The WeekendPost of November 15-21 had an article by Prof Zibani Maundeni titled “The 2014 General election: revolution v counter-revolution”. On seeing the article, I had high hopes that at last the public will get to hear a more objective analysis of what transpired during October 24 General Elections.
Such anticipation was born out of the fact that Professors are the forbearers of wisdom in their areas of expertise and often arrive at conclusion after evaluating empirical evidence. In that regard, the expectation is that, when a political scientist make comments on issues of a political nature, such pronouncements should be informed by empirical data. Otherwise such conclusions would be dismissed as baseless and speculative. The primary objective of such conjecture could be to mislead and misinform.
In contrast to political commentators in the likes of Michael Kitso Dingake or Spencer Mogapi, commentaries are often subjective, less rigorous and allow them to speculate as much as they wish. However, a political scientist must never allow himself/herself to respond to political matters like a political commentator.
In that respect, with all its limitations the Afrobarometer study is respectable because it is the only scientific measure of public opinion on any national issue including likely voter behaviour and voting patterns that I am aware of.
In addition to the Afrobarometer work, Amy Poteete deserves the title because she always makes an attempt to back her work with empirical evidence. She is a Professor of Political Science based in Canada and a respected researcher on Botswana politics.
However, I do recognize that there were some political actors who misunderstood the 2014 Afrobarometer findings thinking they were meant to predict the outcome of the 2014 General Elections. That was not the case. It had much broader objectives than that.
In the case of Prof. Maudeni, he talks about a revolution in the offing, but fails to unpack the revolution and its material conditions to the reader. For instance he does not tell the reader whether it was a neo-liberal, social democratic, or socialist revolution.
Historically the military often performs the functional equivalence of an election by taking over power to bring change. According to Maundeni’s analysis such a move should be celebrated as some sort of a revolution. All revolutions entail change of political power but not all political changes are revolutions. In fact they could turn out be counter revolutionary.
His hypothesis is that the outcome of the general elections is attributable to heightened public fear resulting from the suspicious death of Gomolemo Motswaledi (may his soul rest in peace), the brutal torture of Oarabile Senyolonyolo Motlaleng generally believed to be the work of some sections of the security forces, persecution of journalists, money laundering by a person closely associated with Rraetsho, and abuse of public office and resources. Some political commentators assert that BDP has survived because Batswana have a tendency to forget and forgive quickly.
The Professor fails to interrogate these issues and enlighten the reader as to what will happen between now and 2019 when the material conditions that influenced the 2014 general elections may no longer be in place. For instance, what will happen when Khama and his associates with military background are replaced by civilians, cessation of political persecutions, no hit lists or notorious Israeli Companies linked to rigging elections?
The Professor could not explain why the wind of change appears to have dissipated in Lobatse and the Kgalagadi constituencies as well as other major urban areas and villages. Why did the ‘Moono’ phenomenon, as it is called, fail to deliver Shoshong Constituency. Clearly any analysis that fails to factor in the Barataphathi dimension is seriously flawed.
To objectively answer these questions requires researchers who can conduct scientific studies aimed at identifying critical determinants of voting behaviour not speculations. We have enough political commentators. What is required is more scientific research on complex political developments.
Professor Maundeni correctly posits that with all the visionaries we have the BCP failed to predict the outcome of the 2014 general elections. True, but I doubt if the Professor armed with all the analytical tools under his disposal could have predicted the elections outcome. Even the Japanese with all the high level technological knowhow failed to predict the Tsunami.
He also alleges that there was a clandestine move within the BDP to remove key figures with military background. According to Maundeni the aim was to take them out of the contest for the position of Vice President. This is a serious indictment. Two critical figures come to mind. They are Captain Kitso Mokaila and Brigadier Ramadeluka Seretse.
The fact is that over the years the Botswana National Front (BNF) has made serious inroads in Borolong threatening Mokaila. Those who follow the political trends closely will not be surprised by the triumph of the BNF this time around. As for Ramadeluka Seretse he was defeated by Kgotla Autlwetse during the BDP primary elections. The defeat of Ndelu Seretse by Kgotla Autlwetse was no surprise to many observers either.
Maudeni also talks about international support extended to UDC. Here I suspect the Professor may have mistaken international sympathy with support. This is because there is no way he could have known about such support unless he was part of the inner cycle of UDC.
