BOPEU supports Govít directive allowing ordinary public servants engage in private businesses
By Super User
Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU) notes with concern statements carried in a recent weekend publication, under the heading “Civil Servants to engage in Private Businesses”.
In the said article Botswana Federation of Public Sector Union (BOFEPUSU) and Business Botswana (formerly BOCCIM) representatives are quoted expressing their opposition to a recent Government Directive that allows public servants to engage in private business. Both organisations reportedly cited corruption and conflict of interest as their main grounds for opposition.
As the largest general union of public servants, we wish here, to set the record straight and to dispel the confusion that the statements may have caused on our members. BOPEU Annual Convention held in December 2014, in Palapye, also deliberated on the issue and came up with recommendations, which we use to advocate for proper regulation (and not a ban) on public servants’ private business.
Firstly, the Directive was partly a result of a successful lobby of Government by BOPEU and other sections of the public service, following the blanket and stringent restriction on private business by the Public Service Act 2008. Government has acceded to our request, we cannot therefore turn around and oppose the very same.
Secondly, there is no empirical basis for the assertion that if public servants engage in business it will lead to rampant corruption and conflict of interest. BOFEPUSU and Business Botswana were merely expressing a hypothetical fear, not necessarily based on facts.
We wish to differentiate between organised corruption and petty crimes, such as ‘stealing by servant’. Although both may have similar ethical foundations, the former is done by syndicates. Research shows that in Africa and developing countries, these are organised by multinational companies and not SMMEs and are responsible for massive capital losses in the form of illicit financial transactions and tax avoidance and evasion.
Corruption is an issue of ethics and conduct which requires both enforcement of the law (including lifestyle audits by DCEC, FIA, PPADB and BURS with the assistance of banking industry) and public education and behavioural change done by ministerial anti-corruption committees coordinated by DCEC’s public education unit.
On the contrary allowing public servants to generate extra streams of income may in the long run curb some of the behaviours, as corruption is partly caused by low pay, indebtedness, conspicuous consumption habits (living beyond means) etc of public servants. Thus, a ban on small businesses owned by public servants would not address the problem but would just punish the innocent law-abiding majority of public servants.
Third, to deal with conflict of interest, we need also to differentiate between corruption by operational staff and the corruption of senior management and politicians. If we just mix up issues, we miss the point. For operational staff the essential requirement in curbing conflict of interest is strong guidelines for conduct of business (which we recommend to come from DPSM, to include declarations to the relevant Permanent Secretary) and monitoring linked to enforcement and education.
We need to instil a sense of responsibility and accountability and tighten rules and enforcement in the tendering processes especially the recusal of members of Ministerial Tender Committees in businesses involving their immediate family members. We should also bring Local Government procurement under PPADB systems, as they are more secure.
On the other hand, we advocate that Senior management should be lumped with the political leadership since they are in charge of the organisation (Ministries). Past cases have indicated that where such individuals are involved in corrupt activities big sums of money from large public contracts are involved, not daily transactions of a few Pulas. For this group the essential element is a more formal Declaration of Assets and Liabilities, compelled by statutory provisions which should involve their immediate family members.
BOFEPUSU and Business Botswana failed to draw the line between a small tuckshop run by a poor cleaner and networks of tenders flowing to family members of senior management and politicians. Declaration of Assets and Liabilities law is completely political and should not be confused with the economic empowerment of operational level public servants.
Lastly, the impression being created is that the engagement of public servants in private business is an entirely new development. This is fallacious. Public servants have always been allowed to engage in Agriculture and Consultancy by the General Orders. Those with the wherewithal, most likely senior management, were also not barred from buying shares in private entities, provided they were not the majority shareholders in such entities.
As it remains the case to date, there is no regulation of family business shareholding because of the lack of Declaration of Assets law covering politicians and senior public servants. That is the vacuum that BOFEPUSU and Business Botswana ought to have addressed themselves to i.e. to advocate for regulation of the private business interest of public servants, not fighting dimausu.
What is new in the Directive is that it extends participation to the rest of the economy. Herein is its benefit: it unleashes a potential for business growth and job creation using public servants income, which is general a more secure stream of income coming from the biggest employer in the economy. Thus, if properly regulated and guided, it could have multiplier effects in the rest of the economy including growth of citizen-owned enterprises. It would also assist public servants to prepare for early retirement. In the long run it may open ground for a statutory reduction of the retirement age which would be good news for progression of younger workers.
