videos within seconds. The battlefield has changed and perhaps our understanding of national security should also change with it. In my previous article, I reflected on a recent investigation by Forbidden Stories which featured the testimony of a former journalist turned propagandist in the Central African Republic.
He described how coordinated disinformation campaigns used fabricated narratives, fake online personas and manipulated content to shape public opinion and advance geopolitical interests.
His account offers a rare glimpse into the organised machinery of modern information warfare. It reminds us that in the 21st Century, influence has become one of the world’s most powerful strategic assets, one capable of shaping elections, polarising societies and undermining democratic institutions.
That is why scholars, policymakers and security experts are beginning to speak of a concept that deserves greater attention in Botswana: information sovereignty. Traditionally, sovereignty has been understood as a State’s authority over its territory and people. Information sovereignty broadens that understanding. It refers to a nation’s ability to preserve the integrity of its information environment against manipulation, whether originating from foreign influence operations, organised criminal networks, commercial interests or coordinated domestic campaigns designed to distort public understanding.
This is not an argument for governments to control information or determine what citizens should read, watch or believe. Democracies thrive on the free exchange of ideas, vigorous debate and robust criticism. Freedom of expression remains one of the cornerstones of democratic society.
Rather, information sovereignty is about protecting the conditions under which truth can compete fairly because without those conditions, freedom itself becomes vulnerable. Closely connected to this is another concept that is quietly gaining prominence in academic and policy circles: cognitive sovereignty.
If information sovereignty concerns the integrity of the information environment, cognitive sovereignty concerns the independence of the human mind. It is the ability of citizens to think critically, evaluate competing claims, question assumptions and reach conclusions based on evidence rather than manipulation. Perhaps that is the defining challenge of our age.
But more importantly, Botswana is by no means isolated from these global currents. Like many democracies, our public discourse increasingly unfolds on digital platforms where outrage often outperforms reflection and anonymity sometimes overshadows accountability. Rumours travel fast nationwide. The result is not simply misinformation but the gradual erosion of trust in institutions, expertise, journalism and ultimately in one another.
This is where the conversation must shift from social media to journalism itself. For years, discussions about the future of journalism have largely centred on declining newspaper sales, shrinking advertising revenues and struggling newsrooms.
These are undoubtedly important concerns but perhaps we have been asking the wrong question. Instead of asking whether journalism is commercially sustainable, perhaps we should ask whether democracy is sustainable without journalism. Professional journalism performs a public function that anonymous online content rarely does. It verifies before publishing. It provides context rather than simply content. It is accountable for what it reports. It investigates. It challenges. It corrects. It accepts legal and ethical responsibility for its work.
However, investigative journalism is expensive. Court reporting is expensive. Parliamentary reporting is expensive. Local government reporting is expensive. Yet these are precisely forms of journalism upon which accountable governance depends. If left entirely to market forces, the journalism that democracy needs most may become the journalism least able to survive.
This is why many established democracies have begun exploring different models of supporting public-interest journalism while preserving editorial independence.
Such approaches recognise journalism not merely as a commercial enterprise but as a public good - much like education, public health or scientific research.
The underlying principle is that an informed citizenry benefits the whole society, regardless of political affiliation or economic status. As Botswana continues conversations about the future of its media policy framework, this broader perspective deserves thoughtful consideration.
The discussion around the new Media Bill should extend beyond regulation or institutional arrangements. It should be fundamentally about what kind of information ecosystem the country wishes to cultivate in the decades ahead.
Protecting independent journalism should never mean protecting newspapers from competition or shielding journalists from criticism. Journalism must continue earning public trust through professionalism, ethical conduct and accountability.
Notwithstanding, neither should society assume that credible journalism will somehow survive on goodwill alone. Roads are built because they connect communities. Hospitals are funded because they protect lives. Schools are supported because they educate future generations. Perhaps independent journalism deserves to be recognised for what it equally protects: the integrity of democratic decision-making. This is where journalism intersects directly with national security.
Military strategists speak of protecting critical infrastructure such as airports, power stations, water supplies and telecommunications networks. Yet the information ecosystem upon which citizens make decisions receives comparatively little strategic attention.
Perhaps it should. Independent newsrooms, universities, public broadcasters, research institutions and fact-checking organisations collectively form part of a nation’s democratic infrastructure.
When these institutions weaken, the vacuum seldom remains empty. It is quickly occupied by speculation, propaganda, misinformation and algorithmically amplified outrage.
Information vacuums are never permanent. Someone always fills them. The only question is whether that space will be occupied by verified journalism or manufactured reality. Protecting journalism is, therefore, no longer simply about protecting the media. It is about protecting Botswana’s information sovereignty, cognitive sovereignty and, ultimately, its democratic sovereignty.
A nation that cannot sustain independent journalism risks losing far more than newspapers. It risks losing the shared factual foundation upon which democratic society depends. The future of national security will not be secured solely by stronger intelligence capabilities, more sophisticated cyber defences or better surveillance technologies.
It will also depend on whether societies produce citizens who think critically, universities that pursue truth fearlessly, institutions that value evidence over expediency and journalists who remain committed to reporting without fear or favour. Because in the 21st Century, defending a nation’s sovereignty also means defending the integrity of its public conversation and that may well become the strongest line of defence any democracy can build.
*Thomas Thos Nkhoma is MISA
Botswana chairperson
The future of national security will not be secured solely by stronger intelligence capabilities, more sophisticated cyber defences or better surveillance technologies. It will also depend on whether societies produce journalists committed to reporting without fear or favour, given that defending a nation’s sovereignty also means defending the integrity of its public conversation, an act that may well become the strongest line of defence any democracy can build. Writes THOMAS THOS NKHOMA*