Why do Batswana allow Khama to (mis)rule with impunity?

Michael Dingake | Tuesday May 31, 2016 15:21

I believed him. One nameless BDP MP tried to sell Parliament the idea of amending the constitution to extend his term of office. He shot down the motion with a bazooka.

Khama would have none of it. Whether the forked-tongued sidekick was trying to make up for his previous faux pas, when he said, freedom and democracy for Batswana was unthinkable, while SKIK was around and in command, one doesn’t know. Khama’s emphatic response made him a creature apart, from the typical African president who prefers presidency-for-life! I was convinced Khama meant what he said.. Nonetheless, Khama isn’t always consistent in speech and conduct. In his inaugural speech on April 1, 2008 the President had shared with the audience why he had joined the Botswana Defence Force (BDF). It was specifically to defend democracy, he told all who were present on that April fool’s day! Have we seen him defend democracy in the past eight years of his rule? Search your memory. He didn’t stop at informing the audience that he joined the army to defend democracy, he unfolded a roadmap dedicated to his tenure of office. He initially called his course, the four Ds. The first of the Ds was Democracy, then Development, Discipline and Dignity.

He later added Delivery -  an after-thought. The fifth D of the road-map.  Development, Discipline, Dignity and Delivery, synchronise well as elements of Democracy! Without Development, Democracy would stagnate and regress; Discipline is essential for democracy - reflected in democratic principles; without principles inconsistency and unreliability would prevail; Dignity implies a democratic nation would enjoy human rights entrenched in the constitution, a constitution marching with the times and adaptable to new conditions imposed by the vagaries of life;  Delivery, a profound afterthought by the president, I believed; democracy as defined by Abe Lincoln, states that it is FOR the people! Democracy MUST deliver the goods and services expected by the people. Otherwise democracy isn’t democracy. It’s barren and undeserving of the name.  Apply the above checklist to find out how the evidence of Khama’s (mis)rule on the ground compares with the analysis of democracy as explained above during the eight years of SKIK’s democracy. Khama was eloquent, prescient, determined and ready to take a new command of civilians marching in step with the rhythm of democracy.

He sounded excited on his role as president of a democracy-loving nation. Batswana expected a sea change in their socio-political lives. The one discordant note subsequently, something which rang alarm bells, was, shortly after outlining his  roadmap, he began characterising politics as dirty. Khama has an inexplicable abnormal distaste for press conferences. However, he’s comfortable with one-on-one press interviews. At these interviews he raises the controversy of politics as a ‘dirty game.’ He minces no words. He began to sound ambivalent and regretful he had joined politics and sworn to make it work. Politics, a game? Not just a game, but  dirty? It sounded ominous for the five Ds. Again, games are supposed to be guided by rules of fairness. Why would this one seem sans rules as implicit in the stressfulness of the president’s posture? He now seemed to feel, he was required to engage in games, instead of driving democracy as he understood it. If ‘game’ was expressed metaphorically, why overlook the fairness part of the rules that must govern all games? Players who try to cheat in game, get their just desserts, not so? Did it mean Khama was already thinking and planning dirty tricks to ensconce himself properly in the game?  One can’t help but think negative  thoughts if one looked at Khama’s eight-year record: His first act as Minister in the Office of the President was to kill the Assets and Liabilities Bill which Honourable PHK, his predecessor, had already drafted. Look how corruption is spiraling out of control for lack of this law!

Next, the Ombudsman ruled against him flying BDF aircraft since he was no longer member of BDF staff. Supported by the president who then deified him, he defied Ombudsman’s ruling. Now being president he appoints the Ombudsman, and he deliberately appoints unqualified candidates, appointed simply for allegiance they owe him. Recently retired Ombudsman was interestingly reported as saying she envied SA Public Protector’s Office. The Acting Ombudsman had no kind word for the office as by law constituted. Why? The newly-appointed Ombudsman comes from a Ministry that wields arrogant power, basically a sub-office under him. Can we expect the new Ombudsman to depart from the habit of subservience to him? Imagine a wild dog transferred to a shepherd dog role! Practical?   Khama is opposed to independent institutions or persons, Typical soldier. Look at the havoc he’s playing on Parliament and the Judiciary!