The question of gender is one that raises emotions when discussed, but it is a subject that we should engage in with honestly, without fear or favour and with carefully moderated emotions. In many cases I see that a lot of us try desperately to be political correct when addressing this issue because of fear of backlash from activists who can be very aggressive and emotional.
Gender equity should not be about women; it should not be about men; it should be about empowering all our women and men, all our girls and boys so that they can all play their full part in society not inhibited by any discriminatory laws and societal norms.
Only biological or physical differences should limit us; a man for obvious reasons cannot bear a child but he can fully take care of a child; a crippled man cannot climb stairs but he can be assisted to get to the very top. Any human-made discriminatory tendencies should be eliminated to allow full use of all our human capital, male and female, to meet the needs of the individual as well as the interests of humanity.
It is no accident that we have both women and men. God created both man and woman; he created them equal in his own image. However, he created them at different times and differently in order for them to perform certain Godly assigned complementary functions. God said after creating man, ‘It is not good for a man to be alone; I will therefore make a helper suitable for him’.
Therefore, although women and men were not created biologically, physically and emotionally the same, the differences where a deliberate act of creation meant to empower us for the different roles and functions we were created to play in filling the earth and building it to serve humanity. We need to understand this in order for us to appreciate and to help each other to reach full potential. We must understand that no one is better than the other because of the accident of gender. We do not choose to be female or male, do we?
Since creation we have distorted and manipulated God’s plan. Over the years we have created structures, systems, customs, laws, dogmas etc that discriminated and disadvantaged God’s people based on gender. It looks like women suffered the most, but there are many areas where men are also discriminated against, but gender activists turn a blind eye. One can also say men are largely responsible for the creation of these inequalities and therefore to a large extent men must be urged to champion and lead the reversal of these bad practices.
In Botswana although there are still many discriminatory practices, practices and laws that unjustly prevented women from doing certain jobs and women being paid less than men for the same jobs have long been scrapped. I am not aware of any law in Botswana that discriminates against women, but if they are any they ought to be repelled immediately by parliament. I am however, aware of many entrenched practices that are discriminatory. Gender activists who happen to be largely women do not talk about discriminatory practices against men.
For instance, the adoption law or practice where permission for adoption is only sought from the mother and not the father of the child; customary marriage where men must pay a bride price (lobola) for them to marry; customary practices where men must pay for ‘damages’ when a child is born out of wedlock.
These examples clearly demonstrate discriminatory tendencies against men. Both men and women must take equal responsibility in such cases. If a girl gets pregnant before marriage, unless the girl was raped, all the parties concerned must bear the consequences; the boy, the girl and parents of the two must take equal responsibility because they have all failed the society.
Maybe I should explain why! As society we must firmly place responsibility on the family to bring up their children in a manner that promotes social harmony, integrity, cohesion and moral uprightness. Society must demand that both the girl and the boy child cannot have sex until they are married. It used to be like this in our society, even before Christianity was entrenched in Botswana.
It was uncommon, even a taboo in the 40s, 50s and 60s to have children born out of wedlock. It was just not cool. This is also what the Bible preaches. Nowadays, besides pregnancy and the fact that it is ungodly, we have all sorts of diseases to contend with.
Therefore if a girl gets pregnant before marriage both the parents of the girl and of the boy must be made to account by the society for failing their children. The consequences for pregnancy before marriage must be severe including forcing them to get married. I think it used to be like that in the past, even king David in the Bible had to marry Bathsheba, the mother of king Solomon after the indiscretion he committed that led him to impregnate her (2 Samuel, chapter 11).
Assuming that most Batswana are Christians, we should perhaps use the Bible to attempt to understand the vexing question of gender equity. After God had created the world and everything in it and saw that it was good, He created man and gave him have dominion over everything he created.
God then said, ‘it is not good for a man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him.” So God created a woman (Eve) and gave her to the man (Adam). The Bible then says, ‘therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh’.
The Bible also says, ‘He created both male and female in His own image’ as equals and gave them dominion over everything he created. Why should we then want to redo what God has done for us by denying people God given privileges based on gender? How can we expect God to be happy with us when we do this?
God created man first and appointed him head of the family, but he commanded him to love and cling to his wife, and the wife to submit to and respect his husband. Submission does not imply making the wife a servant. She is one with you, the same flesh. The man’s role as head of family is to protect his wife and family and not to abuse and enslave them.
Women and men have complementary roles in building the family and consequently the nation. If you love your wife, if you love your daughter, if you love your sister, if you love your mother, if you love your neighbour as the Bible commands, how then can you discriminate against anyone at all? The society including myself and all of us must change and go back to what God demands from us for our families and people.
