The article mistakenly suggests that the role of government in the ownership of Air Botswana in some way spells 'socialism'.
The writer should have been warned about the distinction between state capitalism, on which AB was founded, and the socialism about which he speaks in apparent contempt and an equal doze of ignorance. Air Botswana is not and has never been a socialist undertaking!
At best it was an attempt by the state to recycle the funds that would otherwise go to private travel agencies so that they would return to government whenever state officials travelled. It was believed that the state officials and the president would be safer travelling in a state airline than in a hired aircraft.
Though it should not be the main focus of this discussion, it should be emphasised that there is a fundamental distinction between government enterprise for state profit and socialist endeavour for equitable distribution of social benefits in the citizens' interest.
In this case, AB is not a socialist undertaking, but rather, a government business.
Government has done its sums and found that somebody else should make business out of AB because, in state hands, it has failed. Otherwise, it has overextended the mission it undertook when it was formed.
In that regard, ownership and control of AB must be subjected, as government appears to have done, to the test of profitability in the long run rather than show-off value in the short-run.
Never mind the debate about the superiority of Parliament over the president or his cabinet. That should now be common sense.
Democracy derives its efficacy from popular participation in the system of governance. Parliament reflects popular representation and the popular will.
It selects the president of the country, who in turn chooses a cabinet from Parliament. The president then appoints the Chief Justice.
It should then be clear that the original source of legitimacy for the presidency, and every other act that he performs, derives from Parliament.
Every other authority at the judiciary or executive draws his or her authority from appointment by the president who owes his powers to Parliament.
So, there should be no hesitation about the fact that Parliament is the source of legitimisation of all branches of government, provided that the parliamentarians are themselves properly elected by the people. David Magang is dead right on this one.
So, Parliament enjoys the right to caution every other arm of government on any action, and it is the ultimate judge of what is best for the nation.
The feeble argument has been advanced that the constitution is the ultimate bearer of legitimacy about the conduct of national affairs.
The constitution of Botswana derives its authority from Her Majesty the Queen of England, through the parliament over which she presides.
That power filters through to the parliaments of her domains, which now boast some semblance of independence.
The constitution seeks to determine and distribute power, but it does not, and it cannot claim a position above the people who practise it through the parliamentary process.
That is a long way of saying that indeed parliament has the right to begin, continue and stop any actions that it might have determined according to its own procedures.
That is not the point of this contribution.
The point is to highlight the naivety of the person who suggests that Air Botswana is a socialist undertaking, that Parliament should have no say over AB's privatisation and more particularly, to argue the point that suggests that every act of privatisation works against the interest of the employees.
Workers and the trade unions should recognise that they are not the owners of capital, and that in the final analysis, they shall be judged by their contribution to the creation of commodities over which they shall ultimately have no control.
The workers have two options. The first is to accept that they have limited if any control over capital regardless of whether it is controlled by the state or private persons.
The second is that they have the potential, if they are disowned by their employers, to emulate them.
That contradicts the notion that every act of privatisation will be no good for the workers. That also requires a new way of looking at things in the labour movement, and indeed in the socialist section of Botswana's polity.
What good is a state enterprise that makes no profit and requires bottomless government subsidies that could be going to health or education? What good is a national emblem on an air aircraft carrier that makes no money to justify its use in matters of the national interest?
It is old and useless trade unionism to insist that every act of privatisation necessarily brings about the suffering of the workers. Capitalism has advanced far beyond that simplistic logic. So, the trade unions must wake up to that challenge in the modern era of imperialism.
Privatisation costs the taxpayer, via the government, much money. The president and the civil servants have bought themselves a plane which they did not have when Seretse was lifting the country from the depths of dire poverty.
The current AB is not making money. Why should the taxpayer continue to capitalise an enterprise that is fulfilling none of the aims for which it was established?
Labour should respond to that question in 21st century terms and stop crying over jobs that will inevitably be lost should government simply abandon Air Botswana and not even discuss privatisation.
Air Botswana has already lost jobs, not on account of privatisation, but because of its lack of financial viability.
Has Parliament looked at the possibility that a privatised AB would create more real jobs in the long run, and contribute to taxes that would boost the country's tax base?
Does the labour movement and parliament want to keep a non-productive enterprise only because, in the short run, it employs a limited number of workers? Rather silly!
Parliament certainly has the right and - provided this is a proper democracy - the legal authority to stop the process of privatisation, even it was by innuendo of a motion, or suggestion of a law to reverse those that exist.
But whatever option it opts for should be governed by good reason and not empty sentiment.
What is wrong if Bill Gates, South Africa or Russia take over the running of Air Botswana? Don't we, after all, eat Russians, watch SABC and write our stories on Microsoft?
So, what is the fuss?
