In this article, we discuss the elephant in the room which is racism perpetrated by Seretse Khama Ian Khama who is the current President of the Republic of Botswana and his brother Tshekedi Khama the Minister of Environment Natural Resources and Tourism. In our view there is a systematic positioning of whites in sectors of strategic importance.
If the officially sanctioned racial discrimination is not addressed it could result in undesirable racial tensions in Botswana. Our conclusion is that President Khama deserves being nominated for the Racist of the Year 2016 Award. Congratulations President Lt. General Dr. Seretse Khama Ian Khama.
Following the Sebinagate scandal involving the defilement of a school girl most Batswana vowed never to forget. The narrative Batswana ba lebala ka bonako will become a thing of the past. In this regard we refuse to forget that President Khama displayed racist tendencies when he described the Basarwa as primitive people who deserved to be civilized through incorporation and assimilation in the dominant Tswana culture. Subsequent to this categorization of the indigenous people of Botswana Khama sued for being described as possessing features of a Mosarwa.
The actions of both the respondent and the claimant were motivated by racism. To them Basarwa are sub-human and to be likened to a Mosarwa is considered derogatory.
The Basarwa resistance movement led by John Hardbattle (MHSRIP), Jamanda Gakelebone and Roy Sesana (before he betrayed the struggle) are following on the route previously traversed by Kgosi Khama III, Kgosi Sebele I, and Kgosi Bathoen I. They tirelessly fought for the rights of their people for self-determination. The three Dikgosi of Tswana descent led the resistance against incorporation of Southern Bechauanaland into the Union of South Africa.
Unfortunately racism in Botswana has taken a new dimension. It is worth stating that the first generation of white people who resided and worked in Botswana were motivated by their desire to serve this country to the best of their abilities. These dedicated individuals included among others Patrick van Rensburg , Quill Hermans, Derek Hudson and Philip Steenkamp.
However, all this has changed since the new regime came into power in 2008. What we are witnessing is a president who favours less qualified white people over qualified black citizens of Botswana. Clearly President Khama appears to have no confidence on indigenous Batswana irrespective of their qualifications and tested experiences. Since Khama resumed office we have seen a systematic recruitment of white people with little or no qualifications into critical public service positions. This second generation of white people are motivated by greed and compulsive accumulation of wealth. Their ultimate mission is to take over public assets for a thebe.
It all started with a certain unknown white man called Nico Cypionka who was parachuted to become the pioneering head of the Business and Economic Advisory Council (BEAC). No sooner had he landed in this strategic position than he authored the privatization of Air Botswana. He wanted the national airline to be liquidated and use the sales to purchase shares in the South African Airlink. Botswana Congress Party (BCP) moved swiftly to stop Cypionka on his tracks through an urgent court action. Had the Botswana Congress Party (BCP) not acted timeously Air Botswana would have gone the BCL way.
At the time there were arguments about whether BCP had a legal standing to sue. It is an issue that keeps cropping up whenever discussion about whether to stop the provisional liquidation of BCL ensues.
Another white person by the name of Paul Smith has suddenly become the pioneering Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at the newly established Mining Development Company Botswana (MDCB). Like Cypionka who authored the liquidation of Air Botswana Smith is the chief architect of the provisional liquidation of BCL.
As if that was not enough another white man by the name of Nigel Dixon-Warren of KPMG became the Provisional Liquidator of BCL Mines. It is unthinkable that fifty years after Botswana attained independence the country does not have qualified indigenous people to carry out these critical tasks. Surely if everyone was treated fairly and equally Cypionka, Dixon-Warren and Smith would not have been appointed.
The situation is not different with respect to assignments to Botswana missions abroad. There is a disproportionately high number of white diplomats manning Botswana Embassies overseas. Historically London and Washington D.C. are the most strategic yet in both centres Botswana is represented by white Ambassadors – Roy Blackbeard and David Newman both of whom have close ties to the Khama family. Another white person who is the President of the Court of Appeal is a long-time family friend of the Khamas.
Appointments along racial lines that are promoted and spearheaded by the Khama brothers have recently come to the foe at the Parliamentary Committee on Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises chaired by the no nonsense Guma Samson Moyo. The committee deliberations revealed that Minister Tshekedi Khama has become law unto himself as he frequently issues illegal directives in respect of the operations of Botswana Tourism Organization (BTO).
