As Africans, we need to come out and play. But first things first: stop expecting that other people will take care of your interests. The Chinese are no different from the West. The basics are the same – they both come for what is in their interests It is now time for African countries to also map out their own interests. Let’s go into these negotiations and meetings with our own hidden agendas.
“China follows the principle of giving more and taking less, giving before taking and giving without asking for return”, various news channels cited China premier Xi Jinping as having said at the 3 September 2018 forum where he detailed a “win win-win” principle. It needs not be said that this principle being enunciated here is a phony.
For one, China stipulates in its agreements that Chinese corporations and nationals be employed to deliver most of the projects it undertakes. A significant share of Chinese aid actually comes in the form of natural resource securitised loans and is easier to pledge than to actually make good on. As we speak, Zambian copper mines are reportedly falling to the Chinese having failed to live up to lending conditions. Not that these are bad things from China: rather, these are clear examples of how shrewd the Chinese have been to place a veil of ignorance on those they deal with to make them believe that it is actually true that the Chinese are angelic in their dealings.
Be this as it may, African countries and their leaders have a moral and legal obligation to take care of their countries’ interests. Chinese leaders have the same obligations towards China. The basis of co-operation on any endeavour is then founded on this. Who wins or loses is an equation of which side is able to best carve out a deal that works for them. Talk, therefore, that China is taking advantage of African countries is not exactly correct. The nature of the game is to take advantage of whom you can.
African statesmen and their envoys should be the ones under the microscope: are they efficient and sophisticated enough to take advantage of China? If they are not as shrewd then we will get the raw end of the bargain. If they are, then China may lose. Better still for everyone, a win-win may be achieved if both sets of envoys are at par.
In analysis and corridor talk on Africa-China relations, there seems to be an expectation that China be “nicer than the west”. This is misplaced optimism. The foundation of relations in the international sphere is the pursuit of one’s interests, and such interests are often selfish. In internal state matters governments are ethical and concerned about moral perspectives and judgements. In international affairs, states and statesmen care about their countries’ interests primarily – the other party’s interests matter only as a platform from which to bargain.
Let me elucidate: Say China agrees to buy low grade coal from Botswana, or to construct a rail road across the continent. The underlying intent would not be to help Botswana grow its economy by buying the coal. The deal happens because China needs the coal; because the net benefit to Chinese industry is greater than the price it pays to get the coal. To Botswana there may also be a benefit in employment and resource tax but that would not have been China’s primary goal.
The primary goal is in the interest of China and this is perfectly fine. It is how it is. The same applies to a rail road across Africa – it would improve connectivity and the freighting of goods but that would not be the underlying motive from the Chinese. Their true motive maybe to ensure that they ease their unemployment burden through having their nationals come work on the rail road; through having their corporations come lay the rail road; or even to ensure that their strategic interests are taken care of. Even more, China may just be making sure that it ensnares African countries so much that they do not get anywhere close to recognising Taiwan or threaten China’s myriad of territorial claims in the South China Sea
Note for instance that the kingdom of Eswatini was the notable absentee as African countries queued up for the possible Chinese windfall. Eswatini is known to recognise the sovereignty of Taiwan hence its exclusion. It is probable that its exclusion was a demonstration, though tacit, to the present African countries of what happens to those that recognise disputed Chinese territorial claims.
As well, it is common discourse that the Chinese have their own trade disputes with the US and would seek to leverage elsewhere given that the US are their biggest trading partner. To lessen the likely blow of any fallout they may have to look to Africa – this would not have been clearly spelt out in the negotiations- you do not expect that it be. In short, what appears like a deal to mine copper may actually, to the Chinese, be a geo-strategic posture to protect an interest of theirs that is not even at the negotiation table at that particular time. This is perfectly acceptable, and to be expected.
And nothing is wrong with that in the practice of international relations. It is acknowledged that deceit, treachery and selfishness are a part of the trade. These are not holy waters. The neo-realist world order is no different from what it was under classical realism- states still seek to amass power, both hard and soft (arms and diplomacy) with which to take care of their own interests. There are times when mutually beneficial interests collide, and when they do you have a win-win. A great deal of the time though, each state looks out for its selfish interests as ought to be.
