Connect with us
Advertisement

Bogadi: A call for national debate

TRENDS IN MARRIAGE—MARITAL STATUS (%EVER MARRIED) SELECTED AGE GROUPS

One of the main features of social advancement, from hunter gatherer to tribal chiefdoms and eventually to nation states, is that the family has evolved into the foundation of society, its main social unit. As human social organization became sophisticated, the institution of marriage came into operation to ensure family stability and provide a conducive atmosphere in which the young could be nurtured into responsible members of society. A major advance in strengthening the family, pioneered mainly but not entirely by early Christianity, brought about monogamy. Most societies prior to Christianity were polygamous.


Our own society in Botswana has gone through all these stages. By the time most of us who are contemporary in the country were born, monogamy was getting entrenched. I would posit that this was brought about by a combination of the establishment of Christianity in the country as well as the transition of our society from a rural agricultural base to a cash based one.


The tradition of Bogadi is one aspect of marital practice in Botswana that has persisted, although with time it has developed rather negative features. Different forms of this practice exist in many societies in Africa and other parts of the world, especially in traditional societies. In Southern Africa it is commonly known as Lobola and is widely practiced in various forms, and in other parts of Africa and the developing world it has been referred to as Dowry or Bride price. It generally consists of the family of the groom paying something to the family of the bride. In a few societies, and one hears this mainly about India, the dowry is paid by the family of the bride. I haven’t heard of this in Africa, definitely not in Southern Africa.


In the Botswana context, idealists and traditionalists have described bogadi as a form of “thank you” to the family of the bride for bringing her up properly and I presume thus making her into a potentially good wife. Detractors of the system have however described it as exploitation of the family of the groom, and even worse, as a form of selling the daughter for a price. Historically we know that Christian Missionaries (European) in their early contact with Batswana discouraged the practice as they maintained it amounted to selling a daughter. This led to at least one of the Kings/Chiefs, Khama III, banning it in his territory on being converted to Christianity.


The practice has however demonstrated strong elements of survival and staying power. Bogadi is still virtually universal in Botswana, and has even made a come-back in Serowe, Khama III’s capital base, where it had disappeared for a long time, or was practised covertly by charging for other things such as leobo or demanding a lot of clothes.


Botswana belongs to a number of pastoral societies in East and Southern Africa that are strongly pastoral, where cattle ownership has historically been a sign of not only wealth but prestige and power. In such societies, bogadi or lobola, is highly valued, and is traditionally paid in cattle, usually a large number of them.

Unfortunately the system gives the groom and his family very high powers over the wife and the children, virtually taking the wife away from her family and absorbing her into the husband’s family, and making her and the children virtual properties of the husband’s family.

This has been known to encourage abuse, especially of the wife, on the premise that she has been paid for; “re go ntsheditse bogadi, dira se kgotsa dira sele”.  Stories of abuse of wives by their in-laws, especially mothers in law and sisters in law, abound. This is what prompted the early missionaries to regard bogadi as tantamount to buying the wife.


After being involved in a number of marriages of relatives, I have become quite disturbed at the direction the practice of bogadi is taking in our society. Whether it was ever as good as its advocates claim I don’t know- it is a universal tendency of human nature to glorify the past.  But it has now certainly developed very negative features, and it is having quite a negative impact on family formation in our society. It has become so commercialized that it has consequently become a major impediment to couples getting married.


As a background, let us look at changes that have taken place in our society. Firstly, the proportion of families that own cattle has declined severely over the latter half of the 20th century. Few families now own cattle. I will not go into the reasons for that. However, what it means is that a young man who wants to get married has to raise cash to pay bogadi.

Secondly, the percentage of adults married has also declined progressively over over the last couple of decades. On the corollary, this has resulted in the majority of children in our society being born out of wedlock. I would posit that these phenomena are all connected; few people can now afford bogadi as few families own cattle, and many are not earning enough to pay the demanded bogadi in cash. Most are just not earning enough to pay the going price.

Therefore couples tend to just maintain a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship and start having children hoping that at some point the man might just accumulate enough money to pay bogadi. With the low incomes that are earned by most of the working population this day never comes.


The graph below illustrates what has been happening to marriage in the country. The graph analyses males and females in two age groups (25-29 and 45-49) in three censuses (1971, 1981, 1991) and shows a progressive decline in percentages of persons ever married. (This is from a paper I presented in 2006, and unfortunately I have no figures for the 2001 and 2011 censuses, but I would be surprised if the declining trend has been arrested. This is a serious problem, as it aggravates the problem of single parent households. I reiterate my statement that bogadi is a major if not the major contributor to this decline in percentages of adults ever married.

In the last few months I have been involved in the organization of the traditional part of marriages (patlo, go ntsha bogadi etc.), including the demands made by the girl’s side. The following is the typical demand I have encountered: Bogadi 8 head of cattle, Kgomo ya metsi(called different things in different parts of Botswana such as kgomo ya motlhakanelwa, serufo etc.), kgomo ya tlhagela (if you already have a child ), making ten cattle in all. It would then be specified that if you pay in money, each beast translates to P3,500 or P3,000. This translates to more than P30,000 in all.


In addition, most tribes would demand a whole host of clothes, including a suit for the father of the bride and a costume for the mother with shoes etc., as well as a tsale, tukwi, and other things for other relatives. The bride herself has to be outfitted in clothes. In my experience this is another P20,000 or so. So, before the marriage itself takes place, about P50,000 is needed from the groom. The marriage feast itself will be several tens of thousands.


Now, how many men can afford this? Most of our men are in middle or low income categories of income. This kind of money is just beyond them, even most young men who have graduated from University in the last five or more years cannot afford this.

Their families are usually not in a position to help. So, the young couple is likely to postpone marriage indefinitely and cohabit, or just to have one or two children and go their separate ways.


In view of the discussion above, I would suggest that the leadership in this country, the Royal Establishments especially, seriously engage their people and relook at bogadi. While completely abolishing it may not be a practical way to go, at least modify it drastically to enable young people to afford it- make it affordable for the low income men and potential middle income men who have just entered the market. The long-term goal should be to encourage and facilitate young people to marry, and thus reduce the proportion of children born outside the secure atmosphere of married parents.


I believe, and I have stated this before, that as a nation we have not developed the culture of debating social issues deeply. This kind of topic needs to be debated by our society, facilitated by appropriate bodies, including the traditional and political leaderships, and the academic world.

There are other issues relating to family life that need similar discussions, e.g., what is the impact of new policies like the role of biological fathers where at marriage the man said he is taking kgomo le namane? How do families share responsibility where the girl who bears a child out of marriage and her parents dump the child at the father’s parents place and then suddenly demand the child back when it is grown up?


These are issues needing in-depth discussions, and I hope our society will give them due attention.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Elected officials should guard against personal interest

23rd September 2020

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.

Continue Reading

Opinions

The Corona Coronation (Part 10)

9th July 2020

Ever heard of a 666-type beast known as Fort Detrick?

Located in the US state of Maryland, about 80 km removed from Washington DC, Fort Detrick houses the US army’s top virus research laboratory. It has been identified as “home to the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, with its bio-defense agency, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, and  also hosts the National Cancer Institute-Frederick and the National Interagency Confederation for Biological Research and National Interagency Biodefense Campus”.

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?

Continue Reading

Opinions

Masisi faces ultimate test of his presidency

9th July 2020

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.

Continue Reading
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!