In the process the Minister introduced an organizational structure at BTO that allowed an Executive Manager to receive a monthly payment of P49, 000.00 as opposed to P42, 000.00 paid to the CEO who is senior because he is black. Jillian Blackbeard who is the Executive Manager featured prominently in a controversial case in which a P17 million illegal deal was signed to open a Tourism Office in Dubai. Needless to say Jillian Blackbeard is the daughter of Roy Blackbeard, the longest serving Ambassador to Britain with close family ties to the Khamas.
It was under the instruction of the Minister that Changu Newman, the wife of David Newman was appointed Tourism Attaché in Washington D.C. The only qualification worth noting is her Diploma in Event Management. Surely there are Batswana here and abroad who could have qualified if given the opportunity to apply for the job. Recently I penned an article in which I argued that our tourism policy has been captured by a photographic lobby group led by a powerful white couple-Dereck and Beverly Joubert, the principal proponents of the racist policy of shot to kill. Just wait until white poachers are shot and killed and the policy will face a barrage of criticism internationally.
The case of Sally-Anne Smith an illegal immigrant who stayed in the country for two years under the employ of BTO is just mind-boggling. The less we talk about the controversial Neil Fitt the better. In our view a judicial Commission of Enquiry must be instituted to unearth racially motivated nepotism, abuse of public office, corruption, and breach of oath by the Khama brothers. .
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan has violated the One-China policy, and caused the escalation of tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Experts and political observers across the spectra agree that Pelosi’s actions and subsequent pronouncements by US President Joe Biden gave impetus to an already simmering tension in the Taiwan Strait, provoking China to strengthen its legitimate hold on the Taiwan Strait waters, which the US and Taiwan deem as ‘international waters’.
Pelosi’s visit to China’s Taiwan region has been heavily criticised across the globe, with China arguing that this is a serious violation of the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US Joint Communiqués. In response to this reckless move which seriously undermined China’s sovereignty, and interfered in China’s internal affairs, the expectation is for China to give a firm response. Pelosi visit violated the commitments made by the U.S. side, and seriously jeopardized peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
To give context to China’s position over Taiwan region, the history behind gives us perspective. It is also important to note that the history between China and Taiwan is well documented and the US has always recognized it.
The People’s Republic of China recognises Taiwan as its territory. It has always been the case even before the Nationalist Republic of China government fled to the previously Japanese-ruled Island after losing the civil war on the mainland in 1949. According to literature that threat was contained for decades — first with a military alliance between the US and the ROC on Taiwan, and after Washington switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1979 by the US One China policy, which acknowledges Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of One China. Effectively, Taiwan’s administration was transferred to the Republic of China from Japan after the Second World War in 1945, along with the split between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) as a consequence of the Chinese Civil War. Disregarding this history, as the US is attempting to do, will surely initiate some defence reaction on the side of China to affirm its sovereignty.
However, this history was undermined since Taiwan claimed to democratise in the 1990s and China has grown ever more belligerent. Furthermore, it is well documented that the Biden administration, following the Trump presidency, has made subtle changes in the way it deals with Taipei, such as loosening restrictions on US officials meeting Taiwanese officials – this should make China uneasy. And while the White House continues to say it does not support Taiwanese independence, Biden’s words and actions are parallel to this pledge because he has warned China that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan – another statement that has provoked China.
Pelosi, in her private space, would know that her actions amount to provocation of China. This act of aggression by the USA seriously undermines the virtues of sovereignty and territorial integrity which has a huge potential to destabilize not only the Taiwan Strait but the whole of the Asia- Pacific region. The Americans know very well that their provocative behavior is deliberately invoking the spirit of separatism masqueraded as “Taiwan independence”. The US is misled to think that by supporting separatism of Taiwan from China that would give them an edge over China in a geopolitics. This is what one Chinese diplomat said this week: “The critical point is if every country put their One-China policy into practice with sincerity, with no compromise, is going to guarantee the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.” Therefore, it was in the wake of US House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, that China, in a natural response revealed plans for unprecedented military exercises near the island, prompting fears of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait and the entire Asia-Pacific region. The world community must promote and foster peace, this may be achieved when international laws are respected. It may also happen when nations respect the sovereignty of another. China may be in a better space because it is well capacitated to stake its territorial integrity, what about a small nation, if this happens to it?