Surprisingly Maudeni appears to condone the emerging political culture of hate, deceit and lies that borders on political hooliganism. This is not a trivial matter because it could easily escalate to political violence. Yes it is a lie to say that the BCP withdrew from the Umbrella II when it was never part of the arrangement. It is also a lie to say that BOFEPUSU passed a binding resolution to support UDC. It is also a lie that the concept of Umbrella was a BOFEPUSU idea.
Those who have been following opposition cooperation will know that it was a BCP idea at the 2007/08 opposition talks. Recently a blue lie was circulated on facebook with a caption claiming that myself, and Comrade Akanyang Magama, the BCP Deputy Secretary General had resigned from the BCP and that there will be a farewell mega rally for me.
If these were jokes they are distasteful and must be condemned in the strongest terms possible. I wonder how the Professor would feel if he was linked to DIS as an agent when it is not true. True, lies have short legs but they can be destructive. We should be concerned about senior academics who speak like lay persons on matters related to their area of specialization.
Kesitegile Gobotswang (PhD) is Secretary General, BCP
British novelist, W. Somerset Maugham once opined: “If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.”
The truism in these words cannot be underestimated, especially when contextualizing against the political developments in Botswana. We have become a nation that does not value democracy, yet nothing represent freedom more than democracy. In fact, we desire, and value winning power or clinging to power more than anything else, even if it harms the democratic credentials of our political institutions. This is happening across political parties — ruling and opposition.
As far as democracy is concerned, we are regressing. We are becoming worse-off than we were in the past. If not arrested, Botswana will lose its status as among few democratic nations in the Africa. Ironically, Botswana was the first country in Africa to embrace democracy, and has held elections every five years without fail since independence.
We were once viewed as the shining example of Africa. Those accolades are not worth it any more. Young democracies such as South Africa, with strong institutions, deserves to be exalted. Botswana has lost faith in democracy, and we will pay a price for it. It is a slippery slope to dictatorship, which will bring among other excess, assault on civil liberties and human rights violations.
Former President, Festus Mogae once stated that Botswana’s democracy will only become authentic, when a different party, other than the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) wins elections, and when the President of such party is not from Serowe.
Although many may not publicly care to admit, Mogae’s assertion is true. BDP has over the years projected itself as a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of democracy, but the moment its stay in power became threatened and uncertain, it started behaving in a manner that is at variance with democratic values. This has been happening over the years now, and the situation is getting worse by the day.
Recently, the BDP party leadership has been preaching compromise and consensus candidates for 2024 general elections. Essentially, the leadership has lost faith in the Bulela Ditswe dispensation, which has been used to selected party candidates for council and parliament since 2003. The leadership is discouraging democracy because they believe primary elections threaten party unity. It is a strange assertion indeed.
Bulela Ditswe was an enrichment of internal party democracy in the sense that it replaced the previous method of selection of candidates known as Committee of 18, in which a branch committee made of 18 people endorsed the representatives. While it is true that political contest can divide, the ruling party should be investing in political education and strengthening in its primary elections processes. Democracy does not come cheap or easy, but it is valuable.
Any unity that we desire so much at the expense of democracy is not true unity. Like W. Somerset Maugham said, democracy would be lost in the process, and ultimately, even the unity that was desired would eventually be lost too. Any solution that sacrifice democracy would not bring any results in the long run, except misery.
We have seen that also in opposition ranks. The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) recently indicated that its incumbent Members of Parliament (MPs) should not be challenged for their seats. While BDP is sacrificing democracy to stay in power, UDC is sacrificing democracy to win power. It is a scary reality given the fact that both parties – ruling and opposition — have embraced this position and believe democracy is the hindrance to their political ambitions.
These current reality points to one thing; our political parties have lost faith in democracy. They desire power more than, the purpose of power itself. It is also a crisis of leadership across the political divide, where we have seen dissenting views being met with persecution. We have seen perverting of political process endorsed by those in echelons of power to manipulate political outcomes in their favour.
Democracy should not be optional, it should be mandatory. Any leader proposing curtailing of democracy should be viewed with suspicion, and his adventures should be rejected before it is too late. Members of political parties, as subscribers of democracy, should collectively rise to the occasion to save their democracy from self-interest that is becoming prevalent among Botswana political parties.
The so-called compromise candidates, only benefits the leadership because it creates comforts for them. But for members, and for the nation, it is causing damage by reversing the gains that have been made over the years. We should reject leaders who only preach democracy in word, but are hesitant to practice it.
