Connect with us
Advertisement

Advertising ban on private media is draconian!

Ndulamo Anthony Morima
EAGLE WATCH

That, as reported in several newspapers, government has confirmed its decision to ban advertising in some private media entities is regrettable. Clearly, as was alleged when the news first broke out, the decision is intended to starve the affected media houses of a significant source of income. Obviously, the plan is to force such media houses out of business, curtail their robust reporting due to limited resources or force them to change their editorial policies and be either sympathetic to the ruling Botswana Democratic Party(BDP) or be ‘neutral’.  

The claim by the Permanent Secretary to the President (PSP), Carter Morupisi, that the decision was necessitated by the need to minimize costs is not convincing. This is especially true considering that he initially denied that government had taken such a decision. If the decision were motivated by cost saving why have such other private media houses as The Voice, The Ngami Times, Duma FM and Yarona FM been spared of the ban? What criterion was used to designate them as ‘approved’ private media? Was the criteria used, if any, objective? Is advertising with them free or cheaper compared to the ‘non-approved’ private media’?

Can the allegation that these ‘approved’ media houses have been spared because they are sympathetic to the ruling BDP be dismissed as unfounded? What about the allegation that some of these ‘approved’ media houses are owned and/or co-owned by some influential members of the BDP? As regards Yarona FM, for example, is it not the very radio station that His Honor the Vice President, Mokgweetsi Masisi, was, in the run up to the 2014 general elections, secretly recorded saying the BDP was in negotiations with it to participate in its Parliamentary Candidates debates and to sabotage those of Gabz FM?

Government’s decision to divide the private media into ‘approved’ and ‘non-approved’ is clearly a strategy to divide and rule the private media. The two divides are likely to view each other with suspicion, and are unlikely to support each other in issues that require a united voice by the private media. During this stand-off government may introduce anti freedom of expression laws and policies in anticipation of diminished and divided opposition from the private media.

The decision to divide the private media will inarguably have an adverse effect on the standard of journalism in the country. While the ‘approved’ private media are likely to abdicate their journalistic duties and ethics to appease the hand that feeds them, the ‘non-approved’ private media may, in an effort to punish the government and/or the BDP, do likewise and be unduly and overly critical of government. Also, whoever will fill the advertising void left by government with respect to the ‘non-approved’ private media may influence the standard of reporting in such advertiser’s favour.

Worse still, some ‘non-approved’ private media may, in an effort to regain favour with government, start self-censoring themselves. Self-censorship is the worst enemy to freedom of the press, and once it starts it is difficult to stop. If it is done by editors we are likely to witness an exodus of journalists who may, realizing that the freedom of expression they thought existed in the private media does not exist, leave the profession.  If it is done by journalists, with editors being complicit, those who violate Batswana’s rights and squander our people’s resources and heritage will have a field day as they will go unchecked.

Certainly, if government was truly motivated by the need to save costs it needed not to adopt such a drastic measure as a complete ban of advertising in some private media. Rather, it could have developed an Advertising Policy to guide government departments and parastatals on the amount of money that can be spent on advertising and the nature of adverts that can be placed in all media, not only private media.

Also, if cost saving were indeed a concern for government, government could have developed a comprehensive cost saving strategy which covers not only the private media, but also covers other expenditure areas. The national coffers, for example, continues bleeding because of exorbitant expenditure in procurement of luxury vehicles, holding of unproductive and politically motivated so-called ‘pitsos’, implementation of unsustainable and partisan or personality driven pet projects, e.t.c.

This decision by government no doubt tramples on freedom of expression. It is calculated to compel the private media, which because of our low population depends on government advertising to continue in business, to report with fear and favour. It seeks to compel the private media to report in support of the status quo which will only benefit the ruling BDP. It seeks to convert the private media into state media, thereby merely serving as a channel of communication that promotes government policies and programmes.

There is no doubt that it is decisions like these that negatively affect our country’s world rankings. No wonder with respect to the ‘Press Freedom Index’, Botswana, with the lowest being the perfect score, attained 22.9 and 15.5 in 2014 and 2009 respectively, suffering a decline of 7.4. A government that cares about its international standing, as ours professes to, cannot, immediately after suffering such a decline, introduce such an irrational anti-freedom of expression measure. A government that cares about achieving its own national Vision cannot, less than a year before the Vision 2016 timeframe ends, stoop so low as to kill its own watchdog.  

Instead of blaming the private media for its decline in popular support which manifested itself at the 2014 general elections, government and/or the BDP should introspect and toil to regain Batswana’s confidence. This it can do by returning to the path of respect for democracy and citizen liberties. Thinking that it can regain its support by keeping Batswana in the dark as a result of a weakened private media is a mistake that government and/or the BDP will live to regret. History has shown that no amount of subjugation or silencing can repel the winds of change.