As Africans, therefore, we need to come out and play. But first things first: stop expecting that other people will take care of your interests. The Chinese are no different from the West. The basics are the same – they both come for what is in their interests It is now time for African countries to also map out their own interests. Let’s go into these negotiations and meetings with our own hidden agendas. Go into these negotiations with what you have on the table advancing your other interests that you may not exactly spell out to the other contracting party. The world is not a nice place. There is no point pretending it is when it is not.
African leaders should not just praise China for being a good partner whose aid comes without stringent conditions. They must pick development projects with high viability and commercial value; the policy options should also be on things that will help spur growth such that even when the Chinese harvest from their investment, the African countries also do the same. Let’s ensure that the projects the Chinese engage in have high economic growth value and insist on sustainability. After all, we clearly have a rare leverage over China, especially when we go in as a continental block and given the China’s own squeeze from the Trump administration in Washington. We are in a position of rare strength, but only if we recognise it.
The problem with some African statesmen has been that their biggest underlying motive in cooperation with China has not been development economics. It rather has been regime survival. China gives aid and loans- but pledges to not interfere in the political and development issues of African countries. In short, President Xi Jinping is saying we will give you support, but we do not care whether you’re corrupt, kill your own people or engage in electoral Gerrymandering to keep the opposition from competing for power or you take money from state resources and invest it in offshore slush funds for your personal gain.
This is a key difference. The Chinese no doubt have their own issues with corruption. But you see, their major underlying motives when engaging are around the interests of their expansionist ideals and their trade wars with the USA. Meanwhile, for some African countries, the underlying motives are neither development nor geo-strategic – they are for regime survival. In China declaring non-interference in internal affairs, such regimes find funds that they may not account for and regime longevity. If regimes and envoys would flip the coin and negotiate with the strategic interests of their people at heart the wins we get form this relationship would be enhanced.
For Africa then, it is not yet uhuru. China is a partner like the rest. But to get true benefits Africa has to look into the detail, become hawkish in its dealings and look more on sustainable developmental projects. The international sphere is not kind, do not expect the Chinese to be. There is no Messiah to come and save us. Lawrence Ookeditse is Consultant and Analyst in Politics and International Affairs. He is a former Director of Youth for the Botswana Government. This article first appeared in the Daily Maverick
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” Carl Sagan
Corruption is a heavy price to pay. The clean ones pay and suffer at the mercy of people who cannot have enough. They always want to eat and eat so selfishly like a bunch of ugly masked shrews. I hope God forgives me for ridiculing his creatures, but that mammal is so greedy. But corruption is not the new kid on the block, because it has always been everywhere.
This of course begs the question, why that is so? The common answer was and still is – abuse and misuse of power by those in power and weak institutions, disempowered to control the leaders. In 1996, the then President of The World Bank, James D. Wolfensohn named the ‘C-Word’ for the first time during an annual meeting of the Bretton Woods Institutions. A global fight against corruption started. Transparency International began its work. Internal and external audits mushroomed; commissions of inquiry followed and ever convoluted public tender procedures have become a bureaucratic nightmare to the private sector, trying to fight red tape.
The result is sobering corruption today is worse than it was 25 years ago. There is no denying that strong institutions help, but how does it come that in the annual Transparency International Ranking the same group of countries tend to be on the top while another group of countries, many African among them, tend to be on the bottom? Before one jumps to simple and seductive conclusions let us step back a moment.
Wolfensohn called corruption a cancer that destroys economies like a cancer destroys a body. A cancer is, simplified, good cells in a body gone bad, taking control of more and more good cells until the entire body is contaminated and eventually dies. So, let us look at the good cells of society first: they are family ties, clan and tribe affiliation, group cohesion, loyalty, empathy, reciprocity.
Most ordinary people like the reader of these lines or myself would claim to share such values. Once we ordinary people must make decisions, these good cells kick in: why should I hire a Mrs. Unknown, if I can hire my niece whose strengths and weaknesses I know? If I hire the niece, she will owe me and support my objectives.