The Bible does not say, therefore a man shall pay lobola and then leave his father and mother to cling to his wife. It says, ‘therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh’ Where then did paying of the lobola come from? I believe it is a practice created by men to enforce male dominance over women.
No wonder some men interpret this to mean buying and owning a wife. This practice has become a source of conflict in marriages; in many cases resulting in increased rate of divorce when women start demanding equality and men denying them that equality because they ‘bought” them with a price.
The lobola practice also denies many men from marrying because they cannot afford to pay lobola (bogadi) and the expensive ceremonies that go with our contemporary marriages. This results in social ills such as cohabitation; children born out of wedlock; single parenting of children etc, leading to the creation of an unfulfilled society that despises the institution of marriage. I have never heard gender activists complain about these malpractices. This is a serious discriminatory practice that has been created and accepted by society, but does it promote gender equity?
To make it worse, when a child is born out of wedlock, the man who also cannot marry because he cannot afford the expensive marriage system that the society demands is punished by the parents of the girl who demands payment of ‘damages’. The society is treating women like property to be ‘bought’ and ‘damaged’ like pieces of furniture. This cannot be right. We definitely need to change this.
Normalising our marriage processes in order to promote gender equity, healthy and fulfilled families is a must do now. We must simplify our marriage processes and promote the marriage institution. Why should marriages be so expensive for men anyway? Why should men pay lobola and all the expenses pertaining to contemporary marriages? Why do our women accept this practice? Many of our societal ills (single parentage, divorces, passion killings, unfaithfulness, wayward behaviour of children etc) are a result of us having strayed away from God’s principles of marriage and His ways of justice for all.
There has been a lot of talk about the SADC gender protocol that Botswana has refused to sign. The protocol in my view is just another ‘feel good’ document that is meant to pacify gender activists and nothing else. Botswana government has been steadfast in stating that it does not support some clauses in the proposed protocol and therefore it shall not sign.
Why do we want to pressurize Botswana to sign, when it is not ready? Botswana has also said that she supports gender equity and is doing everything in its power to promote gender equity and added that 43 % of public institutions are headed by women. The problem is with political representation where women continue to fail to make a significant mark.
However, women cannot and should not be imposed on the electorate. The call for changing our electoral system to enhance democracy is valid and must be adopted for a number of reasons including leveling of the political playing field, but should not specifically be done to get women to parliament. This would be against the guiding principle of gender equity which should be to empower all to reach their full potential. Everyone should be given the same opportunities regardless of gender.
In a democratic dispensation, we cannot and should not force people to elect women to positions of power simply because they are women; they must be elected based on merit and their ability to represent their people. The people must have a choice provided by an unbiased democratic set up, not an affirmative action as some gender activists demand.
Appointments to positions of any kind should not be based on gender but the superior ability by the individual to carryout the functions of that office; otherwise we will be promoting unacceptable mediocrity in our country. We have very capable women in this country; we must just support them and encourage them to reach their full potential, but without disadvantaging anyone. Any self respecting and honourable woman would not want to be given a position simply because she is a woman.
In conclusion we must as a country work towards gender equity; by empowering all our people through education; by eliminating all discriminatory practices and adopting and enforcing best practices that will also inspire women aspiring for political office. But let us not be in a hurry to sign some of these regional and international protocols that binds us. If we adopt some of these protocols we must do so because they serve our purposes as a nation and are aligned to our national aspirations; fits in with our own realities, our own priorities, our time frames and our fiscal constraints.
Bernard Busani Email: bernard.busani@ gmail.com Cell: 71751440
Parliament was this week once again seized with matters that concern them and borders on conflict of interest and abuse of privilege.
The two matters are; review of MPs benefits as well as President Mokgweetsi Masisi’s participation in the bidding for Banyana Farms. For the latter, it should not come as a surprise that President Masisi succeeded in bid.
The President’s business interests have also been in the forefront. While President Masisi is entitled as a citizen to participate in a various businesses in the country or abroad, it is morally deficient for him to participate in a bidding process that is handled by the government he leads. By the virtue of his presidency, Masisi is the head of government and head of State.
Not long ago, former President Festus Mogae suggested that elected officials should consider using blind trust to manage their business interests once they are elected to public office. Though blind trusts are expensive, they are the best way of ensuring confidence in those that serve in public office.
A blind trust is a trust established by the owner (or trustor) giving another party (the trustee) full control of the trust. Blind trusts are often established in situations where individuals want to avoid conflicts of interest between their employment and investments.