The so-called ‘approved’ private media should be weary of the ‘gesture’ or ‘favour’ that government is extending to it. It will certainly come at a cost. The essence of journalism is that it should stand guard over a country’s democracy. This can only be achieved if journalists selfishly defend their independence which is their most valued asset. A true journalist should neither be a friend nor an enemy to anyone. He or she should never be approved by anyone. In fact, he or she should rather be disapproved, for very few people like being told the truth. A true journalist should only befriend one constant friend, independence. If he or she were to be unfaithful and have more than one friend that other friend should be truth.

Continue Reading

Columns

DIS Parley Committee selection disingenuous 

25th November 2020

Intelligence and Security Service Act, which is a law that establishes the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Service (DIS), provides for establishment of a Parliamentary Committee. Recently, the President announced nine names of Members of Parliament he had appointed to the Committee.

This announcement was preceded by a meeting the President held with the Speaker and the Leader of Opposition. Following the announcement of Committee MPs by the President, the opposition, through its leader, made it clear that it will not participate in the Committee unless certain conditions that would ensure effective oversight are met. The opposition acted on the non-participation threat through resignation of its three MPs from the Committee.

The Act at Section 38 provides for the establishment of the Committee to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Directorate. The law provides that the Parliamentary Committee shall have the same powers and privileges set out under the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.

On composition, the Committee shall consist of nine members who shall not be members of Cabinet and its quorum shall be five members.  The MPs in the Committee elect a chairperson from among their number at their first meeting.

The Members of the Committee are appointed by the President after consultation with the Speaker of the National Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly. It is the provision of the law that the Committee, relative to its size, reflect the numerical strengths of the political parties represented in the National Assembly.

The Act provides that that a member of the Committee holds office for the duration of the Parliament in which he or she is appointed.  The Committee is mandated to make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the President and may at any time report to him or her on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.

The Minister responsible for intelligence and security is obliged to lay before the National Assembly a copy of each annual report made by the Committee together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of the provision of the Act.

If it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Parliamentary Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Directorate, the Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before the National Assembly.

So, what are the specific demands of the Opposition and why are they not participating in the Committee? What should happen as a way forward? The Opposition demanded that there be a forensic audit of the Directorate. The DIS has never been audited since it was set up in 2008, more than a decade ago.

The institution has been a law unto itself for a longtime, feared by all oversight bodies. The Auditor General, who had no security of tenure, could not audit the DIS. The Directorate’s personnel, especially at a high level, have been implicated in corruption.  Some of its operatives are in courts of law defending corruption charges preferred against them. Some of the corruption cases which appeared in the media have not made it to the courts.

The DIS has been accused of non-accountability and unethical practices as well as of being a burden on the fiscus.  So, the Opposition demanded, from the President, a forensic audit for the purpose of cleaning up the DIS.  They demand a start from a clean slate.

The second demand by the Opposition is that the law be reviewed to ensure greater accountability of the DIS to Parliament. What are some of the issues that the opposition think should be reviewed? The contention is that the executive cannot appoint a Committee of Parliament to scrutinize an executive institution.

Already, it is argued, Parliament is less independent and it is dominated by the executive. It is contended that the Committee should be established by the Standing Orders and be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament. There is also an argument that the Committee should report to Parliament and not to the President and that the Minister should not have any role in the Committee.

Democratic and Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence is relatively a new phenomenon across the World. Even developed democracies are still grappling with some of these issues. However, there are acceptable standards or what might be called international best practices which have evolved over the past two or so decades.

In the UK for instance, MPs of the Intelligence and Security Committee are appointed by the Houses of Parliament, having been nominated by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is a good balancing exercise of involvement of both the executive and the legislature. Consultation is taken for granted in Botswana context in the sense that it has been reduced to just informing the Leader of Opposition without much regard to his or her ideas; they are never taken seriously.

Furthermore, the current Committee in the UK has four Members of the ruling party and five MPs from the opposition. It is a fairly balanced Committee in terms of Parliamentary representation. However, as said above, the President of Botswana appointed six ruling party MPs and three from the opposition.

The imbalance is preposterous and more pronounced with clear intentions of getting the executive way through the ruling party representatives in the Committee. The intention to avoid scrutiny is clear from the numbers of the ruling party MPs in the Committee.

There is also an international standard of removing sensitive parts which may harm national security from the report before it is tabled in the legislature. The previous and current reluctance of the executive arms to open up on Defence and Security matters emanate from this very reason of preserving and protecting national security.

But national security should be balanced with public interest and other democratic principles. The decision to expunge certain information which may be prejudicial to national security should not be an arbitrary and exclusive decision of the executive but a collective decision of a well fairly balanced Committee in consultation with the Speaker and the minister responsible.

There is no doubt that the DIS has been a rogue institution. The reluctance by the President to commit to democratic-parliamentary oversight reforms presupposes a lack of commitment to democratization. The President has no interest in seeing a reformed DIS with effective oversight of the agency.