Why should I purchase office furniture from that unknown company if I know that my friend’s business has good quality stuff? If I buy from him, he will make an extra effort to deliver his best and provide quality after sales service? So, why go through a convoluted tender process with uncertain outcome? In the unlikely case my friend does not perform as expected, I have many informal means to make him deliver, rather than going through a lengthy legal proceeding?
This sounds like common sense and natural and our private lives do work mostly that way and mostly quite well.
The problem is scale. Scale of power, scale of potential gains, scale of temptations, scale of risk. And who among us could throw the first stone were we in positions of power and claim not to succumb to the temptations of scale? Like in a body, cancer cells start growing out of proportion.
So, before we call out for new leaders – experience shows they are rarely better than the old ones – we need to look at ourselves first. But how easy is that? If I were the niece who gets the job through nepotism, why should I be overly critical? If I got a big furniture contract from a friend, why should I spill the beans? What right do I have to assume that, if I were a president or a minister or a corporate chief procurement officer I would not be tempted?
This is where we need to learn. What is useful, quick, efficient, and effective within a family or within a clan or a small community can become counterproductive and costly and destructive at larger corporate or national scale. Our empathy with small scale reciprocity easily permeates into complacency and complicity with large scale corruption and into an acquiescence with weak institutions to control it.
Our institutions can only be as strong as we wish them to be.
I was probably around ten years old and have always been that keen enthusiastic child that also liked to sing the favourite line of, ‘the world will become a better place.’ I would literally stand in front of a mirror and use my mom’s torch as a mic and sing along Michael Jackson’s hit song, ‘We are the world.’
Despite my horrible voice, I still believed in the message. Few years later, my annoyance towards the world’s corrupt system wonders whether I was just too naïve. Few years later and I am still in doubt so as to whether I should go on blabbing that same old boring line. ‘The world is going to be a better place.’ The question is, when?
The answer is – as always: now.
This is pessimistic if not fatalistic – I challenge Sagan’s outlook with a paraphrased adage of unknown origin: Some people can be bamboozled all of the time, all people can be bamboozled some of the time, but never will all people be bamboozled all of the time.
We, the people are the only ones who can heal society from the cancer of corruption. We need to understand the temptation of scale and address it. We need to stop seeing ourselves just a victim of a disease that sleeps in all of us. We need to give power to the institutions that we have put in place to control corruption: parliaments, separation of power, the press, the ballot box. And sometimes we need to say as a niece – no, I do not want that job as a favour, I want it because I have proven to be better than other contenders.
It is going to be a struggle, because it will mean sacrifices, but sacrifices that we have chosen, not those imposed on us.
Let us start today.
*Bokani Lisa Motsu is a student at University of Botswana
Parliament, the second arm of State through its parliamentary committees are one of Botswana’s most powerful mechanisms to ensure that government is held accountable at all times. The Accounting Officers are mostly Permanent Secretaries across government Ministries and Chief Executive Officers, Director Generals, Managing Directors of parastatals, state owned enterprises and Civil Society.
So parliament plays its oversight authority via the legislators sitting on a parliamentary committee and Accounting Officers sitting in the hot chair. When left with no proper checks and balances, the Executive is prone to abuse the arrangement and so systematic oversight of the executive is usually carried out by parliamentary committees. They track the work of various government departments and ministries, and conduct scrutiny into important aspects of their policy, direction and administration.
It is not rocket science that effective oversight requires that committees be totally independent and able to set their own agendas and have the power to summon ministers and top civil servants to appear and answer questions. Naturally, Accounting Officers are the highest ranking officials in the government hierarchy apart from cabinet Ministers and as such wield much power and influence in the performance of government. To illustrate further, government performance is largely owed to the strategic and policy direction of top technocrats in various Ministries.
It is disheartening to point out that the recent parliament committees — as has been the case all over the years — has laid bare the incompetency, inadequacy and ineptitude of people bestowed with great responsibilities in public offices. To say that they are ineffective and inefficient sounds as an understatement. Some appear useless and hopeless when it comes to running the government despite the huge responsibility they possess.
