Kenneth Good and his deportation
Correspondent | Friday January 29, 2016 15:47
My feeling is that we should engage in politics in our home country, but in countries where we study, we should refrain from activities related to the struggle for political power.
A country’s domestic politics are for its citizens. One’s analysis and conclusions may lead to or imply particular political choices, but as foreign scholars we should not take political action, whether it be writing polemics, organizing political groups, or campaigning in elections.
Professor Kenneth Good was an expatriate instructor at the University of Botswana (UB) from 1990 to 2005, when the government summarily deported him. His research and writing during that time were highly political, focusing almost exclusively on the undemocratic character of the ruling party’s government and its social and economic oppression of the San.
I never was sympathetic to the partisan nature of his scholarship. He was unwilling to recognise any of the progress the country had made since its independence, especially given the lack of development during the colonial era. He made no pretense of being objective. He was engaged in a polemic against the government and its policies. His goal was to turn foreign governments and peoples against Botswana’s government and economy.
In Botswana, the law does not require that any reasons be given for deportation, and the government gave none in Professor Good’s case. However, it is clear that the Government of Botswana objected to Good’s continual attacks on its policies and structures. Just what particular aspect of his argument prompted the government to action is not clear.
Most attentive citizens in Botswana believed the deportation was because of Good’s criticism of the government’s discriminatory policies toward the San. They perceived him as supporting international critics. On the other hand, most of his international supporters, especially academics, were convinced that Good was deported for his scholarship exposing the authoritarian nature of Botswana’s government. He had written at least six articles in major international journals on the subject.
Further mystifying is the difference between the local and international reaction to Good’s deportation. Within Botswana there was very little protest over the government’s decision. Indeed, there was a certain relief that he was gone. Internationally, academics have condemned the government continuously. One of Good’s close friends even published an article in a major social science journal condemning Botswana, its government, and the University. Subsequently, almost every article on Botswana’s democracy by international scholars contends that Good’s deportation is evidence of a decline of political freedom in Botswana’s democracy. In contrast, few locals even mention his exodus in their analyses of the democratic character of their politics.
Behind these differences lies a divergence of perceptions of the man that is Kenneth Good. For the international community, he is a renowned and fearless scholar who spoke truth to power. In Botswana, he was viewed as a difficult colleague and a white foreigner continuing a long tradition (over 100 years) of demanding special status for a minority tribe, the San.
Regardless of the reason for which Good was deported, he was deported because of his political positions, which is a denial of freedom of expression and a basic political right. Good’s international supporters have taken his case to the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. The Commission in 2010 sided with Good saying, “the expulsion of a non-national legally resident in the country simply for expressing his views…(is) a ‘flagrant violation’ of the (African) charter.”
By contrast, after his deportation, there has been little comment on Good’s case in the Batswana intellectual community as a whole and more specifically within the UB. This lack of political reaction has nothing to do with ignorance of the injustice done. Most sophisticated Batswana are aware that Good’s political right to free speech was violated. The only time one hears anything locally about the case is when Good writes another article, or in one case a book, commenting on the low level of democracy in Botswana. One rarely hears anyone deplore his deportation or his absence.
My employment at the UB from 2006 to 2009 gave me a chance to explore what actually happened. What follows is my assessment of the two contrasting perspectives which exist on Good’s situation. Both are needed to understand the truth of the matter.
International analyses of the case focus on the fact that Good had written many articles on Botswana’s “authoritarian liberalism.” His argument was that in various ways the structure of Botswana’s government concentrated power within a small elite connected to the Office of the President. Good made this argument repeatedly in papers he had published since coming to Botswana in 1990. The paper he was about to present two days before his deportation order was yet another iteration of the same thesis, only this time the focus was on the fact that Botswana’s presidential election process was indirect and thus not democratic. His key point was that Presidential candidates did not have to win the votes of the public at large but only of the members of the legislature. While direct election is certainly more democratic, many parliamentary democracies select their top executive by a process similar to Botswana’s.
Good did most of his research for his various papers sitting in his office, reading the local newspapers and government documents. Most of his analysis repeated themes articulated in the newspapers and espoused by the country’s opposition parties. Additionally, some of his data came from local or foreign scholars who did field research. He was not an intellectual leader on democracy or oppression of the San. He was rather the most prominent and articulate aggregator and exporter of information related to these themes.
The ideas in his last paper before being deported were no different. Opposition parties and a number of academics both inside and outside the country had been focusing on his latest contentions for several years. Putting Ken Good out of the country for repeating these arguments was only giving the issues increased prominence.