BOPEU sees the Directive as generally empowering and posing negligible threat to the economy. What is needed is proper regulation, monitoring and guidance, including possible linkage with Citizen Economic Empowerment Policy (CEEP). However, we caution that segmentation of the public service and separation of the politics from the operational are essential policy elements.
*Topias Marenga is General Secretary of the Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU).
You may like
Brands are important
So, the conclusion is brands are important. I start by concluding because one hopes this is a foregone conclusion given the furore that erupts over a botched brand. If a fast food chef bungles a food order, there‚Äôd be possibly some isolated complaint thrown. However, if the same company‚Äôs marketing expert or agency cooks up a tasteless brand there is a country-wide outcry. Why?¬† Perhaps this is because brands affect us more deeply than we care to understand or admit. The fact that the uproar might be equal parts of schadenfreude, black twitter-esque criticism and, disappointment does not take away from the decibel of concern raised.
A good place to start our understanding of a brand is naturally by defining what a brand is. Marty Neumier, the genius who authored The Brand Gap, offers this instructive definition – ‚ÄúA brand is a person‚Äôs gut feel about a product or service‚ÄĚ. In other words, a brand is not what the company says it is. It is what the people feel it is. It is the sum total of what it means to them. Brands are perceptions. So, brands are defined by individuals not companies. But brands are owned by companies not individuals. Brands are crafted in privacy but consumed publicly. Brands are communal. Granted, you say. But that doesn‚Äôt still explain why everybody and their pet dog feel entitled to jump in feet first into a brand slug-fest armed with a hot opinion. True. But consider the following truism.
Brands are living. They act as milestones in our past. They are signposts of our identity. Beacons of our triumphs. Indexes of our consumption. Most importantly, they have invaded our very words and world view. Try going for just 24 hours without mentioning a single brand name. Quite difficult, right? Because they live among us they have become one of us. And we have therefore built ‚Äėbrand bonds‚Äô with them. For example, iPhone owners gather here. You love your iPhone. It goes everywhere. You turn to it in moments of joy and when we need a quick mood boost. Notice how that ‚Äėrelationship‚Äô started with desire as you longingly gazed upon it in a glossy brochure. That quickly progressed to asking other people what they thought about it. Followed by the zero moment of truth were you committed and voted your approval through a purchase. Does that sound like a romantic relationship timeline. You bet it does. Because it is. When we conduct brand workshops we run the Brand Loyalty ‚ĄĘ exercise wherein we test people‚Äôs loyalty to their favourite brand(s). The results are always quite intriguing. Most people are willing to pay a 40% premium over the standard price for ‚Äėtheir‚Äô brand. They simply won‚Äôt easily ‚Äėbreakup‚Äô with it. Doing so can cause brand ‚Äėheart ache‚Äô. There is strong brand elasticity for loved brands.
Now that we know brands are communal and endeared, then companies armed with this knowledge, must exercise caution and practise reverence when approaching the subject of rebranding. It‚Äôs fragile. The question marketers ought to ask themselves before gleefully jumping into the hot rebranding cauldron is ‚Äď Do we go for an Evolution (partial rebrand) or a Revolution(full rebrand)? An evolution is incremental. It introduces small but significant changes or additions to the existing visual brand. Here, think of the subtle changes you‚Äôve seen in financial or FMCG brands over the decades. Evolution allows you to redirect the brand without alienating its horde of faithful followers. As humans we love the familiar and certain. Change scares us. Especially if we‚Äôve not been privy to the important but probably blinkered ‚Äėstrategy sessions‚Äô ongoing behind the scenes. Revolutions are often messy. They are often hard reset about-turns aiming for a total new look and ‚Äėfeel‚Äô.
Hard rebranding is risky business. History is littered with the agony of brands large and small who felt the heat of public disfavour. In January 2009, PepsiCo rebranded the Tropicana. When the newly designed package hit the shelves, consumers were not having it. The New York Times reports that ‚Äėsome of the commenting described the new packaging as ‚Äėugly‚Äô ‚Äėstupid‚Äô. They wanted their old one back that showed a ripe orange with a straw in it. Sales dipped 20%. PepsiCo reverted to the old logo and packaging within a month. In 2006 Mastercard had to backtrack away from it‚Äôs new logo after public criticism, as did Leeds United, and the clothing brand Gap. AdAge magazine reports that critics most common sentiment about the Gap logo was that it looked like something a child had created using a clip-art gallery. Botswana is no different. University of Botswana had to retreat into the comfort of the known and accepted heritage strong brand.¬† Sir Ketumile Masire Teaching Hospital was badgered with complaints till it ‚Äėadjusted‚Äô its logo.
