The recent exchange between former president, Kgosi Khama IV, and the government over the role of traditional leaders highlights a delicate tension that demands wisdom, not warfare.
Whilst the government seeks to clarify boundaries between elected councillors and Dikgosi, and Khama defends the autonomy of Bogosi, this dispute musn't spiral into division. All parties must step back, breathe, and commit to dialogue rooted in mutual respect and the rule of law.
Botswana’s strength lies in its unique blend of modern democracy and deep-rooted tradition. Dikgosi, as custodians of culture and community justice, hold immense moral authority. Their Kgotla, as Khama rightly notes, is a sacred space for dialogue, not political point-scoring. Equally, elected governance structures ensure accountability and national development. Both institutions matter. When their roles clash, the solution can't be ultimatums or public spats but careful collaboration.
The government’s letter to Dikgosi, cautioning against unofficial meetings with councillors, stems from valid concerns. Mixing tribal authority with partisan politics risks eroding trust in both systems. Councillors, answerable to voters, musn't be seen as subordinate to traditional leaders. Yet Khama’s rebuttal raises legitimate questions. Dikgosi aren't like any government employees; their authority flows from custom and the Bogosi Act. Heavy-handed directives risk appearing dismissive of this heritage.
However, confrontation helps no one. The minister’s claim of “no conflict” rings hollow when letters are fired like warning shots. Khama’s accusation of “gross intimidation” escalates tensions unnecessarily. Public bickering undermines public confidence and distracts from shared goals: serving communities.
There is a middle path. The Bogosi Act and Local Government Act exist to guide interactions. These laws should be the compass, not weapons in a power struggle. If the government believes Dikgosi are overstepping, it must engage respectfully, not through abrupt letters. Conversely, Khama and traditional leaders should recognise that modern governance requires clear protocols. Meetings between councillors and Dikgosi, if necessary, can be structured transparently to avoid politicisation.
Critically, both sides must talk directly and privately. The minister’s reluctance to engage Khama is unhelpful. Silence breeds suspicion. A mediated forum, perhaps led by neutral elders or legal experts, could clarify boundaries without humiliation. Communities deserve leaders who solve problems, not amplify them.
Botswana has navigated tradition and progress before. This moment calls for the same pragmatism. Let the government reaffirm its respect for Bogosi’s cultural role. Let Dikgosi honour the democratic frameworks that safeguard national unity. Above all, let cooler heads prevail.
Botswana’s strength lies in its unique blend of modern democracy and deep-rooted tradition. Dikgosi, as custodians of culture and community justice, hold immense moral authority. Their Kgotla, as Khama rightly notes, is a sacred space for dialogue, not political point-scoring. Equally, elected governance structures ensure accountability and national development. Both institutions matter. When their roles clash, the solution can't be ultimatums or public spats but careful collaboration.
The government’s letter to Dikgosi, cautioning against unofficial meetings with councillors, stems from valid concerns. Mixing tribal authority with partisan politics risks eroding trust in both systems. Councillors, answerable to voters, musn't be seen as subordinate to traditional leaders. Yet Khama’s rebuttal raises legitimate questions. Dikgosi aren't like any government employees; their authority flows from custom and the Bogosi Act. Heavy-handed directives risk appearing dismissive of this heritage.
However, confrontation helps no one. The minister’s claim of “no conflict” rings hollow when letters are fired like warning shots. Khama’s accusation of “gross intimidation” escalates tensions unnecessarily. Public bickering undermines public confidence and distracts from shared goals: serving communities.
There is a middle path. The Bogosi Act and Local Government Act exist to guide interactions. These laws should be the compass, not weapons in a power struggle. If the government believes Dikgosi are overstepping, it must engage respectfully, not through abrupt letters. Conversely, Khama and traditional leaders should recognise that modern governance requires clear protocols. Meetings between councillors and Dikgosi, if necessary, can be structured transparently to avoid politicisation.
Critically, both sides must talk directly and privately. The minister’s reluctance to engage Khama is unhelpful. Silence breeds suspicion. A mediated forum, perhaps led by neutral elders or legal experts, could clarify boundaries without humiliation. Communities deserve leaders who solve problems, not amplify them.
Botswana has navigated tradition and progress before. This moment calls for the same pragmatism. Let the government reaffirm its respect for Bogosi’s cultural role. Let Dikgosi honour the democratic frameworks that safeguard national unity. Above all, let cooler heads prevail.