He is insincere. This is because the President loathes the idea losing an iota of power and sharing it with any other democratic institution. He sees the agency as his power lever to sustain his stay in the high office. He thought he could sanitize himself with an ineffective DIS Committee that would dance to his tune.

The non-participation of the opposition MPs renders the Committee dysfunctional; it cannot function as this would be unlawful. Participation of the opposition is a legal requirement. Even if it can meet, it would lack legitimacy; it cannot be taken seriously. The President should therefore act on the oversight demands and reform the DIS if he is to be taken seriously.

Continue Reading

Columns

The Maccabean Uprising

25th November 2020
Jewish freedom fighters

 Jews drive away occupying power under the command of guerrilla leader Judas Maccabees but only just

Although it was the Desolation Sacrilege act, General Atiku, that officially sparked the Maccabean revolt, it in truth simply stoked the fires of an already simmering revolution. How so General?

This content is locked

Login To Unlock The Content!

 

Continue Reading

Columns

Atomic (CON)Fusion

25th November 2020

For years I have trained people about paradigm shifts – those light-bulb-switch-on moments – where there is a seismic change from the usual way of thinking about something to a newer, better way. 

I like to refer to them as ‘aha’ moments because of the sudden understanding of something which was previously incomprehensible. However,  the topic of today’s article is the complete antithesis of ‘aha’.  Though I’d love to tell you I’d had a ‘eureka ‘, ‘problem solved’ moment, I am faced with the complete opposite – an ‘oh-no’ moment or Lost Leader Syndrome.

No matter how well prepared or capable a leader is. they often find themselves facing perplexing events, confounding information, or puzzling situations. Confused by developments of which they can’t make sense and by challenges that they don’t know how to solve they become confused, sometimes lost and completely clueless about what to do.

I am told by Jentz and Murphy (JM) in ‘What leaders do when they don’t know what to do’ that this is normal, and that rapid change is making confusion a defining feature of management in the 21st century.  Now doesn’t that sound like the story of 2020 summed up in a single sentence?

The basic premise of their writing is that “confusion is not a weakness to be ashamed of but a regular and inevitable condition of leadership. By learning to embrace their confusion, managers are able to set in motion a constructive process for addressing baffling issues.

In fact, confusion turns out to be a fruitful environment in which the best managers thrive by using the instability around them to open up better lines of communication, test their old assumptions and values against changing realities, and develop more creative approaches to problem solving.”

The problem with this ideology however is that it doesn’t help my overwhelming feelings of fear and panic which is exacerbated by a tape playing on a loop in my head saying  ‘you’re supposed to know what to do, do something’. My angst is compounded by annoying motivational phrases also unhelpfully playing in my head like.

  • Nothing happens until something moves
  • The secret of getting ahead is getting started

and

  • Act or be acted upon

All these platitudes are urging me to pull something out of the bag, but I know that this is a trap. This need to forge ahead is nothing but a coping mechanism and disguise. Instead of owning the fact that I haven’t got a foggy about what to do, part of me worries that I’ll lose authority if I acknowledge that I can’t provide direction – I’m supposed to know the answers, I’m the MD!  This feeling of not being in control is common for managers in ‘oh no’ situations and as a result they often start reflexively and unilaterally attempting to impose quick fixes to restore equilibrium because, lets be honest, sometimes we find it hard to resist hiding our confusion.

To admit that I am lost in an “Oh, No!” moment opens the door not only to the fear of losing authority but also to a plethora of other troubling emotions and thoughts:  *Shame and loss of face: “You’ll look like a fool!” * Panic and loss of control: “You’ve let this get out of hand!” * Incompetence and incapacitation: “You don’t know what you’re doing!”

As if by saying “I’m at a loss here” is tantamount to declaring “I am not fit to lead.” Of course the real problem for me and any other leader is if they don’t admit when they are disoriented, it sends a signal to others in the organisation stating it’s not cool to be lost and that, by its very nature encourages them to hide.  What’s the saying about ‘a real man never asks for direction. ..so they end up driving around in circles’.

As managers we need to embrace the confusion, show vulnerability (remember that’s not a bad word) and accept that leadership is not about pretending to have all the answers but about having the courage to search with others to discover a solution.

JM point out that “being confused, however, does not mean being incapacitated.  Indeed, one of the most liberating truths of leadership is that confusion is not quicksand from which to escape but rather the potter’s clay of leadership – the very stuff with which managers can work.”

2020 has certainly been a year to remember and all indications are that the confusion which has characterised this year will still follow us into the New Year, thereby making confusion a defining characteristic of the new normal and how managers need to manage. Our competence as leaders will then surely be measured not only by ‘what I know’ but increasingly by ‘how I behave when I accept, I don’t know, lose my sense of direction and become confused.

.I guess the message for all organizational cultures going forward is that sticking with the belief that we need all-knowing, omni-competent executives will cost them dearly and send a message to managers that it is better to hide their confusion than to address it openly and constructively.

Take comfort in these wise words ‘Confusion is a word we have invented for an order not yet understood’!

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