‘Peace on earth and goodwill to all men’: That’s the message from the Bible for Christmastime, when Christians celebrate the birth of the son of God in a stable because there was no room at the inn. A humble beginning for a symbolic figure whose humility was meant to save the world and show mankind salvation.
And yet, tuning in to the news this week, there are so many places on earth suffering war, not peace, and there seems to be very little goodwill to all men, or women, or children:
Monday saw 12 people mown down attending a Christmas market in the German city of Berlin. These included stallholders, plying their festive wares, locals enjoying the pre-Christmas festivities and foreign visitors to German’s most vibrant, cosmopolitan city. It also included the Polish driver of the truck hijacked by a man intent on killing as many market-goers as he could, shooting the driver in cold blood before finishing off his murderous rampage in an open market filled with ordinary people like you and I, buying gifts and festive foods for their family and friends and getting into the Christmas spirit – the one of peace and goodwill. Alas, 12 of them are now lying in a mortuary and their families are left grieving.
On the same day, there was news footage of the Russian ambassador to Turkey shot dead in front of rolling cameras in a scene which looked as though it was footage from a movie; a gunman, an off-duty policeman immaculately dressed and blending into the group of visitors to the Russian-sponsored photographic exhibition, standing just behind his victim and shooting him once from where he stood, then coolly approaching the now prostrate figure and shooting him again at point- blank rage and in cold blood, before triumphantly brandishing his weapon and proclaiming ‘Don’t forget Aleppo’, a reference to Russia’s involvement in the ongoing Syrian conflict. Hollywood couldn’t have made it look more staged or more dramatic if it tried.
But undoubtedly the most chocking of all is the footage that emerged from Syria of the parents of 2 small girls sending one child off to its death with a bomb strapped somewhere on her person. Footage shows the father lecturing the two children, seven and nine, about how to carry out suicide bomb attacks before they are embraced by their mother, dressed in a traditional in a burka.
With music in the background and sitting in front of a black and white flag, the ranting extremist holds the girls in his arms as he brainwashes them. Both girls then say 'Allahu Akbar' before separate footage shows them dressed in coats and woolly hats as they embrace their mother and leave the room. A short time later, the seven-year-old is believed to have walked into a police station in Syria's capital, Damascus, before being killed in an explosion which also injured three policemen.
That any parent could send their own small child off to certain death is frankly beyond belief, no matter what the cause. A parent’s first and only function is to nurture and protect their children and such an act goes against the very fibre of most of our beings.
Following the Berlin incident, many pundits on terror tactics reported that on social media sites, vehicles are now being actively promoted as weapons of murder and mayhem; they are easy to get hold of, usage requires very little training and they are unobtrusive right up to the last minute. On the other hand, guns and bombs usually require specialist training in usage and in places where security is in place, are easily detectable. Yet no-one would look twice at a delivery truck driving through a city centre and absolutely no-one would suspect a 7-year old girl of being an albeit uncomprehending suicide bomber.
Though the timing of the child’s deadly errand and the assassination of the ambassador can only be tenuously linked to the time of year, the attack on market goers and stall-holders was undoubtedly fully intended to create fear and confusion amongst Christians in the run-up to one of their most important religious calendar dates. The venue, a Christmas market, is significant but more so was the date, less than a week before Christmas Day, the day of the nativity or birth of Christ.
And yet the figure of Jesus Christ is also regarded as a prophet in Islam and as such most Muslims are not only tolerant of this Christian festival but themselves embrace many of its traditions. Consider this paragraph from Wikipedia: "Jesus" Jesus, is understood to be the penultimate "Prophets and messengers in Islam" prophet and messenger of "Allah" Allah ( HYPERLINK "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam" o "God in Islam" God) and "Messiah" al-Masih, the Arabic term for "Messiah" Messiah, the " "Christ (title)" Christ", sent to guide the "Israelites" Children of Israel (banÄ« isrÄ'Ä«l in Arabic) with a new revelation: "Gospel in Islam" al-InjÄ«l (Arabic for "the HYPERLINK "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_gospel" o "The gospel" Gospel"). Jesus is believed to be a prophet, who neither married nor had any children, and is reflected as a significant figure, being mentioned in the Quran in 93 ayaat (Arabic for verses) with various titles attached such as "Son of "Mary, mother of Jesus" Mary", "Spirit of God", and the " "Logos (Christianity)" Word of God" among other relational terms, directly and indirectly, over 180 times’.
And when the Bible references peace on earth and goodwill to all men, that is understood to be all-encompassing – personal belief systems, colour, creed, nationality, sexuality, there is no distinction. Here in Botswana it seems we are distanced from such problems and our society is in the main extremely tolerant and pacifist, so much so that is often hard to comprehend the depth of hatred and division that exists elsewhere. My only wish this Christmas is that we could somehow extract this local essence, bottle it and send it wherever it’s needed because if the above are anything to go by, it can’t come onto the market too soon.
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.
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
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’!