'You give Good too much credit'

| Thursday March 25, 2010 00:00

You did so without disassociating your newspaper from Professor Good's comments and failed to distance your newspaper from his vitriolic remarks.

I do not understand why we continue to provide a platform for Dr Good to launch yet another barrage of attacks on Botswana, in general, and on our elected leaders, in particular. What did Botswana do to provoke such a vicious and unprofessional attempt to vilify it? Why do Dr Good's former academic colleagues at UB not seek to present a more balanced view of recent developments? Let me try.

A substantial part of Professor Good's paper is devoted to attacking the 'growing power of Botswana's security institutions'. But most of his allegations relate to the establishment of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) and the death of a certain John Kalafatis.

His assertions that 'the bulk' of the Office of the President's current budget is earmarked for the DIS is patently untrue, as even the most cursory examination of the budget estimates reveals. Dr Good's criticism that the Tribunal established to oversee the DIS is comprised of the President's 'cronies' defames the individuals appointed to serve on that body. He goes on to echo the views of individuals in the media and elsewhere who are well known to be politically hostile to our government and our president. Accusations that Botswana is 'sliding towards anarchy' and that President Khama is 'paranoid about being displaced as leader of the BDP' have no basis in fact.

More seriously, Dr Good appears to be opposed to be very existence of the DIS and the appointment of former military men to senior positions in the government. A more objective assessment would point out that every government has at least one institution, comparable to the DIS, which is responsible for monitoring internal security, and that former military personnel occupy many influential posts in politics and the public service. To accuse President Khama of 'cronyism' and to regard his appointments as evidence of 'militarism' and autocracy provide further evidence of Dr Good's malice and personal bias. Surely considerations of good governance require that ineffective or corrupt politicians and bureaucrats are removed and replaced by more competent and disciplined individuals. Far from sharing Dr Good's poisonous views, most Batswana welcome President Khama's efforts to reform Botswana's bloated bureaucracy and to improve the quality of public services.

With regard to Professor Good's claims, based on media reports, that John Kalafatis was 'executed' by the State's security forces, I prefer to withhold judgement until the full facts are known.

The second part f Professor Good's paper repeats his familiar views regarding automatic succession to support his attacks on the legitimacy of President Khama's presidency. Dr Good declares his aversion to the notion that, in Botswana, the Vice President automatically becomes the Head of State whenever the incumbent dies or retires, claiming the system to be undemocratic. He claims that Parliament was 'denied any role in the transition' from President Mogae to President Khama. He conveniently ignores the fact that, under our constitution, the President is elected by the National Assembly.

My researches fail to reveal any country in which the successor to a serving Head of State, who dies in office or resigns, must be popularly elected. That situation does not prevail in any commonwealth country, including Australia, or in virtually any other country in the modern world. There are good reasons for providing for some form of automatic succession, which Professor Good refuses to recognise. In Botswana, would we really want a national election to be held in the event that a democratically elected President could no longer function, for one reason or another? What would that cost and how long would it take? Who would run the government during that time? Why does the office of Vice President exist if not to ensure that automatic succession is an orderly process and that the new President has the support of the National Assembly, at least until the next national elections?

I hope that many Batswana, like me, reject Professor Good's vicious rantings, which are based almost entirely on hostile newspaper reports and his own malicious biases. We welcome constructive criticism in this country, but we really do not need to have our political systems and democratically elected leadership maligned by a discredited maverick Australian academic. Surely his time would be better spent addressing the problems faced by immigrant Indians, migrant workers and aboriginal peoples in his own country? Or does Dr Good regard Botswana as a soft target for his attacks?Quill Hermans