The trustee has full discretion over the assets and investments while being charged with managing the assets and any income generated in the trust.
The trustor can terminate the trust, but otherwise exercises no control over the actions taken within the trust and receives no reports from the trustees while the blind trust is in force.
Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) Secretary General, Mpho Balopi, has defended President Masisi’s participation in business and in the Banyana Farms bidding. His contention is that, the practise even obtained during the administration of previous presidents.
The President is the most influential figure in the country. His role is representative and he enjoys a plethora of privileges. He is not an ordinary citizen. The President should therefore be mindful of this fact.
We should as a nation continue to thrive for improvement of our laws with the viewing of enhancing good governance. We should accept perpetuation of certain practices on the bases that they are a norm. MPs are custodians of good governance and they should measure up to the demands of their responsibility.
Parliament should not be spared for its role in countenancing these developments. Parliament is charged with the mandate of making laws and providing oversight, but for them to make laws that are meant solely for their benefits as MPs is unethical and from a governance point of view, wrong.
There have been debates in parliament, some dating from past years, about the benefits of MPs including pension benefits. It is of course self-serving for MPs to be deliberating on their compensation and other benefits.
In the past, we have also contended that MPs are not the right people to discuss their own compensation and there has to be Special Committee set for the purpose. This is a practice in advanced democracies.
By suggesting this, we are not suggesting that MP benefits are in anyway lucrative, but we are saying, an independent body may figure out the best way of handling such issues, and even offer MPs better benefits.
In the United Kingdom for example; since 2009 following a scandal relating to abuse of office, set-up Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA)
IPSA is responsible for: setting the level of and paying MPs’ annual salaries; paying the salaries of MPs’ staff; drawing up, reviewing, and administering an MP’s allowance scheme; providing MPs with publicly available and information relating to taxation issues; and determining the procedures for investigations and complaints relating to MPs.
Owing to what has happened in the Parliament of Botswana recently, we now need to have a way of limiting what MPs can do especially when it comes to laws that concern them. We cannot be too trusting as a nation.
MPs can abuse office for their own agendas. There is need to act swiftly to deal with the inherent conflict of interest that arise as a result of our legislative setup. A voice of reason should emerge from Parliament to address this unpleasant situation. This cannot be business as usual.
The 490-hectare campus researches the world’s deadliest pathogens, including Anthrax (in 1944, the Roosevelt administration ordered 1 million anthrax bombs from Fort Detrick), Ebola, smallpox, and … you guessed right: coronaviruses. The facility, which carries out paid research projects for government agencies (including the CIA), universities and drug companies most of whom owned by the highly sinister military-industrial complex, employs 900 people.
Between 1945 and 1969, the sprawling complex (which has since become the US’s ”bio-defence centre” to put it mildly) was the hub of the US biological weapons programme. It was at Fort Detrick that Project MK Ultra, a top-secret CIA quest to subject the human mind to routine robotic manipulation, a monstrosity the CIA openly owned up to in a congressional inquisition in 1975, was carried out. In the consequent experiments, the guinea pigs comprised not only of people of the forgotten corner of America – inmates, prostitutes and the homeless but also prisoners of war and even regular US servicemen.
These unwitting participants underwent up to a 20-year-long ordeal of barbarous experiments involving psychoactive drugs (such as LSD), forced electroshocks, physical and sexual abuses, as well as a myriad of other torments. The experiments not only violated international law, but also the CIA’s own charter which forbids domestic activities. Over 180 doctors and researchers took part in these horrendous experiments and this in a country which touts itself as the most civilised on the globe!
Was the coronavirus actually manufactured at Fort Detrick (like HIV as I shall demonstrate at the appropriate time) and simply tactfully patented to other equally cacodemonic places such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China?
THE FORT DETRICK SCIENTISTS’ PROPHECY WAS WELL-INFORMED
About two years before the term novel coronavirus became a familiar feature in day-to-day banter, two scientist cryptically served advance warning of its imminence. They were Allison Totura and Sina Bavari, both researchers at Fort Detrick.
The two scientists talked of “novel highly pathogenic coronaviruses that may emerge from animal reservoir hosts”, adding, “These coronaviruses may have the potential to cause devastating pandemics due to unique features in virus biology including rapid viral replication, broad host range, cross-species transmission, person-to-person transmission, and lack of herd immunity in human populations … Associated with novel respiratory syndromes, they move from person-to-person via close contact and can result in high morbidity and mortality caused by the progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).”