So if the landscape of rebranding is so treacherous then whey take the risk? Companies need to soberly assess they need for a rebrand. According to the fellows at Ignyte Branding a rebrand is ignited by the following admissions :
Our brand name no longer reflects our company‚Äôs vision.
We‚Äôre embarrassed to hand out our business cards.
Our competitive advantage is vague or poorly articulated.
Our brand has lost focus and become too complex to understand. Our business model or strategy has changed.
Our business has outgrown its current brand.
We‚Äôre undergoing or recently underwent a merger or acquisition. Our business has moved or expanded its geographic reach.
We need to disassociate our brand from a negative image.
We‚Äôre struggling to raise our prices and increase our profit margins. We want to expand our influence and connect to new audiences. We‚Äôre not attracting top talent for the positions we need to fill. All the above are good reasons to rebrand.
The downside to this debacle is that companies genuinely needing to rebrand might be hesitant or delay it altogether. The silver lining I guess is that marketing often mocked for its charlatans, is briefly transformed from being the Archilles heel into Thanos‚Äô glove in an instant.
So what does a company need to do to safely navigate the rebranding terrain? Companies need to interrogate their brand purpose thoroughly. Not what they think they stand for but what they authentically represent when seen through the lens of their team members. In our Brand Workshop we use a number of tools to tease out the compelling brand truth. This section always draws amusing insights. Unfailingly, the top management (CEO & CFO)always has a vastly different picture of their brand to the rest of their ExCo and middle management, as do they to the customer-facing officer. We have only come across one company that had good internal alignment. Needless to say that brand is doing superbly well.
There is need a for brand strategies to guide the brand. One observes that most brands ‚Äėmake a plan‚Äô as they go along. Little or no deliberate position on Brand audit, Customer research, Brand positioning and purpose, Architecture, Messaging, Naming, Tagline, Brand Training and may more. A brand strategy¬†distils why your business exists beyond making money ‚Äď its ‚Äėwhy‚Äô. It defines what makes your brand what it is, what differentiates it from the competition and how you want your customers to perceive it. Lacking a brand strategy disadvantages the company in that it appears soul-less and lacking in personality. Naturally, people do not like to hang around humans with nothing to say. A brand strategy understands the value proposition. People don‚Äôt buy nails for the nails sake. They buy nails to hammer into the wall to hang pictures of their loved ones. People don‚Äôt buy make up because of its several hues and shades. Make up is self-expression. Understanding this arms a brand with an iron clad clad strategy on the brand battlefield.
But perhaps you‚Äôve done the important research and strategy work. It‚Äôs still possible to bungle the final look and feel.¬† A few years ago one large brand had an extensive strategy done. Hopes were high for a top tier brand reveal. The eventual proposed brand was lack-lustre. I distinctly remember, being tasked as local agency to ‚Äėland‚Äô the brand and we outright refused. We could see this was a disaster of epic proportions begging to happen. The brand consultants were summoned to revise the logo. After a several tweaks and compromises the brand landed. It currently exists as one of the country‚Äôs largest brands. Getting the logo and visual look right is important. But how does one know if they are on the right path? Using the simile of a brand being a person – The answer is how do you know your outfit is right? It must serve a function, be the right fit and cut, it must be coordinated and lastly it must say something about you. So it is possible to bath in a luxurious bath gel, apply exotic lotion, be facebeat and still somehow wear a faux pas outfit. Avoid that.
Another suggestion is to do the obvious. Pre-test the logo and its look and feel on a cross section of your existing and prospective audience. There are tools to do this. Their feedback can save you money, time and pain. Additionally one must do another obvious check ‚Äď use Google Image to verify the visual outcome and plain Google search to verify the name. These are so obvious they are hopefully for gone conclusions. But for the brands that have gone ahead without them, I hope you have not concluded your brand journeys as there is a world of opportunity waiting to be unlocked with the right brand strategy key.
