BCP faction's response treacherous and self-deceptive

| Monday August 27, 2012 00:00

I found it particularly odd, however, that anyone would have found it necessary to formalize such an understanding - it having been my belief that all the elements which make up a government automatically work together as one whole.

Even allowing for personal antagonisms which can sometimes affect these relations, and for changes of style and procedure - vision statements, for instance, were an unknown until fairly recently - it still seems to me to be very strange that the signing of such a memorandum was felt to be either necessary or to represent a specific advantage. But if it does, we should be prepared for a slew of similar initiatives with the police being the next in line signing memoranda with all the District Councils, then the Councils with the Land Boards, and then the DIS with, I am not sure, absolutely everyone, I suppose. I am also not too sure about the huge Office of the President which would probably feel under no obligation to sign with anyone. If this memorandum idea really caught on, however - which I can well see it doing - it could spread way beyond the government with all sorts and sizes getting carried away, feverishly determined to sign on the line, husbands with wives, neighbours, former enemies, baruti with their congregations, super markets with their customers, even MPs and their constituents - confirming in writing a new found commitment to shared ideals, reciprocal obligations and a joint determination to work for the common good. We will see. But one thing is for certain.

If last week's Memorandum really does have meaning and value, it may become necessary for all government Ministries and Departments to ask for a copy of the draft document so that they too can start on the very lengthy signing process.  That would pull Btv away from its current pre-occupation with those seemingly endless conferences at the Grand Palm; or for those with the necessary cash, Mowana.But there are other angles on this memorandum affair which may, it seems to me, be worth exploring.  Mmegi last week described Francistown as a ghost town which means that with Phikwe and Lobatse, the country now has at least three. Because it is the government's belief that tourism, after diamonds, can be the new engine of growth, those three towns might begin to think that their salavation could lie in also signing Memoranda with the Department. Myra Sekgororoane did explain last week, however, that it is because tourism is so wildlife dependent that she welcomed the role that culture, and heritage, could play in broadening its appeal. But clearly none of those three prongs of tourism, wildlife, culture or heritage are proving of any benefit to the three ghost towns; otherwise they wouldn't be described as ghost towns. But then we have yet to start thinking in terms of the places that most benefit from tourism - Kasane, Maun and perhaps, Gaborone, with nearly everywhere else, either benefitting not all or benefitting very little.  A characteristic of today's tourism in this country is that by and large it flourishes only in parts that are less populated - where there are people, there is no tourism at all. This is particularly odd because where there are people there must be both heritage and culture.

It doesn't work that way, however, because culture is being most exploited by the more distant minority peoples, whilst heritage is understood as being limited to sites, mostly archaeological, and mostly distant from the larger population centres. The one and only exception is the three Chiefs monument in Gaborone!   The answer to this strange conundrum can only be provided by the towns which are currently missing out because it is they who must start demonstrating that ideas about heritage needs to be less narrowly defined and that each one of them, even Phikwe, enjoys elements of both culture and heritage which can be developed and marketed as a part of their own tourism programmes. But are those towns willing to start thinking this way?