By far there is no real disagreement surrounding the fact that current national and international development frameworks have wretchedly failed young people the world over. The notion that local and international development instruments have dismally failed young people does not originate or end here.
This reality is (implicitly and explicitly) affirmed in reports and official positions of several esteemed multilateral agencies, governments and civil society organizations, these include but not limited to: United Nations (UN) via respective ‘UN World Youth Report’ chapters, Commonwealth of Nations via the ‘Commonwealth Youth Development Index’ founding background, African Union (AU) via a series of the ‘State of the African youth reports’ and the ‘African Youth Charter’ (AYC) founding background, Southern African Development Community (SADC) via the SADC ‘Ministers for Youth Development Communiqué (2013)’ and Botswana Government via respective annual ‘State of the Nation Addresses’.
Though differing in semantics and scope the above documents underscore corresponding appalling sentiments on the development and prosperity of young people. Internationally development is informed and centered on the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); at domestic level development is guided by the landmark Vision 2016. Any citizen acquainted with elementary development studies principles and theory can effortlessly notice by its tone and design Vision 2016 emulated the UN MGDs blueprint. I have argued numerous times in this platform and elsewhere that, ‘Vision 2016 is simply a domesticated version of the MDGs’. Thus, it is neither farfetched nor misguided to foretell the final texture of our own Post-2016 Agenda will be largely informed and influenced by the impending UN Post-2015 Agenda.
This year, the 15 year old development milestone is officially expiring. MDGs were adopted by the UN family in 2000; they (MDGs) were an outcome of international conferences thought out the 1990s. MDGs expressed widespread public concern about poverty, hunger, diseases, unmet schooling, gender inequality and environmental degradation. These priority areas are packaged into easily understandable set of eight (8) goals with established time bound objectives (Sachs; 2002). MDGs were and are genuinely a noble and welcome intervention; their profound impact against poverty, hunger, and diseases are notable and commendable. It is in this regard that American business magnet and philanthropist, Bill Gates, once equated MDGS to a key global report card for the fight against poverty. Moving frontward, I fully concur with UN special advisor Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, the UN post-2015 agenda must be guided by the ‘successes’ and the ‘shortfalls’ of the MDGs.
Strategically or maybe coincidentally, the shortfalls of MDGs are relatively less documented and publicized compared to their existence and probable success scenarios. But, here and there one is guaranteed to treasure trove several in-depth and critical examinations of MDGs shortfalls. These include an infamous yet enlightening critic by Prof. Amir Attaran, titled "An Immeasurable Crisis? A Criticism of the Millennium Development Goals and Why They Cannot Be Measured". Prof. Attaran’s critical publication triggered a solid and prompt rebuttal from a tripartite of distinguished academics and UN acquaintances, simply titled “Response to Amir Attaran”. Though this open theoretical crossfire was essentially meant to approve or disapprove feasibility of MDGs or lack thereof, it has helped global citizens appreciate the genuine successes and most importantly the somewhat ambiguous MDGs shortfalls.
One of the identified shortfalls is the fact that MDGs were nothing more than a technocratic creation, aimed at increasing and focusing aid flows, and produced without public consultation or ownership. In one of his many penning’s UN distinct tactician Prof. Jeffery Sachs affirms while expressing disappointment that; “promises of official development assistance by rich counties, for example, have not been kept”. MDGs were rolled out in a ‘top-down approach’. MGDs perceived citizens as mere ‘beneficiaries’ than ‘partners’ in the development process. Consequently it focused on the role of governments and regrettably overlooked the key role of citizens and private sector. The shortfalls of this reality were later empirically affirmed by Prof. Jeffery Sachs and his team after setting up Millennium Development Villages (MDVs) in several developing countries. MDVs were initiated as yardsticks to investigate the shortfalls of the ‘Top-Down Approach’ compared to ‘Bottom-Up Approach’ in development interventions. This exercise also highlighted the indisputable significance of community engagement, ownership and ‘Social Inclusion’ in the development process.
For those of us that concurrently deal with grassroots and policy matters, we approach the slip away of UN MDGs with great ‘relief’ and ‘hope’. ‘Relief’ that the monumental and now outdated MDGs are finally coming to an end, ‘Hope’ that the new framework will usher in the indispensable much needed element of ‘Social Justice’ and ‘Social Inclusion’. The good news this far is, elementary discussions on the feasible Post-2015 agenda are gravely centered on a modern-day principle known as Sustainable Development (SD). SD is a principle is centered on a triple bottom-line, thus; Economic Growth, Environmental Sustainability and Social Inclusion. Quite frankly, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainably are very fundamental for national and multinational prosperity, but, from a youth advocacy, civil society and grassroots standpoint, ‘Social Inclusion’ and ‘Social Justice’ are the more anticipated and needed element(s).