Cliff Mada is Head of ArmourGetOn Brand Consultancy, based in Gaborone and Cape Town.
The case for Botswana to ratify the ACDEG
The Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) is the most comprehensive dataset measuring African governance performance through a wide range of 81 indicators under the categories of Security & Rule of law, Participation, Rights & Inclusion, Foundations of Economic Opportunity, and Human Development. It employs scores, expressed out of 100, which quantify a country‚Äôs performance for each governance measure and ranks, out of 54, in relation to the 54 African countries.
The 2022 IIAG Overall Governance score is 68.1 and ranks Botswana at number 5 in Africa. In 2019 Botswana was ranked 2nd with an overall score of 73.3. That is a sharp decline. The best-performing countries are Mauritius, Seychelles, Tunisia, and Cabo Verde, in that order. A glance at the categories shows that Botswana is in third place in Africa on the Security and Rule of law; ninth in the Participation, Rights & Inclusion Category ‚Äď indicating a shrinking participatory environment; eighth for Foundations of Economic Opportunity category; and fifth in the Human Development category.
The 2022 IIAG comes to a sweeping conclusion: Governments are less accountable and transparent in 2021 than at any time over the last ten years; Higher GDP does not necessarily indicate better governance; rule of law has weakened in the last five years; Democratic backsliding in Africa has accelerated since 2018; Major restrictions on freedom of association and assembly since 2012. Botswana is no exception to these conclusions. In fact, a look at the 10-year trend shows a major challenge. While Botswana remains in the top 5 of the best-performing countries in Africa, there are signs of decline, especially in the categories of Human Development and Security & Rule of law.
I start with this picture to show that Botswana is no longer the poster child for democracy, good governance, and commitment to the rule of law that it once was. In fact, to use the term used in the IIAG, Botswana is experiencing a ‚Äúdemocratic backsliding.‚ÄĚ
The 2021 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) had Botswana at 55/ 100, the lowest ever score recorded by Botswana dethroning Botswana as Africa‚Äôs least corrupt country to a distant third place, where it was in 2019 with a CPI of 61/100. (A score closer to zero denotes the worst corrupt and a score closer to 100 indicates the least corrupt country). The concern here is that while other African states are advancing in their transparency and accountability indexes, Botswana is backsliding.
The Transitional National Development Plan lists participatory democracy, the rule of law, transparency, and accountability, as key ‚Äúdeliverables,‚ÄĚ if you may call those deliverables. If indeed Botswana is committed to these principles, she must ratify the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance (ACDEG).
The African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance is the African Union’s principal policy document for advancing democratic governance in African Union member states. The ACDEG embodies the continent‚Äôs commitment to a democratic agenda and set the standards upon which countries agreed to be held accountable. The Charter was adopted in 2007 and came into force a decade ago, in 2012.
Article 2 of the Charter details its objectives among others as to a) Promote adherence, by each State Party, to the universal values and principles of democracy and respect for human rights; b) Promote and protect the independence of the judiciary; c) Promote the establishment of the necessary conditions to foster citizen participation, transparency, access to information, freedom of the press and accountability in the management of public affairs; d) Promote gender balance and equality in the governance and development processes.
The Charter emphasizes certain principles through which member states must uphold: Citizen Participation, Accountable Institutions, Respect for Human Rights, Adherence to the principles of the Rule of Law, Respect for the supremacy of the constitution and constitutional order, Entrenchment of democratic Principles, Separation of Powers, Respect for the Judiciary, Independence and impartiality of electoral bodies, best practice in the management of elections. These are among the top issues that Batswana have been calling for, that they be entrenched in the new Constitution.
The ACDEG is a revolutionary document. Article 3 of the ACDEG, sets guidance on the principles that must guide the implementation of the Charter among them: Effective participation of citizens in democratic and development processes and in the governance of public affairs; Promotion of a system of government that is representative; Holding of regular, transparent, free and fair elections; Separation of powers; Promotion of gender equality in public and private institutions and others.
Batswana have been calling for laws that make it mandatory for citizen participation in public affairs, more so, such calls have been amplified in the just-ended ‚Äúconsultative process‚ÄĚ into the review of the Constitution of Botswana. Many scholars, academics, and Batswana, in general, have consistently made calls for a constitution that provides for clear separation of powers to prevent concentration of power in one branch, in Botswana‚Äôs case, the Executive, and provide for effective checks and balances. Other countries, like Kenya, have laws that promote gender equality in public and private institutions inscribed in their constitutions. The ACDEG could be a useful advocacy tool for the promotion of gender equality.