Piracy of all kinds continues to have a massive impact on the global creative industry and the economies of the countries where it thrives.
One of the biggest misconceptions around piracy is that an individual consumer’s piracy activities, especially in a market the size of Botswana’s, is only a drop in the pool of potential losses to the different sectors of the economy piracy affects.
When someone sitting in Gaborone, Botswana logs onto an illegal site to download King Richard online, they don’t imagine that their one download will do anything to the production house’s pocket or make a dent in the actors’ net worth. At best, the sensitivity towards this illegal pirating activity likely only exists when contemplating going about pirating a local musician’s music or a short film produced locally.
The ripple effects of piracy at whatever scale reach far beyond what the average consumer could ever imagine. Figures released by software security and media technology company, Irdeto, show that users in five major African territories made approximately 17,4 million total visits to the top 10 identified piracy sites on the internet.
The economic impact of this on the creative industry alone soars to between 40 and 97.1 billion dollars, according a 2022 Dataprot study. In addition, they estimate that “illegally streamed copyrighted content consumes 24% of global bandwidth”.
As Botswana’s creative industry remains relatively slight on the scale of comparison to industries such as Nollywood and Nilewood where the creative industry contributes a huge proportion to West and East Africa’s respective GDPs, that does not imply that piracy activities in Botswana do not have a similar impact on our economy and the ability of our creative industry to grow.
When individuals make decisions to illegally consume content via internet streaming sites they believe they are saving money for themselves in the name of enjoying content they desire to consume. Although this is a personal choice that remains the prerogative of the consumer, looking beyond the fact that streaming on illegal content sites is piracy, the ripple effect of this decision also has an endless trail of impact where funds which could be used to grow the local creative industry through increased consumption, and revenue which would otherwise be fed back into Botswana’s economy are being diverted.
“Why can’t our local creative industry grow?” “Why don’t we see more home-grown films and shows in Botswana?” are questions constantly posed by those who consume television content in Botswana. The answer to this lies largely in the fact that Botswana’s local content needs an audience in order for it to grow. It needs support from government and entities which are in a position to fund and help the industry scale greater heights.
Any organisational body willing to support and grow the local creative industry needs to exist and operate in an economy which can support its mandates. Content piracy is a cycle that can only be alleviated when consumers make wiser decisions around what they consume and how.
This goes beyond eradicating piracy activities in so far as television content is concerned. This extends to the importation and trade in counterfeit goods, resale of goods and services not intended for resale across the border, outside its jurisdiction, and more. All of these activities stunt the growth of an economy and make it nearly impossible for industries and sectors to propel themselves to places where they can positively impact society and reinvest into the country’s economy.
So what can be done to turn the tide here in Botswana in order to see our local production houses gain the momentum required to produce more, license more and expand their horizons? While those who enforce the law continue to work towards minimizing piracy activities, it’s imperative that as consumers we work to make their efforts easier by being mindful of how our individual actions play a role in preventing the success of our local creative networks and our economy’s growth.
Whether you are pirating a Hollywood Blockbuster, illegally streaming a popular Motswana artist’s music, or smuggling in an illegal decoder to view content restricted to South Africa only, your actions have an impact on how we as a nation will make our mark on the global landscape with local creative productions. Thembi Legwaila is Corporate Affairs Manager, MultiChoice Botswana
This is a dangerous moment for Europe and for freedom-loving people around the world. By launching his brutal assault on the people of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has also committed an assault on the principles that uphold global peace and democracy. But the people of Ukraine are resilient.
They’ve had a democracy for decades, and their bravery is inspiring the world. The United States, together with our Allies and partners across the globe, will continue to support the Ukrainian people as they defend their country. By choosing to pay for a war instead of investing in the needs of Russians, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will be a strategic failure for the Kremlin and ravage the future of the Russian people.
When the history of this era is written, it will show that Putin’s choice to launch an unprovoked, unjust, and premeditated attack left the West more unified and Russia exponentially weaker.
United in Our Response
This will not end well for Vladimir Putin. Together, the United States and our Allies and partners are taking action to hold Russia accountable. As a result of unprecedented global sanctions coordination, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, and Canada have removed selected Russian banks from the SWIFT messaging system and imposed restrictive measures on the Russian Central Bank.