All the above constitute some of the documented attributes and characteristics of the virus presently on the loose – the propagator of Covid-19. A recent clinical review of Covid-19 in The Economist seemed to bear out this prognostication when it said, “It is ARDS that sees people rushed to intensive-care units and put on ventilators”. As if sounding forth a veritable prophecy, the two scientists besought governments to start working on counter-measures there and then that could be “effective against such a virus”.
Well, it was not by sheer happenstance that Tortura and Bavari turned out to have been so incredibly and ominously prescient. They had it on good authority, having witnessed at ringside what the virus was capable of in the context of their own laboratory. The gory scenario they painted for us came not from secondary sources but from the proverbial horse’s mouth folks.
CDC’S RECKLESS ADMISSION
In March this year, Robert Redfield, the US Director for the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told the House of Representatives’ Oversight Committee that it had transpired that some members of the American populace who were certified as having died of influenza turned out to have harboured the novel coronavirus per posthumous analysis of their tissue.
Redfield was not pressed to elaborate but the message was loud and clear – Covid-19 had been doing the rounds in the US much earlier than it was generally supposed and that the extent to which it was mistaken for flu was by far much more commonplace than was openly admitted. An outspoken Chinese diplomat, Zhao Lijian, seized on this rather casual revelation and insisted that the US disclose further information, exercise transparency on coronavirus cases and provide an explanation to the public.
But that was not all the beef Zhao had with the US. He further charged that the coronavirus was possibly transplanted to China by the US: whether inadvertently or by deliberate design he did not say. Zhao pointed to the Military World Games of October 2019, in which US army representatives took part, as the context in which the coronavirus irrupted into China. Did the allegation ring hollow or there was a ring of truth to it?
THE BENASSIE FACTOR
The Military World Games, an Olympic-style spectrum of competitive action, are held every four years. The 2019 episode took place in Wuhan, China. The 7th such, the games ran from October 18 to October 27. The US contingent comprised of 17 teams of over 280 athletes, plus an innumerable other staff members. Altogether, over 9000 athletes from 110 countries were on hand to showcase their athletic mettle in more than 27 sports. All NATO countries were present, with Africa on its part represented by 30 countries who included Botswana, Egypt, Kenya, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Besides the singular number of participants, the event notched up a whole array of firsts. One report spelt them out thus: “The first time the games were staged outside of military bases, the first time the games were all held in the same city, the first time an Athletes’ Village was constructed, the first time TV and VR systems were powered by 5G telecom technology, and the first use of all-round volunteer services for each delegation.”
Now, here is the clincher: the location of the guest house for the US team was located in the immediate neighbourhood of the Wuhan Seafood Market, the place the Chinese authorities to this day contend was the diffusion point of the coronavirus. But there is more: according to some reports, the person who allegedly but unwittingly transmitted the virus to the people milling about the market – Patient Zero of Covid-19 – was one Maatie Benassie.
Benassie, 52, is a security officer of Sergeant First Class rank at the Fort Belvoir military base in Virginia and took part in the 50-mile cycling road race in the same competitions. In the final lap, she was accidentally knocked down by a fellow contestant and sustained a fractured rib and a concussion though she soldiered on and completed the race with the agonising adversity. Inevitably, she saw a bit of time in a local health facility. According to information dug up by George Webb, an investigative journalist based in Washington DC, Benassie would later test positive for Covid-19 at the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital.
Incidentally, Benassie apparently passed on the virus to other US soldiers at the games, who were hospitalised right there in China before they were airlifted back to the US. The US government straightaway prohibited the publicising of details on the matter under the time-honoured excuse of “national security interests”, which raised eyebrows as a matter-of-course. As if that was not fishy enough, the US out of the blue tightened Chinese visas to the US at the conclusion of the games.
The rest, as they say, is history: two months later, Covid-19 had taken hold on China territory. “From that date onwards,” said one report, “one to five new cases were reported each day. By December 15, the total number of infections stood at 27 — the first double-digit daily rise was reported on December 17 — and by December 20, the total number of confirmed cases had reached 60.”
TWO CURIOUS RESEARCH HALTINGS
Is it a coincidence that all the US soldiers who fell ill at the Wuhan games did their preparatory training at the Fort Belvoir military base, only a 15-minutes’ drive from Fort Detrick?
That Fort Detrick is a plain-sight perpetrator of pathogenic evils is evidenced by a number of highly suspicious happenings concerning it. Remember the 2001 anthrax mailing attacks on government and media houses which killed five people right on US territory? The two principal suspects who puzzlingly were never charged, worked as microbiologists at Fort Detrick. Of the two, Bruce Ivins, who was the more culpable, died in 2008 of “suicide”. For “suicide”, read “elimination”, probably because he was in the process of spilling the beans and therefore cast the US government in a stigmatically diabolical light. Indeed, the following year, all research projects at Fort Detrick were suspended on grounds that the institute was “storing pathogens not listed in its database”. The real truth was likely much more reprehensible.