As to why military exercises by Beijing; it is an expected response because China was provoked by the actions of Pelosi. To fortify this position, Chinese President, Xi signed a legal basis for China’s People’s Liberation Army to “safeguard China’s national sovereignty, security and development interests”. The legal basis will also allow military missions around disaster relief, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. In addition the legal changes would allow troops to “prevent spillover effects of regional instabilities from affecting China, secure vital transport routes for strategic materials like oil, or safeguard China’s overseas investments, projects and personnel. It then follows that President Xi’s administration cannot afford to look weak under a US provocation. President Xi must protector China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, of which Taiwan is a central part.” Beijing is very clear on One-China Policy, and expects all world players to recognize and respect it.
The People’s Liberation Army has made it clear that it has firepower that covers all of Taiwan, and it can strike wherever it wants. This sentiments have been attributed to Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the PLA Navy Research Institute. Zheng further said, “We got really close to Taiwan. We encircled Taiwan. And we demonstrated that we can effectively stop intervention by foreign forces.” This is a strong reaction from China to warn the US against provocation and violation of the One-China Policy.
Beijing’s military exercises will certainly shake Taiwan’s confidence in the sources of its economic and political survival. The potential for an effective blockade threatens the air and shipping routes that support Taiwan’s central role in global technology supply chains. Should a humanitarian situation arise in Taiwan, the blame would squarely be on the US.
As China’s military exercises along the Taiwan Strait progress and grow, it remains that the decision by Nancy Pelosi to visit China’s Taiwan region gravely undermined peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and sent a wrong signal to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces. This then speaks to international conventions, as the UN Secretary-General António Guterres explicitly stressed that the UN remains committed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. The centerpiece is the one-China principle, namely, there is but one China in the world, the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is a part of China. It must be noted that the US and the US-led NATO countries have selectively applied international law, this has been going on unabated. There is a plethora of actions that have collapsed several states after they were attacked under the pretext of the so-called possession of weapons of mass destruction illuminating them as threats – and sometimes even without any valid reason. to blatantly launch military strikes and even unleash wars on sovereign countrie
British novelist, W. Somerset Maugham once opined: “If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.”
The truism in these words cannot be underestimated, especially when contextualizing against the political developments in Botswana. We have become a nation that does not value democracy, yet nothing represent freedom more than democracy. In fact, we desire, and value winning power or clinging to power more than anything else, even if it harms the democratic credentials of our political institutions. This is happening across political parties — ruling and opposition.
As far as democracy is concerned, we are regressing. We are becoming worse-off than we were in the past. If not arrested, Botswana will lose its status as among few democratic nations in the Africa. Ironically, Botswana was the first country in Africa to embrace democracy, and has held elections every five years without fail since independence.
We were once viewed as the shining example of Africa. Those accolades are not worth it any more. Young democracies such as South Africa, with strong institutions, deserves to be exalted. Botswana has lost faith in democracy, and we will pay a price for it. It is a slippery slope to dictatorship, which will bring among other excess, assault on civil liberties and human rights violations.
Former President, Festus Mogae once stated that Botswana’s democracy will only become authentic, when a different party, other than the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) wins elections, and when the President of such party is not from Serowe.
Although many may not publicly care to admit, Mogae’s assertion is true. BDP has over the years projected itself as a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of democracy, but the moment its stay in power became threatened and uncertain, it started behaving in a manner that is at variance with democratic values. This has been happening over the years now, and the situation is getting worse by the day.
Recently, the BDP party leadership has been preaching compromise and consensus candidates for 2024 general elections. Essentially, the leadership has lost faith in the Bulela Ditswe dispensation, which has been used to selected party candidates for council and parliament since 2003. The leadership is discouraging democracy because they believe primary elections threaten party unity. It is a strange assertion indeed.
Bulela Ditswe was an enrichment of internal party democracy in the sense that it replaced the previous method of selection of candidates known as Committee of 18, in which a branch committee made of 18 people endorsed the representatives. While it is true that political contest can divide, the ruling party should be investing in political education and strengthening in its primary elections processes. Democracy does not come cheap or easy, but it is valuable.
Any unity that we desire so much at the expense of democracy is not true unity. Like W. Somerset Maugham said, democracy would be lost in the process, and ultimately, even the unity that was desired would eventually be lost too. Any solution that sacrifice democracy would not bring any results in the long run, except misery.