For whatever reasons, Good tends to see his last paper as the primary cause for his ouster. The fact of the matter is that the ruling party leadership was not at all threatened by Good’s proposal for Botswana to adopt procedures for the direct election of the President. The ruling party in 2005 was in firm control of Parliament and had every reason to believe it would remain so in foreseeable elections (2009 and 2014). Since only Parliament could change the process for a President’s election, there was no reason to believe Good’s proposals would be adopted in the next decade.
Good was involved with another issue that did threaten the government and a considerable number of Batswana. That issue was Good’s inquiries into the condition of the San, especially as his writing at least in part (how much is not clear) was in concert with Survival International (SI) and other international NGOs seeking to pressure Botswana to establish affirmative action programmes for its hunter-gatherer population. Particularly threatening to President Mogae and his colleagues was SI’s campaign to label Botswana’s diamonds as “blood diamonds” because the government was seeking to remove a small group (one or two percent) of San from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. SI alleged, questionably, that the removal was so that diamonds could be mined in the game reserve. SI’s objective was to persuade the diamond buying public in developed countries to see Botswana diamonds as no different from those mined in other parts of Africa where rebellious warlords were selling diamonds to finance extremely violent insurgencies against weak governments. Good has admitted that he had had communications with SI, probably feeding them information relative to the San’s exploitation.
President Mogae’s anxiety about SI can be partly explained by the fact that 70 to 80 percent of Botswana’s exports by value come from diamonds, the income from which produces approximately 50 percent of the government’s revenues. Even a marginally effective boycott would have a significant impact on the country’s government and economy. However, it is hard to believe that Mogae simply decided to deport Good because of his connections with SI. The campaign against Botswana’s blood diamonds was bound to proceed with no added difficulty whether or not Good resided in Botswana.
The government’s reasoning can only be speculated about. We do know that Mogae and his circle were adamant that no ethnic group (even the major Tswana groups) in Botswana should be allowed to control a geographic area in the country for economic purposes. It was all to be administered by the government (especially in the parks and wildlife areas where the San lived) or by district land boards, and allocated for particular uses regardless of the ethnicity of the applicants.
In addition, Mogae and many Batswana perceived that the San are just another ethnic group in the country. As such they reject the idea that the San are an “indigenous” people having a special collective claim to land because they were the first human beings in what is now Botswana. From this perspective, the San can only obtain social and economic equality or advancement through formal education and then obtaining jobs with their skills. Moreover, the San can have civil and economic rights only as part of the existing Botswana society, not as an independent social group with special claims. This feeling is widespread among the Tswana part of the population (probably 70%) and to a lesser extent among other Bantu groups. Even most members and supporters of the opposition parties have been hesitant, at least until recently, to support the demands of the San.
At the UB most of the academics, including many who are critical of the government, have little interest in conducting research supportive of the rights of hunter-gatherers in Botswana. The San Study Centre, as previously mentioned, consists of a very small group of academics, probably not more than eight or 10, who come from the more liberal disciplines of Social Work, Sociology, African Languages, and African History. Ken Good and his former colleagues from the Department of Political and Administrative Studies (PAS) have been notable by their absence from participating in Centre activities.
Particularly distressing to most Batswana is their perception that outsiders from Europe and America have been on a campaign going back to the end of the 19th century to press both their chiefs during the colonial period and the subsequent independent government to provide special treatment for the San. In their view, the continued preaching by human rights groups is based on ignorance of the San’s situation in terms of their not taking advantage of education, land, jobs, and health programs provided by government, and in the minds of many, the San’s perceived inclination to violence, illegal hunting, prostitution, and heavy drinking.
In summary, Mogae and many Batswana saw SI as a current manifestation of a century-long European and American interference in Batswana domestic affairs. For government officials in particular, this interference could promote the weakening of their firm hold on national resources that they have successfully employed to create a middle-income country over the last four decades. And, for the mass of the population there was the additional concern that the interference was intended to privilege one small tribal group of 60,000, which had remained primitive and had not contributed to the development of the country. Ken Good was the most articulate and, oddly, local part of this perceived imperialist interference, since he was obviously sympathetic with SI.
Still, the question is: Why did the Mogae government think that Ken Good needed to be kicked out of Botswana in 2005? This requires looking at what was going on at the University. I was in Botswana in 2004 to deal with some research matters. In the course of conversations I had with staff at the University, it became clear that Ken Good’s contract was up for renewal, and a number of the key people who were going to be involved in the decision were of the opinion that the contract should not and would not be renewed.
This was obviously a very touchy subject. Good had a very good reputation as a scholar. Over the years he had published many articles in top journals on Africa. It would be hard to argue that he did not deserve to be reappointed if only publications were involved. Indeed, he had probably out-published all the more distinguished members of PAS combined in terms of high-quality publications.