In simpler terms the principle of ‘Social Inclusion’; is a development model which upholds that each and every development approach should be needs based, the needs should be informed and guided by the targeted cohorts themselves. It simply emphasizes that nothing should be done or recommended for the people without the people. Like many socially excluded and marginalized cohorts, Youth in Botswana have been hard-hit by severe exclusion, majority if not all Youth targeted interventions and legislations are habitually discussed and legitimized in the absence of Youth, and no one finds it bizarre. Consequently this tendency has resulted in; a) irrelevant/misplaced policies and programs that do not address the primary (sometimes any) challenges of youth, b) Establishment of polices and initiatives that lack legitimacy and ownership among the young cartel, c) Generalized youth policies and programs that disregard the key realities, experiences, location and aspirations of various cohorts of young people.
Alarmed by this escalating indecent trend the 7th UN Secretary General and Nobel Laureate, Kofi Atta Annan, cautioned and reminded governments that, “Normally when we need to know about something we go to the experts, but we tend to forget that when we want to know about youth and what they feel and what they want, for that we should talk to them”. Correspondently there is a Swahili proverb that reminds us that, “you cannot shave a man’s head in his absence”.
Though the matter of ‘Social Inclusion’ and ‘Social Justice’ is taking center stage in recent times, it is important to acknowledge this principle has long been advanced by many staunch Pan-Africanists, for instance; visionary unsung revolutionist, Thomas Sankara, favored this principle for Burkina Faso’s development before his untimely assassination, Thabo Mbeki advanced the same principle in South Africa and Africa before the ‘dream was differed’, Zambian-born author and international economist, Dambisa Moyo, in her renowned book titled “Dead Aid” proposed and recommended the same principle, distinguished academic, Manyozo Linje, endorsed the same principle in a widely debated journal article titled “The Day Development Dies”.
In light of this background, many youth advocates and activists enthusiastically look forward to the Post-2015 agenda with extraordinary hope and relief. We believe it has been a long time coming; we pray “Social Inclusion”/”Social Justice” makes it through as priority area of the Post-2015 agenda. Along with esteemed technocrats and institutes we are confident this element will usher in tremendous sustainable social, economic and political prosperity for all, young people inclusive. In this regard I unequivocally insist, ‘Social Inclusion is the Youth salvage’ for the Post-2015 agenda.
* Taziba is Youth Advocate, Columnist & Researcher with keen interest in Youth Policy, Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion and Capacity Building
The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) has recently faced significant criticism for its handling of the voter registration exercise. In this prose I aim to shed light on the various instances where the IEC has demonstrated a lack of respect towards the citizens of Botswana, leading to a loss of credibility. By examining the postponements of the registration exercise and the IEC’s failure to communicate effectively, it becomes evident that the institution has disregarded its core mandate and the importance of its role in ensuring fair and transparent elections.
Incompetence or Disrespect?
One possible explanation for the IEC’s behavior is sheer incompetence. It is alarming to consider that the leadership of such a critical institution may lack the understanding of the importance of their mandate. The failure to communicate the reasons for the postponements in a timely manner raises questions about their ability to handle their responsibilities effectively. Furthermore, if the issue lies with government processes, it calls into question whether the IEC has the courage to stand up to the country’s leadership.
Another possibility is that the IEC lacks respect for its core clients, the voters of Botswana. Respect for stakeholders is crucial in building trust, and clear communication is a key component of this. The IEC’s failure to communicate accurate and complete information, despite having access to it, has fueled speculation and mistrust. Additionally, the IEC’s disregard for engaging with political parties, such as the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC), further highlights this disrespect. By ignoring the UDC’s request to observe the registration process, the IEC demonstrates a lack of regard for its partners in the electoral exercise.
Rebuilding Trust and Credibility:
While allegations of political interference and security services involvement cannot be ignored, the IEC has a greater responsibility to ensure its own credibility. The institution did manage to refute claims by the DISS Director that the IEC database had been compromised, which is a positive step towards rebuilding trust. However, this remains a small glimmer of hope in the midst of the IEC’s overall disregard for the citizens of Botswana.
To regain the trust of Batswana, the IEC must prioritize respect for its stakeholders. Clear and timely communication is essential in this process. By engaging with political parties and addressing their concerns, the IEC can demonstrate a commitment to transparency and fairness. It is crucial for the IEC to recognize that its credibility is directly linked to the trust it garners from the voters.
The IEC’s recent actions have raised serious concerns about its credibility and respect for the citizens of Botswana. Whether due to incompetence or a lack of respect for stakeholders, the IEC’s failure to communicate effectively and handle its responsibilities has damaged its reputation. To regain trust and maintain relevance, the IEC must prioritize clear and timely communication, engage with political parties, and demonstrate a commitment to transparency and fairness. Only by respecting the voters of Botswana can the IEC fulfill its crucial role in ensuring free and fair elections.