President Biden announced sweeping financial sanctions and stringent export controls that will damage Russia’s economy, financial system, and access to cutting-edge technology. After Putin began his invasion, the ruble hit its weakest point in history, and the Russian stock market plunged.
Along with the United Kingdom and European Union, the United States imposed sanctions on the architects of this war, including Putin himself.
By moving in close coordination with a powerful coalition of Allies and partners representing more than half of the global economy, we have magnified the impact of our actions to impose maximum costs on Putin and his regime. In response to Putin’s war of choice, we will limit Russia’s ability to do business in U.S. dollars.
We will stunt Russia’s ability to finance and grow its military. We will impair Russia’s ability to compete in the global economy. And we are prepared to do more.
In addition to economic penalties, this week President Biden authorized an additional $1 billion over the $350 million of security assistance he recently approved, and a $650 million in 2021, to immediately help Ukraine defend itself, bringing America’s total security assistance to Ukraine over the past year to $2 billion.
We also stand ready to defend our NATO Allies. President Biden has coordinated with Allied governments to position thousands of additional forces in Germany and Poland as part of our commitment to NATO’s collective defense.
He authorized the deployment of ground and air forces already stationed in Europe to NATO’s eastern and southeastern flanks: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. Our Allies have also added their own forces and capabilities to ensure our collective defense. There should be no doubt about the readiness of the greatest military Alliance in the history of the world: NATO is more united than ever.
The United States has also coordinated with major oil-producing and consuming countries to underscore our common interest in securing global energy supplies. We are working with energy companies to surge their capacity to supply energy to the market, particularly as prices increase.
Putin’s Unprovoked and Premeditated War
This was an attack that Vladimir Putin has planned for a long time. He methodically moved more than 150,000 troops and military equipment to Ukraine’s border. He moved blood supplies into position and built field hospitals, demonstrating his intentions all along.
He rejected every good-faith effort by the United States and our Allies and partners to address his fabricated security concerns and to avoid needless conflict and human suffering by engaging in diplomacy and dialogue.
Putin executed his playbook exactly as we had warned he would do. We saw Russia’s proxies increase their shelling in the Donbas. We saw the Russian government launch cyber-operations against Ukraine. We saw staged political theater in Moscow and heard outlandish and baseless claims made about Ukraine in an attempt to justify Russia’s aggression.
Russia continues to justify its military aggression by falsely claiming the need to stop “genocide” in Ukraine – despite there being no evidence that genocide was occurring there. We saw Russia use these tactics before when they invaded Ukraine in 2014 and Georgia in 2008.
And then, at almost the very same moment the United Nations Security Council was meeting to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and forestall disaster, Putin launched his invasion in violation of international law. Missiles began to rain down, striking historic cities across Ukraine. Then came air raids, columns of tanks, and battalions of troops, all riding a renewed wave of disinformation and outright lies.
We have been transparent with the world. We declassified our intelligence about Russia’s plans so there could be no confusion and no cover up. Putin is the aggressor. Putin chose this war. And now his people will bear the consequences of his decision to invest in war rather than in them.
Transatlantic Unity and Resolve Stronger Than Ever
Putin’s goal of dividing the West has failed. In the face of one of the most significant challenges to European security and democratic ideals since World War II, the United States and our Allies and partners have joined together in solidarity. We have united, coordinating intensively to engage as one with Russia and Ukraine, provided assistance to Ukraine, developed a broad response, and reaffirmed our commitment to NATO.
Putin has failed to divide us. Putin has failed to undermine our shared belief in the fundamental right of sovereign nations to choose their destiny and their allies. And Putin will fail to erase the proud nation of Ukraine.
The next few days, weeks, and months will be incredibly difficult for the people of Ukraine. Putin has unleashed great suffering on them. But the Ukrainian people have known 30 years of independence, and they have repeatedly shown they will not tolerate anyone who tries to take their country backwards.
The world is watching this conflict closely, and if Russian forces commit atrocities, we will explore all international mechanisms that could be used to bring those responsible – whether members of the military or their civilian leadership – to account.
Putin’s aggression against Ukraine will cost Russia profoundly, both economically and strategically. The Russian people deserve better from their government than the immense cost to their future that this invasion has precipitated.
Liberty, democracy, and human dignity are forces far more powerful than fear and oppression. In the contest between democracy and autocracy, between sovereignty and subjugation, make no mistake: Freedom will prevail.