Connect with us
Advertisement

Just wild about harry

Stuart White

The World in Black-N-White

It’s finally out in the open!  The rumour mill has been working overtime for weeks with speculation about when the announcement would come and now we can all exhale.  It’s official – Prince Harry is engaged to be married to American Suits actress, Meghan Markle.  Rhymes with ‘sparkle’ – more about that later.  

I have no intention of making this piece about the royal romance, nor the very differing backgrounds of the couple.  The international media are full of that and no doubt will be for some time, filling an insatiable modern thirst for celebrity gossip.  No, I shall keep this far more locally focussed and merely point out the strong Botswana connection that runs through it all.

Princes Harry and elder brother William are known to love visiting the Delta.  Both Harry and William made a 2-day visit here together in 2010 to support the Tusk Trust, a local conservation group of which Prince William is Patron, following in the footsteps of their father, Prince Charles who paid a private visit here in 1984, visiting the Okavango, the Chobe River and the Kalahari, fulfilling a lifelong ambition of his to see for himself the place that had captivated his mentor and godfather, writer and explorer Laurens van der post. 

And Harry made frequent visits there in the early noughties, on his own and with his then girlfriend, Zimbabwean-born Chelsy Davey , although is first visit was much earlier, aged 13, two months after his mother, Princess Diana, died.   According to the London Evening Standard

According to the London Evening Standard “In January, the fifth in line to the throne became a  HYPERLINK "https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-harry-issues-rallying-cry-to-save-african-rhino-a3444796.html" patron of Rhino Conservation Botswana. He said at the time: ‘I’ve been lucky enough to visit Botswana for more than 20 years and I’m fortunate to be able to call it my second home.’ Prince Harry reportedly is a regular at bush camp site Meno a Kwena around the Maun area which is popular with ‘glamping’ tourists.”

Glamping is the right word.  Prices at the camp start at around £350 or P5000 per night, small change, of course, for royal princes and Hollywood stars.   This is where Harry first invited Meghan on a date and where they returned recently on her 36th birthday.  But the Botswana connection doesn’t stop there because tucked away in all the engagement column centimetres was the little snippet that the engagement ring is set around a diamond mined here as well.  See how apposite it is that Markle rhymes with sparkle – that’s what stars and diamonds do!

But before we get too carried away and blinded by Ms. Markle’s glamour and fame, let’s not forget that her relatively short career is completely eclipsed by a much bigger Hollywood star from a bygone era – the immortal Elizabeth Taylor, a child star who went on to work with some of Hollywood’s most famous men and even married her co-star in the blockbuster epic, Cleopatra, the hugely-talented Welsh actor, Richard Burton. 

In fact, so great was their passion and connection that they married the year after meeting on-set, in 1964, and though they subsequently divorced after a much-documented turbulent decade together in 1975, they just couldn’t stay away from each other and remarried a year later in 1975.  And where did these second nuptials take place?  Only right here in the Chobe Game Lodge at a time when the country was still very underdeveloped, and the Chobe area almost unknown outside of Botswana.  Having two Hollywood mega-stars not only come to visit but choose it to renew their wedding vows was, and is, a big deal!  

These famous endorsements should not go unmarked.  They have a value that far outstrips the mere fact that some famous people have holidayed here and that is their value to Brand Botswana.  You probably all know that unlike other regional countries, ours has a policy of upmarket tourism.  Backpackers and budget tourists, though not actively discouraged, are equally not encouraged to visit. 

The luxury camps, or glamps, in the Okavango are there to cater to wealthy European and American guests who, like Harry, can easily afford the high rates.  Though often criticised for being largely foreign-owned they bring huge benefits to the Maun area and to the country, offering employment in a rural district and bringing in high-rolling tourists spending money and contributing to the economy.

The message, then, to the Botswana Tourism Board, and to everyone involved in the local hospitality industry is to piggyback on this latest royal connection.  The couple plan on a European spring wedding, only 4 months away and during that time you can be certain that the mainstream and cyber media will not let this one go, so neither should we. 

We should be shouting from the rooftops about the country’s natural assets that attract the prince, his brother and his father; about the diamonds that lie under the Kalahari sand and soil and which now have the royal seal of approval, pointing out in every picture of the bride-to-be’s left hand that there sits and sparkles one of Botswana’s gemstones and if it’s good enough for the House of Windsor, it should be good enough for other about-to-be affianced young women.  

And though it hasn’t been officially decided or divulged yet, there is a good chance that ours will be the honeymoon destination of choice for this glamorous, wealthy, famous pair – what an advert that would be and what great advertising it could invoke.  I feel only a poem would serve as a fitting tribute so here goes

Twinkle, twinkle Netflix star
You bagged a prince and now you are
Up among a world so high
With our diamond he did buy!
And I’ll finish with a completely different
take on this whole story, a headline from
an American-based website which announced
the engagement as ‘FAMOUS ACTRESS TO
WED FORMER SOLDIER’ – two sides to
every story!

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!