We have seen that also in opposition ranks. The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) recently indicated that its incumbent Members of Parliament (MPs) should not be challenged for their seats. While BDP is sacrificing democracy to stay in power, UDC is sacrificing democracy to win power. It is a scary reality given the fact that both parties – ruling and opposition — have embraced this position and believe democracy is the hindrance to their political ambitions.
These current reality points to one thing; our political parties have lost faith in democracy. They desire power more than, the purpose of power itself. It is also a crisis of leadership across the political divide, where we have seen dissenting views being met with persecution. We have seen perverting of political process endorsed by those in echelons of power to manipulate political outcomes in their favour.
Democracy should not be optional, it should be mandatory. Any leader proposing curtailing of democracy should be viewed with suspicion, and his adventures should be rejected before it is too late. Members of political parties, as subscribers of democracy, should collectively rise to the occasion to save their democracy from self-interest that is becoming prevalent among Botswana political parties.
The so-called compromise candidates, only benefits the leadership because it creates comforts for them. But for members, and for the nation, it is causing damage by reversing the gains that have been made over the years. We should reject leaders who only preach democracy in word, but are hesitant to practice it.
Piracy of all kinds continues to have a massive impact on the global creative industry and the economies of the countries where it thrives.
One of the biggest misconceptions around piracy is that an individual consumer’s piracy activities, especially in a market the size of Botswana’s, is only a drop in the pool of potential losses to the different sectors of the economy piracy affects.
When someone sitting in Gaborone, Botswana logs onto an illegal site to download King Richard online, they don’t imagine that their one download will do anything to the production house’s pocket or make a dent in the actors’ net worth. At best, the sensitivity towards this illegal pirating activity likely only exists when contemplating going about pirating a local musician’s music or a short film produced locally.
The ripple effects of piracy at whatever scale reach far beyond what the average consumer could ever imagine. Figures released by software security and media technology company, Irdeto, show that users in five major African territories made approximately 17,4 million total visits to the top 10 identified piracy sites on the internet.
The economic impact of this on the creative industry alone soars to between 40 and 97.1 billion dollars, according a 2022 Dataprot study. In addition, they estimate that “illegally streamed copyrighted content consumes 24% of global bandwidth”.
As Botswana’s creative industry remains relatively slight on the scale of comparison to industries such as Nollywood and Nilewood where the creative industry contributes a huge proportion to West and East Africa’s respective GDPs, that does not imply that piracy activities in Botswana do not have a similar impact on our economy and the ability of our creative industry to grow.
When individuals make decisions to illegally consume content via internet streaming sites they believe they are saving money for themselves in the name of enjoying content they desire to consume. Although this is a personal choice that remains the prerogative of the consumer, looking beyond the fact that streaming on illegal content sites is piracy, the ripple effect of this decision also has an endless trail of impact where funds which could be used to grow the local creative industry through increased consumption, and revenue which would otherwise be fed back into Botswana’s economy are being diverted.
“Why can’t our local creative industry grow?” “Why don’t we see more home-grown films and shows in Botswana?” are questions constantly posed by those who consume television content in Botswana. The answer to this lies largely in the fact that Botswana’s local content needs an audience in order for it to grow. It needs support from government and entities which are in a position to fund and help the industry scale greater heights.
Any organisational body willing to support and grow the local creative industry needs to exist and operate in an economy which can support its mandates. Content piracy is a cycle that can only be alleviated when consumers make wiser decisions around what they consume and how.
This goes beyond eradicating piracy activities in so far as television content is concerned. This extends to the importation and trade in counterfeit goods, resale of goods and services not intended for resale across the border, outside its jurisdiction, and more. All of these activities stunt the growth of an economy and make it nearly impossible for industries and sectors to propel themselves to places where they can positively impact society and reinvest into the country’s economy.
So what can be done to turn the tide here in Botswana in order to see our local production houses gain the momentum required to produce more, license more and expand their horizons? While those who enforce the law continue to work towards minimizing piracy activities, it’s imperative that as consumers we work to make their efforts easier by being mindful of how our individual actions play a role in preventing the success of our local creative networks and our economy’s growth.
Whether you are pirating a Hollywood Blockbuster, illegally streaming a popular Motswana artist’s music, or smuggling in an illegal decoder to view content restricted to South Africa only, your actions have an impact on how we as a nation will make our mark on the global landscape with local creative productions. Thembi Legwaila is Corporate Affairs Manager, MultiChoice Botswana