Whither Botswana

DAN MOABI | Friday March 19, 2010 00:00

In his contribution to the debate on the motion, Merafhe insisted that the credit for the proposed legislation should not go to an opposition MP. This appeared far more important to Merafhe than the substance of Saleshando's motion. He then made it very clear that the government would eventually introduce its own draft legislation - on its 'own terms'.

Unfortunately for Merafhe, his intervention came when the horse had already bolted from the stable. The limelight was already on Saleshando for resurrecting the spirit of the original declaration of assets Bill since no government minister had ever dared to do.

On the contrary, the last we had heard from the authorities had been that the 1996 Bill was truly dead and buried, and that a code of conduct would replace it, which never happened either.

So, for all we knew, government ministers had probably long taken the view that even the ridiculous concept of a code of conduct would be too much of an invasion into personal privacy for them.

What will hurt the government's pride even more on this matter is that even when Minister Lesego Motsumi eventually introduces the government's preferred version of a declaration of assets Bill, the credit for this will still go to Saleshando and not to Mma Motsumi.

And rightly so, for had Saleshando not moved his motion, the thought of introducing a new Bill would not have occurred to anyone in the government.

But while Saleshando's image will, indeed hover around the formality of Mma Motsumi introducing the new Bill, the substance of the draft legislation is unlikely to resemble anything that Saleshando had in mind when he introduced his recent motion to parliament. On the contrary, the content of the Bill will have been drafted strictly on the terms dictated by Vice President Merafhe and his cabinet colleagues, which will require that there be no intrusion into their personal privacy.

This will be by far the most sensitive aspect of the draft legislation. Saleshando and his colleagues on the opposition benches will immediately see red over this aspect of Motsumi's expected Bill.

This is because unless the proposed Bill contains strict enough provisions to ensure full compliance with the principles of accountability, good governance and transparency, they will reject it as a whitewash from the outset.

This will also be the view of those in the Barataphathi faction of the governing BDP who made their positions on this very clear during the debate on the Saleshando motion.

The nation also took their principled statements seriously and will accordingly expect them to deliver at the critical moment in parliament. 

Lastly, having waited so long to realise the promise implied in the unanimous 1996 parliamentary vote for a declaration of assets law, the nation will also expect the BDP backbenchers in question to deliver on their promises.  So, Mma Motsumi who has a Herculean task ahead of her will need all the luck in the world to achieve it. She can definitely count on my best wishes for it.

What can we learn from this recent parliamentary fiasco in our nation's efforts to develop and mature its democracy?

The debate on the Saleshando motion, and especially the manner in which it was concluded, was yet another reminder of the lack of real independence between the country's legislature and the executive. 

To be more blunt about it, the powers of the cabinet in Botswana's parliament are excessive. Where else in the democratic world could the executive arm of the state so overwhelmingly defeat the will of the legislative arm as well as that of the electorate?

From what I've read about how the Saleshando debate ended, it's clear that the vast majority of those who voted against the motion were government ministers and their assistant ministers, which is undesirable in any democracy. This is one of the aspects of our democracy regarding which the country's constitution, as it currently stands, is inadequate and needs to be reviewed urgently.

The defeat of Saleshando's motion was also an example of how, over the years, the policies and practices of BDP governments have tended to be motivated more by the individual interests of their members than by the interests of the nation as a whole. In this regard, I'm pleased to draw the attention of readers to Lediretse Molake's 'The Vice President must live long enough' (Mmegi 12 March 2010), which is a brilliant and informative criticism of Merafhe's view that any declaration of assets law should be 'on our terms'.

Among other things, Molake reminded the VP that: 'In terms of the constitution parliament shall make law for the good government of Botswana.

This suggests that where the 'terms' of the lawmakers conflict with good government, then the 'terms' of our lawmakers must give way.  Our Vice President seems to place his convenience over the constitutional duty to make law for the good government of Botswana.'