The Oil and Gas industry has undergone several significant developments and changes over the last few years. Understanding these developments and trends is crucial towards better appreciating how to navigate the engagement in this space, whether directly in the energy space or in associated value chain roles such as financing.
Here, we explore some of the most notable global events and trends and the potential impact or bearing they have on the local and global market.
Governments and companies around the world have been increasingly focused on transitioning towards renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. This shift is motivated by concerns about climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Africa, including Botswana, is part of these discussions, as we work to collectively ensure a greener and more sustainable future. Indeed, this is now a greater priority the world over. It aligns closely with the increase in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing being observed. ESG investing has become increasingly popular, and many investors are now looking for companies that are focused on sustainability and reducing their carbon footprint. This trend could have significant implications for the oil and fuel industry, which is often viewed as environmentally unsustainable. Relatedly and equally key are the evolving government policies. Government policies and regulations related to the Oil and Gas industry are likely to continue evolving with discussions including incentives for renewable energy and potentially imposing stricter regulations on emissions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has also played a strong role. Over the last two years, the pandemic had a profound impact on the Oil and Gas industry (and fuel generally), leading to a significant drop in demand as travel and economic activity slowed down. As a result, oil prices plummeted, with crude oil prices briefly turning negative in April 2020. Most economies have now vaccinated their populations and are in recovery mode, and with the recovery of the economies, there has been recovery of oil prices; however, the pace and sustainability of recovery continues to be dependent on factors such as emergence of new variants of the virus.
This period, which saw increased digital transformation on the whole, also saw accelerated and increased investment in technology. The Oil and Gas industry is expected to continue investing in new digital technologies to increase efficiency and reduce costs. This also means a necessary understanding and subsequent action to address the impacts from the rise of electric vehicles. The growing popularity of electric vehicles is expected to reduce demand for traditional gasoline-powered cars. This has, in turn, had an impact on the demand for oil.
Last but not least, geopolitical tensions have played a tremendous role. Geopolitical tensions between major oil-producing countries can and has impacted the supply of oil and fuel. Ongoing tensions in the Middle East and between the US and Russia could have an impact on global oil prices further, and we must be mindful of this.
On the home front in Botswana, all these discussions are relevant and the subject of discussion in many corporate and even public sector boardrooms. Stanbic Bank Botswana continues to take a lead in supporting the Oil and Gas industry in its current state and as it evolves and navigates these dynamics. This is through providing financing to support Oil and Gas companies’ operations, including investments in new technologies. The Bank offers risk management services to help oil and gas companies to manage risks associated with price fluctuations, supply chain disruptions and regulatory changes. This includes offering hedging products and providing advice on risk management strategies.
Advisory and support for sustainability initiatives that the industry undertakes is also key to ensuring that, as companies navigate complex market conditions, they are more empowered to make informed business decisions. It is important to work with Oil and Gas companies to develop and implement sustainability strategies, such as reducing emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy. This is key to how partners such as Stanbic Bank work to support the sector.
Last but not least, Stanbic Bank stands firmly in support of Botswana’s drive in the development of the sector with the view to attain better fuel security and reduce dependence risk on imported fuel. This is crucial towards ensuring a stronger, stabler market, and a core aspect to how we can play a role in helping drive Botswana’s growth. Continued understanding, learning, and sustainable action are what will help ensure the Oil and Gas sector is supported towards positive, sustainable and impactful growth in a manner that brings social, environmental and economic benefit.
Loago Tshomane is Manager, Client Coverage, Corporate and Investment Banking (CIB), Stanbic Bank Botswana
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’d be possibly some isolated complaint thrown. However, if the same company’s 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 – “A brand is a person’s gut feel about a product or service”. 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’t 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 ‘brand bonds’ 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 ‘relationship’ 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 ™ exercise wherein we test people’s 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 ‘their’ brand. They simply won’t easily ‘breakup’ with it. Doing so can cause brand ‘heart ache’. 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’s fragile. The question marketers ought to ask themselves before gleefully jumping into the hot rebranding cauldron is – 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’ve 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’ve not been privy to the important but probably blinkered ‘strategy sessions’ ongoing behind the scenes. Revolutions are often messy. They are often hard reset about-turns aiming for a total new look and ‘feel’.
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 ‘some of the commenting described the new packaging as ‘ugly’ ‘stupid’. 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’s 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 ‘adjusted’ 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’s vision.
We’re 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’re 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’re struggling to raise our prices and increase our profit margins. We want to expand our influence and connect to new audiences. We’re 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’ 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 ‘make a plan’ 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 – its ‘why’. 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’t buy nails for the nails sake. They buy nails to hammer into the wall to hang pictures of their loved ones. People don’t 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’ve done the important research and strategy work. It’s 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 ‘land’ 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’s 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 – 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.