Both administrators and faculty were nevertheless hesitant to reappoint Good. The main reason was that Good had not taken up the responsibilities expected of an expatriate senior professor. Namely, he was not providing the kind of leadership which furthered the development of his department and the social science faculty. He refused on a number of occasions to serve on University committees. He contributed little leadership in the department relative to curriculum or programme development. Indeed he opposed programmes which would have led to new professional programming (e.g. public administration) in addition to its basic political science courses. Probably most important he engaged in little mentoring for junior colleagues. In fact, on a number of occasions he was openly harsh in responding to their requests for help. In the case of one full professor who was extremely conservative, he engaged in open shouting matches. The result ultimately of his behaviour was that when he formally requested his departmental colleagues to express their respect for his character at the High Court hearing on his deportation, they refused to do so. In summary the feeling of many at the University, and especially those involved in the decision on contract renewal, was that while Good certainly added to the international reputation of the University and was an effective gadfly on important political issues in the country, he was performing poorly as a senior leader of the politics faculty and the University as a whole.
One or more persons in the University leadership conveyed in some form to the Mogae government that Good’s contract would not be renewed because he was failing to provide the developmental leadership required of an expatriate full professor. But, the decision went down the opposite way. Good was recommended right up the University chain of authority for reappointment. No one wanted to take responsibility for dismissing a renowned international scholar. Particularly, those in the department were aware that they would suffer professionally and collectively from the negative reactions of Good’s many friends and colleagues around the world.
President Mogae was undoubtedly upset that the University did not live up to its promise to terminate Good’s appointment. So, absent action by the University, the President’s office proceeded to instruct the Department of Labour Affairs to refuse to renew Good’s work permit when requested to do so by the University. However, the official in charge, I have been told, placed the communication in one of his private files and did not put a notice in Good’s departmental file that special instructions from Office of the President needed to be considered before a decision on renewal was made. When the University’s request for a renewal of Good’s permit arrived in Labour Affairs, a lower level officer routinely gave approval with no reference to those above him.
Once the permit had been granted, the Office of the President had only one choice, to go along with Good remaining at the University or authorise his deportation. Mogae, now angered by the weakness of those at the University and the ineffectiveness of his chain of command, chose to authorise deportation.
While I was working in Botswana from 2006 to 2009 it gradually became clear to me in talking with various high-ranking officials why Mogae was so adamant to proceed. In his mind the issue of giving any special recognition to San land claims was going to set a precedent that would break the government’s iron grip on land allocation and justify other tribes making special claims. He would not negotiate with local NGOs representing the San. He would not even listen to top officers of De Beers or Debswana, its Botswana affiliate, who wanted him to compromise on land rights for the San. He was convinced that SI and its supporters, including Good were a threat to Botswana’s economic security both in terms of reducing its share of the diamond market, and in terms of undermining the government’s ability to control economic development through its complete domination of land decisions. From reports I received from informed observers, Mogae so resented SI’s challenge to his vision for Botswana that he lashed out at Good with the deportation order as a way of demonstrating his strong feeling that there was to be no favouritism toward the San. He received his reward in that there was no serious dissent in Parliament, in his ruling party, in most of civil society (outside a few human rights organisations), or in the University, other than the student government and the academic staff union. The members of the Politics Department did not say a word. Their silence was deafening.
Many scholars in the social sciences think that they should use their research and writing to speak up for injustices in a politically active way. The problem is that such political action is unlikely to have much impact unless, as was mentioned in the previous essay, it is coordinated with internal political allies willing to carry on the cause. Interestingly, Good did not choose to work with local Batswana at the University who were attempting through their San Studies Centre to promote the San cause with research and raising money to support San students for advanced education. In his mind, they were not being political enough. He chose to be a loner.
As social loners in foreign countries, social scientists are better at producing data relevant to key issues being debated and providing analysis that, as much as possible, addresses various perspectives on current issues. Good’s more ideological approach should be left to colleagues within the country who can join with organised groups. Indeed, most of his arguments and data came from local newspapers promoting issue positions similar to his. He simply exported their product.
We as social scientists have more to offer by providing a unique external (I hesitate to say “objective”) perspective on a country’s culture. It is more productive to follow de Tocqueville (and his writing on post-colonial America) and examine and highlight the changing ethos of a country. To be like Marx and advocate radical change to a social system which is well entrenched leads only to a political and intellectual dead end. Culture always trumps political polemic. *Taken from “Botswana Essays: Four Decades of Immersion in an African Culture” by John D. Holm