If we were uncertain about the degree at which the Accounting Officers are incompetent, the ongoing parliament committees provide a glaring answer. It is not an exaggeration to say that ordinary people on the streets have been held ransom by these technocrats who enjoy their air conditioned offices and relish being chauffeured around in luxurious BX SUV’s while the rest of the citizenry continue to suffer. Because of such high life the Accounting Officers seem to have, with time, they have gotten out of touch with the people they are supposed to serve.
An example; when appearing before the recent Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Office of the President Permanent Secretary, Thuso Ramodimoosi, looked reluctant to admit misuse of public funds. Although it is clear funds were misused, he looked unbothered when committee members grilled him over the P80 million Orapa House building that has since morphed into a white elephant for close to 10 successive years. To him, it seems it did not matter much and PAC members were worried for nothing.
On a separate day, another Accounting officer, Director of Public Service Management (DPSM), Naledi Mosalakatane, was not shy to reveal to PAC upon cross-examination that there exist more than 6 000 vacancies in government. Whatever reasons she gave as an excuse, they were not convincing and the committee looked sceptical too. She was faltering and seemed not to have a sense of urgency over the matter no matter how critical it is to the populace.
Botswana’s unemployment rate hoovers around 18 percent in a country where majority of the population is the youth, and the most affected by unemployment. It is still unclear why DPSM could underplay such a critical matter that may threaten the peace and stability of the country. Accounting Officers clearly appear out of touch with the reality out there – if the PAC examinations are anything to go by.
Ideally the DPSM Director could be dropping the vacancy post digits while sourcing funds and setting timelines for the spaces to be filled as a matter of urgency so that the citizens get employed to feed their families and get out of unemployment and poverty ravaging the country. The country should thank parliamentary committees such as PAC to expose these abnormalities and the behaviour of our leaders when in public office. How can a full Accounting Officer downplay the magnitude of the landless problem in Botswana and fail to come with direct solutions tailor made to provide Batswana with the land they desperately need?
Land is a life and death matter for some citizens, as we would know.
When Bonolo Khumotaka, the Accounting Officer in the Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services, whom as a top official probably with a lucrative pay too appears to be lacking sense of urgency as she is failing on her key mandate of working around the clock to award the citizens with land especially those who need it most like the marginalised. If government purports they need P94 billion to service land to address the land crisis what is plan B for government? Are we going to accept it the way it is?
Government should wake up from its slumber and intervene to avoid the 30 years unnecessary waiting period in State land and 13 years in Tribal land. Accounting Officers are custodians of government policy, they should ensure it is effective and serve its purpose. What we have been doing over the years, has proved that it is not effective, and clearly there is a need for change of direction.
His Excellency Dr Mokgweetsi EK Masisi, the President of the Republic of Botswana found it appropriate to invoke Section 17 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana, using the powers vested in him to declare a State of Public Emergency starting from the 2nd April 2020 at midnight.
The constitutional provision under Section 17 (2b) only provided that such a declaration could be up to a maximum of 21 days. His Excellency further invoked Section 93 (1) to convene an extra- ordinary meeting of Parliament to have the opportunity to consult members of parliament on measures that have been put in place to address the spread and transmission of the virus. At this meeting Members of Parliament passed a resolution on the legal instruments and regulations governing the period of the state of emergency, and extended its duration by six (6) months.
The passing of the State of Emergency is considered as a very crucial step in fighting the near apocalyptic potential of the Novel COVID-19 virus. One of the interesting initiatives that was developed and extended to the business community was a 3-month wage subsidy that came with a condition that no businesses would retrench for the duration of the State of Public Emergency. This has potentially saved many people’s jobs as most companies would have been extremely quick to reduce expenses by downsizing. Self-preservation as some would call it.
Most organisations would have tried to reduce costs by letting go of people, retreated and tried their best to live long enough to fight another day. In my view there is silver lining that we need to look at and consider. The fact that organisations are not allowed to retrench has forced certain companies to look at the people with a long-term view.
Most leaders have probably had to wonder how they are going to ensure that their people are resilient. Do they have team members who innovate and add value to the organisation during these testing times? Do they even have resilient people or are they just waiting for the inevitable end? Can they really train people and make them resilient? How can your team members be part of your recovery plan? What can they do to avoid losing the capabilities they need to operate meaningfully for the duration of the State of Public Emergency and beyond?
