The DIS needs get a grip on itself for its own sake

Lawrence Ookeditse | Thursday June 12, 2014 19:47

Now, let us agree from the onset that we do not have an affidavit sworn proof of any wrong doing from the Director of the DIS right. Fine. That was never my point; my point is that the spy agency and the chief spy are on the news for the wrong reasons almost weekly.

 This is fundamental given that statutes aside, the DIS by and large remains- in the eyes of many- nothing more than a little rudimentary militia the likes of which are found in Central and Western parts of Africa. For many people, it is yet to be a fully fledged institution and for this reason, it should not be getting so much column and news space for the wrong reasons.  See, spy networks globally pride in being the silent professionals, the DIS and its Director ought to do some soul searching around this issue: decide what they want to be. There exist two choices: one is to be the silent professionals who get on with their jobs and get to be mentioned once every while for a great mission and then go down under again. The second option is to be a massive talk shop whose activities and image is forever on the news for all the wrong reasons, an entity in which discipline eventually dissipates and gets replaced by wanton ill discipline and failure to accomplish missions.

The first option is what some of us intelligence fanatics love to see, it gets on with its job with a fair measure of grace, becomes the pride of a nation- regardless of political affiliation. The second option is what civilized nations hate to see. This is because an intelligence network is not expected to behave like a militia in the Central African Republic or Somalia. You may scan around the world for evidence and you'd note that while the CIA, KGB, Mossad and other intelligence agencies do feature in news, they are not the news themselves weekly, nor are their leaders news weekly. That sort of behaviour was synonymous to agencies back before and during the Second World War. Doctrines of civilian controls over the armed forces and intelligence have since made that unfashionable.  But here, the DIS is a regular feature of political talk- because it positions itself as a feature in politics through its own failure to manage its publicity.  In particular, the DIS Director is so much on the news you'd think he is a politician. If he is not careful, soon, soon, no one will believe what he says. He'd attract the same sort of hatred politicians attract and lose the authority that an office such as that bestows upon one. Eventually even lose the allegiance of those whom he leads for they'd see him in no higher a regard than that of politicians. This is a bad trajectory for a career military or intelligence man. Talking of politicians, the Director is not doing the Botswana Democratic Party any favours in an election year since whenever he is on the news for the wrong reasons or there is speculation of a falling out within the DIS, onlookers find a way to drag the presidency in to the matter. This calls for caution from the Director's office. The way things keep being leaked is a potential threat to national security given that the DIS naturally as part of its mandate handles top secrets. Now, little cliques and other such sectarian pockets the media keeps reporting on should worry all in the intelligence community, those who gather, analyse and also those who consume intelligence should be worried about issues of accuracy of reports and the risk of information ending in the wrong hands. Intelligence agencies have problems yes but they are supposed to keep the lid on things, they are supposed to be sworn into secrecy but in here this seems not the case and one cannot help but think the weekly tabloid material on the Director is a contributory factor. It has since become 'acceptable' via practice for intelligence goings on at the DIS to be shared by some with the media and this is something that may in future jeopardize operational activities. An intelligence network was never supposed to leak so much it'd rival my grandmother's sieve. Similarly, the Director natural is the chief spokesperson of intelligence entities, but given how bad the DIS has been doing in terms of managing its image, it is perhaps time the Director engaged an officer who is a communication expert to deal with the DIS image. He needs to divorce the entity a bit from his person for the good of its institutional integrity. This is also helpful in that it would withdraw the Director's image from the public eye for a bit; hence reduce hawkish scrutiny of his person and all he gets down to. This is really important, for the country.