Khama legacy: Part V
Siki Motshwari Johannes | Friday April 28, 2017 15:13
A series of developments in the Government enclave alarmed and kept the media on its toes. President Ian Khama brought under his thump, under the suzerainty of the Office of the President to be precise, oversight bodies like the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) and the Directorate on Intelligence Services (DIS).
As if that was not enough, Information and Broadcasting Services departments followed suit and were to run and operate under the watchful eye of the OP. This was, perhaps, the last straw that broke the camel’s back. It is worth remembering that repeated calls by the independent media and the opposition to have the state media transformed into an autonomous entity, a public broadcaster, had fallen on deaf ears.
The independent media interpreted and read correctly or wrongly that these developments represented Khama’s attempt to entrench a culture of impunity. Now running under close supervision of OP, questions were raised about the independence of the oversight institutions in question. Parliament was unhelpful too as it was (still is) perceived to be a toothless bulldog, existing to rubberstamp executive decisions. Seeing itself as the last man standing, the independent media stepped up its efforts not only to preserve its own space and territorial integrity but also to defend Botswana’s democracy.
The cat-and-mouse game between Khama and the private press was to have far reaching implications for both parties. The media responded sharply to what it deemed as Khama’s belligerent approach. The hunter became the hunted. Attitudes hardened and no side was prepared to yield. On the one hand, the media stuck to its theme of portrayal of Khama as a pariah, under the pretext of promoting accountability and executing its watchdog functions and on the other hand Khama came to see the private media as a callous, destructive, unpatriotic force. Khama’s blind hatred and a penchant for negativity deprived the independent media an opportunity to play its fair share on nation building.
With the media on his case, Khama sought refuge elsewhere. Avoiding the mainstream media like plague, Khama took to the social media. True to form, he did things his own way. Whereas his predecessors relied so much on the conventional channels of communication (press conferences, for example) to engage the public, Khama found a new less, chattered means of communication - Facebook. Save for President Donald Trump, social media is hardly the preferred means of communication for heads of state. Through his Facebook page, Khama directly keeps the public informed not only about upcoming official engagements but also shares his thoughts on topical local and international matters. Way back in 2010, he used the social media platform to make an impassioned plea on the private media to refrain from portraying him and his party in a negative light.
“The private media has had 28/349 positive articles about me, 0/57 newspaper cartoons displaying my good character and 407/2,063 positive radio comments (including comments about how the BDP was guaranteed to win the 2009 general elections). Why does it seem that the private media had mandated itself to bringing my name down, and try to say something bad, even if I do something good”, he lamented in his Facebook page. His Facebook page, however, has had the unintended consequences of attracting more enemies than friends. The page is inundated with more unflattering and less complimentary remarks. Despite its attraction of negativity, the President has undying love for the social media and he continues to use it to reach out to members of the public.
There is hardly any war without casualties. This relentless war between the private media and government had its own casualties. Some of the media houses perhaps out of frustration adopted an extremely adversarial position towards Khama’s Government to an extent where their sense of fairness and impartiality became suspect. The President himself and his Government became the biggest casualty. As the media relentlessly pounded Khama and put his Government under close scrutiny, things started falling apart and now it appears the centre can no longer hold.
Khama’s image took a great knock both locally and abroad. The media apportioned the blame on his shoulders for everything that seemed to go wrong at home and on the international front. The media took him on and never gave him respite. He has had to take all the flak from presiding over what seems to be the near demise of the once invincible BDP, for the party’s split that saw the emergence of Botswana Movement for Democracy, for the country’s present economic woes, for youth unemployment and for the current underachievement of public schools. The list is endless.
Owing to Khama’s style of leadership and continuing media bashing, for the first time in its history the BDP appears to be fighting for political survival. ‘There is still no alternative’ slogan seems to be irrelevant. If the BDP were to fall, independent media could also claim credit for having contributed to its demise. Whereas the BDP is constantly subjected to bad publicity from the private press, the opposition seems to be enjoying a better deal. The opposition is somewhat treated with kid gloves and presented as if it is a paragon of perfection. The progressive movement it is called. Nice description it is but readers are hardly told what this means to their welfare and livelihoods. Under the circumstances, the ruling party can claim with some degree of justification that some independent media houses could have joined ranks with the opposition to support the call for regime change.
But the BDP woes are not really manufactured by the media. It will be foolhardy for the party to fail to clearly diagnose the genesis of its problems. The party’s problems are to a large extent self-inflicted. For instance, leadership squabbles, succession disputes, failure to compromise on matters where compromise appears to be a viable remedy, are not created by the media. The cancer eating the party has developed within and can only be cured by members only and not outsiders. The list of things or ‘demons’ that Khama must exorcise within the ranks of his party are greed, selfish agendas, sheepish loyalty, insatiable appetite for power, arrogance and poor media relations.
Khama must remember that a leader is as good as his lieutenants. Does his conscience tell him that he picked the right team to help him push the agenda that he eloquently outlined through his 5D’s in his inaugural 2008 address? Did he pick the right Cabinet; deploy the right Ministers in the right portfolios?
As for the civil service, did he take into consideration the words of his father who once said the ‘civil service is government and government is the civil service’? Did he consider that for the civil service to tick and function efficiently, having the right people at the helm is key? Khama needs to ponder on why the civil service is so disgruntled. Why civil servants are not proud of national service when, as Mmegi Investments Holdings managing director, Titus Mbuya once said: “It used to be a badge of honour to serve one’s country.” Everything revolves around leadership and having a topnotch team. Khama’s problems are more of an inside job than anything else. He may be on the verge of leaving office but he has enough time to remedy the situation. Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once remarked: ¨A week is a long time in politics.“
On the international scene, the media did not spare the President when the Minister of International Affairs and Cooperation Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi failed to secure the chairmanship of AU Commission. Khama had assigned the Vice President Mokgweetsi Masisi to lead Botswana’s bid. This was considered not enough and even President Robert Mugabe remarked that Venson-Moitoi could have fared better if Khama had been at the forefront of the campaign team.
On the whole Khama’s silence is his greatest undoing in so far as his dealings with the press are. It became the norm rather than the exception during Khama’s rule to opt for silence when the nation was looking up to him and his Government to provide answers to certain topical matters requiring Presidential intervention.
Over-reliance on this mode of communication did not seem effective. Many a times, the public and the media have had to speculate on issues which Government could have clarified on time. Speculation often leads to distortion of facts; misrepresentation and this could in turn breed a culture of mutual mistrust and suspicion.
For instance, there has been speculation that Khama wanted his brother Tshekedi to replace him and Khama’s deafening silence on the matter was unhelpful. It was so foolhardy of Khama to choose to snub the private media. He did not heed the advice that one has to keep friends close and enemies closer. It would have been wiser and politically expedient for him to devise a strategy of converting real or imagined adversaries into friends. By sidelining the media, Khama’s Government lost an opportunity to put its case and have its side of the story heard. He has a mammoth task in the remaining days in office to mend relations with the private press. An appointment of a media savvy Presidential press secretary could do the trick. The Botswana Government Communication and Information System, headed by Jeff Ramsay appeared overburdened with responsibilities and hence the need for a press secretary would give the President’s communication needs undivided attention.
Months after Khama had assumed the reigns in 2008, his personal friend and now Cabinet minister, Thapelo Olopeng arranged meetings between the President and editors, and even sought a slot for private journalists to accompany him on international assignments. But that was short-lived. It is not too late for Khama to revert to the private media and resuscitate the failed relationship for the sake of democracy and nation-building. The Presidency needs the private press and vice versa.