Our leaders need an early man moment

| Friday April 16, 2010 00:00

 

This knowledge opened a whole new world for us. I believe a people that transition from our traditional system of governance to democratic republicanism without having the same ' early man' experience cannot come close to understanding what democracy and republicanism are about. I believe we have too many politicians who have never seen the political 'early man'.

I have always known that our leaders were following an unwritten constitution, but never really understood where they were coming from, now I do. Our constitution is at odds with their understanding of issues.

They occupy a half way position between bogosi and republicanism. Any talk about complying with provisions of the constitution that are at odds with their understanding of issues is unacceptable to them.

The colonial government did not use democracy to legitimise its rule over our people. It relied on the concept of superiority of Europeans over Africans. It exercised power over all institutions and was not accountable to our people. It was accountable to an external institution, the British Crown.

Our first elections in 1965 served the role of legitimising the transfer of power to rule from the colonial master to indigenous Batswana. Independence also ushered in an institution that had a dual role, parliament. Parliament became a law making body and localized accounting.

Sir Seretse Khama was a product of the colonial administration. He had served in institutions formed by the colonial government to accommodate Africans.

He was also a hereditary chief. It would take a lot of self-awareness for a man who grew up under these institutions not to lean towards exercise of power without accountability if he were to succeed the colonial administration.

A leader who comes to power under democratic elections at a time when no effective substitute for the British Crown is in place will be inclined to focus more on exercise of power than on accountability. I do not believe it is natural and easy for a man who has dual roles of exercising power and accounting to oneself as a representative of many, to constantly maintain the accounting aspect of his position on par with other aspects. 

Most senior government positions carry with them wide discretionary powers. This will tend to aggravate the exercise of power aspect of leadership than the accountability aspect.

I submit that if we are honest with ourselves, any man placed in this environment, where his right to exercise power, discretion and the duty to account happen at the same time, will be more inclined to find comfort in the exercise of power and discretionary space than to account.

This is the natural thing given that like water, exercise of power flows in the path of least resistance. Accounting presents resistance to free exercise of power.  How many of us routinely decide issues on a daily basis and are at the same time ready to be proven wrong on a daily basis?

A commoner born in 1950 under bogosi, where the Kgosi did not account to commoners, and who spends his adult life working in the public service where the law and protocol is that the minister ranks above the Kgosi, will have a tough time understanding why the minister has to account to him.

The logical thing for him is that if the Kgosi did not account to him surely a power above the Kgosi cannot be expected to account to him.  What chance do we have to get the commoner to appreciate that as a member of parliament, cabinet has to account to him.

We are effectively suggesting to him that what he aspires for, a ministerial post, is an inferior position. Now show me somebody who can lightly admit such an error in planning his future.

When we tell people with such a social background, who become members of parliament that cabinet has to account to them, we are effectively talking rubbish as far as they are concerned.

 It is not politically correct for them to say so, so they will keep their peace, but they will not implement the written constitution. In their scheme of things cabinet is the higher authority. It just does not make sense to them for a higher authority to account to a lesser authority.

 In our African churches ( some call them Water Affairs), we have constitutions that say we can elect a leadership, but the members know that succession is hereditary; the son of the founder succeeds the father. The constitutional process is documented to satisfy the Registrar of Societies and Societies' Act.

What makes us think that the same people who understand things in this manner at church level will understand them differently at country governance level? This will be aggravated by the fact that political parties are exempt from the Societies' Act.  What happens when the same people become Members of  Parliament? Do we have any reason to believe that their thinking has changed? I do not think so.

Where the two attributes of bogosi and republicanism co-exist in a society such as ours, bogosi will tend to overcome republicanism. In order for republicanism to overcome bogosi there is need for a political early man. In my view such a political early man is represented by the independence era leaders; Seretse, Masire and those who came before them.

If we understand things in this fashion, we will appreciate that these gentlemen are our political ancestors but they are not definitive of our politics in much the same way that our early man ancestor does not limit us.

If we do not recognise a political early man we will continue to be captive to the political world of former leaders. This will act as a bar to discovery of anything hidden in our constitution that our former leaders did not know or to advances in our political dispensation.

To create a 'political early man moment', we need role players who can achieve what two old women, Mma Mosieman and Mma Makunga, did a long time ago.

They did not discover the concept of an early man, but they taught us. They created the moment. Our constitution has certain beautiful nuances that a president might miss during his reign. When showed these nuances, there might be a temptation to turn away. I am effectively asking Rre Masire and Rre Mogae to be our two old women, by supporting the proposition that there are certain nuances of our constitution that they learnt on the job or after they left office.

It is quite obvious that they have nothing to gain from what I am asking of them, but is it not that the greatest gift is where one has no possibility of a reward from the recipient? I, however believe the good Lord has blessed them with longevity so that I can make this request, as I hereby do. Such an acknowledgement would put our politics on the same footing as our justice system. Our courts allow themselves to discard long-held positions set out in translations and interpretation of old authorities where new and better translations and interpretation put a perspective that suggests that what has been held to be the position of the law, is in actual fact not correct.

The courts do not preoccupy themselves with bruised egos; they move on and adopt what they call a better statement of the law. What I am suggesting is that it is possible for one amongst us to give an interpretation of the constitution that gives a better statement of what the ideals and objectives it set out to achieve are.

Come to think of it, the early man concept can provide a framework for looking at moral regeneration. Our traditions and cultures are early man manifestations of our values, they are not limitations which our modern day society should be kept captive to, in much the same way that our early man ancestor is not a limitation on our biological makeup. Likewise, a constitution that restricts democracy can be treated as an early man version of democracy, it is not definitive of what constitutes democracy in the present day and age.

We were lucky to be young and free when we first came into contact with 'early man'. We were not yet classified into creationists or evolutionists.  We were not yet divided like political parties, into capitalists or socialist, ruling party or opposition, or faction this or faction that. Our leaders unfortunately choose camps and remain captive to these camps.

They need to allow themselves to be young and free. It will allow them to find each other instead of being at each other's throats. It will allow them to grow.

Unlike what we were a long time ago, they cannot be lucky, they have to be purposive, create space and control that space to embrace a new world when it is revealed.