In 2014, there was a mini local pandemic in the US which killed thousands of people and which the mainstream media were not gutsy enough to report. It arose following the weaponisation at Fort Detrick of the H7N9 virus, prompting the Obama administration to at once declare a moratorium on the research and withdraw funding.
The Trump administration, however, which has a pathological fixation on undoing practically all the good Obama did, reinstated the research under new rigorous guidelines in 2017. But since old habits die hard, the new guidelines were flouted at will, leading to another shutdown of the whole research gamut at the institute in August 2019. This, nonetheless, was not wholesale as other areas of research, such as experiments to make bird flu more transmissible and which had begun in 2012, proceeded apace. As one commentator pointedly wondered aloud, was it really necessary to study how to make H5N1, which causes a type of bird flu with an eye-popping mortality rate, more transmissible?
Consistent with its character, the CDC was not prepared to furnish particulars upon issuing the cease and desist order, citing “national security reasons”. Could the real reason have been the manufacture of the novel coronavirus courtesy of a tip-off by the more scrupulous scientists?
President Mokgweetsi Masisi may have breathed a huge sigh of relief when he emerged victorious in last year’s 2019 general elections, but the ultimate test of his presidency has only just begun.
From COVID-19 pandemic effects; disenchanted unemployed youth, deteriorating diplomatic relations with neighbouring South Africa as well as emerging instability within the ruling party — Masisi has a lot to resolve in the next few years.
Last week we started an unwanted cold war with Botswana’s main trade partner, South Africa, in what we consider an ill-conceived move. Never, in the history of this country has Botswana shown South Africa a cold shoulder – particularly since the fall of the apartheid regime.
It is without a doubt that our country’s survival depends on having good relations with South Africa. As the Chairperson of African National Congress (ANC), Gwede Mantashe once said, a good relationship between Botswana and South Africa is not optional but necessary.
No matter how aggrieved we feel, we should never engage in a diplomatic war — with due respect to other neighbours— with South Africa. We will never gain anything from starting a diplomatic war with South Africa.
In fact, doing so will imperil our economy, given that majority of businesses in the retail sector and services sector are South African companies.
Former cabinet minister and Phakalane Estates proprietor, David Magang once opined that Botswana’s poor manufacturing sector and importation of more than 80 percent of the foodstuffs from South Africa, effectively renders Botswana a neo-colony of the former.
Magang’s statement may look demeaning, but that is the truth, and all sorts of examples can be produced to support that. Perhaps it is time to realise that as a nation, we are not independent enough to behave the way we do. And for God’s sake, we are a landlocked country!
Recently, the effects of COVID-19 have exposed the fragility of our economy; the devastating pleas of the unemployed and the uncertainty of the future. Botswana’s two mainstay source of income; diamonds and tourism have been hit hard. Going forward, there is a need to chart a new pathway, and surely it is not an easy task.
The ground is becoming fertile for uprisings that are not desirable in any country. That the government has not responded positively to the rising unemployment challenge is the truth, and very soon as a nation we will wake up to this reality.
The magnitude of the problem is so serious that citizens are running out of patience. The government on the other hand has not done much to instil confidence by assuring the populace that there is a plan.
The general feeling is that, not much will change, hence some sections of the society, will try to use other means to ensure that their demands are taken into consideration. Botswana might have enjoyed peace and stability in the past, but there is guarantee that, under the current circumstances, the status quo will be maintained.
It is evident that, increasingly, indigenous citizens are becoming resentful of naturalised and other foreign nationals. Many believe naturalised citizens, especially those of Indian origin, are the major beneficiaries in the economy, while the rest of the society is side-lined.
The resentfulness is likely to intensify going forward. We needed not to be heading in this direction. We needed not to be racist in our approach but when the pleas of the large section of the society are ignored, this is bound to happen.
It is should be the intention of every government that seeks to strive on non-racialism to ensure that there is shared prosperity. Share prosperity is the only way to make people of different races in one society to embrace each other, however, we have failed in this respect.
Masisi’s task goes beyond just delivering jobs and building a nation that we all desire, but he also has an immediate task of achieving stability within his own party. The matter is so serious that, there are threats of defection by a number of MPs, and if he does not arrest this, his government may collapse before completing the five year mandate.
The problems extend to the party itself, where Masisi found himself at war with his Secretary General, Mpho Balopi. The war is not just the fight for Central Committee position, but forms part of the succession plan.