Perhaps more relevant to Botswana‚Äôs situation now is Article 10 of the Charter. Given how the constitutional review process unfolded, the numerous procedural mistakes and omissions, the lack of genuine consultations, the Charter principles could have provided a direction, if Botswana was party to the Charter. ‚ÄúState Parties shall ensure that the process of amendment or revision of their constitution reposes on national consensus, obtained, if need be, through referendum,‚ÄĚ reads part of Article 10, giving clear clarity, that the Constitution belong to the people.
With the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance in hand, ratified, and also given the many shortfalls in the current constitution, Batswana can have a tool in hand, not only to hold the government accountable but also a tool for measuring aspirations and shortfalls of our governance institutional framework.
Botswana has not signed, nor has it acceded or ratified the ACDEG. The time to ratify the ACDEG is now. Our Movement, Motheo O Mosha Society, with support from the Democracy Works Foundation and The Charter Project Africa, will run a campaign to promote, popularise and advocate for the ratification of the Charter (#RatifytheCharter Campaign). The initiative is co-founded by the European Union. The Campaign is implemented with the support of our sister organizations: Global Shapers Community ‚Äď Gaborone Hub, #FamilyMeetingBW, Botswana Center for Public Integrity, Black Roots Organization, Economic Development Forum, Molao-Matters, WoTech Foundation, University of Botswana Political Science Society, Young Minds Africa and Branding Akosua.
Ratifying the Charter would reaffirm Botswana‚Äôs commitment to upholding strong democratic values, and respect for constitutionalism, and promote the rule of law and political accountability. Join us in calling the Government of Botswana to #RatifyTheCharter.
*Morena MONGANJA is the Chairperson of Motheo O Mosha society; a grassroots movement advocating for a new Constitution for Botswana. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org or WhatsApp 77 469 362.
The Taiwan Question: China ramps up military exercises to rebuff US provocations
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosiís 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 Pelosiís 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 Ďinternational watersí.
Pelosiís visit to Chinaís 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 Communiquťs. †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 Chinaís 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 Peopleís 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 ó 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 Beijingís position that Taiwan is part of One China. Effectively, Taiwanís administration was transferred to the Republic of China from Japan after the Second World War in 1945, along with the split between the Peopleís 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 Ė this should make China uneasy. And while the White House continues to say it does not support Taiwanese independence, Bidenís words and actions are parallel to this pledge because he has warned China that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan Ė 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 ďTaiwan independenceĒ.† 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: ďThe 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.Ē †Therefore, it was in the wake of US House speaker Nancy Pelosiís 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 Chinaís Peopleís Liberation Army to ďsafeguard Chinaís national sovereignty, security and development interestsĒ. The legal basis will also allow military missions around disaster relief, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. In addition the legal changes would allow troops to ďprevent spillover effects of regional instabilities from affecting China, secure vital transport routes for strategic materials like oil, or safeguard Chinaís overseas investments, projects and personnel. †It then follows that President Xiís administration cannot afford to look weak under a US provocation. President Xi must protector Chinaís sovereignty and territorial integrity, of which Taiwan is a central part.Ē Beijing is very clear on One-China Policy, and expects all world players to recognize and respect it.
The Peopleís 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, ďWe got really close to Taiwan. We encircled Taiwan. And we demonstrated that we can effectively stop intervention by foreign forces.Ē This is a strong reaction from China to warn the US against provocation and violation of the One-China Policy.
Beijingís military exercises will certainly shake Taiwanís confidence in the sources of its economic and political survival. The potential for an effective blockade threatens the air and shipping routes that support Taiwanís central role in global technology supply chains. Should a humanitarian situation arise in Taiwan, the blame would squarely be on the US.
As Chinaís military exercises along the Taiwan Strait progress and grow, it remains that the decision by Nancy Pelosi to visit Chinaís Taiwan region gravely undermined peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and sent a wrong signal to ďTaiwan independenceĒ separatist forces. This then speaks to international conventions, as the UN Secretary-General Antůnio 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 Peopleís 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