The above questions have forced companies to reimagine the future of work. The truth is that no organisation can operate to its full potential without resilient people. In the normal business cycle, new teams come on board; new business streams open, operations or production sites launch or close; new markets develop, and technology is introduced. All of this provides fresh opportunities – and risks.
The best analogy I have seen of people-focused resilience planning reframes employees as your organisation’s immune system, ready and prepared to anticipate risks and ensure they can tackle challenges, fend off illness and bounce back more quickly. So, how do you supercharge your organizational immune system to become resilient?
COVID-19 has helped many organisations realize they were not as prepared as they believed themselves to be. Now is the time to take stock and reset for the future. All the strategies and plans prior to COVID-19 arriving in Botswana need to be thrown out of the window and you need to develop a new plan today. There is no room for tweaking or reframing. Botswana has been disrupted and we need to accept and embrace the change. What we initially anticipated as a disease that would take a short term is turning out to be something we are going to have to live with for a much longer time. It is going to be a marathon and therefore businesses need to have a plan to complete this marathon.
Start planning. Planning for change can help reduce employee stress, anxiety, and overall fear, boosting the confidence of staff and stakeholders. Think about conducting and then regularly refreshing a strategic business impact analysis, look at your employee engagement scores, dig into your customer metrics and explore the way people work alongside your behaviours and culture. This research will help to identify what you really want to protect, the risks that you need to plan for and what you need to survive during disruption. Don’t forget to ask your team members for their input. In many cases they are closest to critical business areas and already have ideas to make processes and systems more robust.
Revisit your organisational purpose. Purpose, values and principles are powerful tools. By putting your organisation’s purpose and values front and center, you provide clear decision-making guidelines for yourself and your organisation. There are very tough and interesting decisions to make which have to be made fast; so having guiding principles on which the business believes in will help and assist all decision makers with sanity checking the choices that are in front of them. One noticeable characteristic of companies that adapt well during change is that they have a strong sense of identity. Leaders and employees have a shared sense of purpose and a common performance culture; they know what the company stands for beyond shareholder value and how to get things done right.
Revisit your purpose and values. Understand if they have been internalised and are proving useful. If so, find ways to increase their use. If not, adapt them as necessities, to help inspire and guide people while immunizing yourself against future disruption. Design your employee experience. The most resilient, adaptive and high performing companies are made up of people who know each other, like each other, and support each other.
Adaptability requires us to teach other, speak up and discuss problems, and have a collective sense of belonging. Listening to your team members is a powerful and disruptive thing to do. It has the potential to transform the way you manage your organisation. Enlisting employees to help shape employee experience, motivates better performance, increases employee retention and helps you spot issues and risks sooner. More importantly, it gives employees a voice so you can get active and constructive suggestions to make your business more robust by adopting an inclusive approach.
Leaders need to show they care. If you want to build resilience, you must build on a basis of trust. And this means leaders should listen, care, and respond. It’s time to build the entire business model around trust and empathy. Many of the employees will be working under extreme pressure due to the looming question around what will happen when companies have to retrench. As a leader of a company transparency and open communication are the most critical aspects that need to be illustrated.
Take your team member into confidence because if you do have to go through the dreaded excise of retrenchment you have to remember that those people the company retains will judge you based on the process you follow. If you illustrate that the business or organization has no regard for loyalty and commitment, they will never commit to the long-term plans of the organisation which will leave you worse off in the end. Its an absolutely delicate balance but it must all be done in good faith. Hopefully, your organization will avoid this!
This is the best time to revisit your identify and train your people to encourage qualities that build strong, empathetic leadership; self-awareness and control, communication, kindness and psychological safety. Resilience is the glue that binds functional silos and integrates partners, improves communications, helps you prepare, listen and understand. Most importantly, people-focused resilience helps individuals and teams to think collectively and with empathy – helping you respond and recover faster.
Article written by Thabo Majola, a brand communications expert with a wealth of experience in the field and is Managing Director of Incepta Communications.