I have in the recent past accommodated the idea that Batswana should take care of the former Presidents’ welfare after leaving office. I have also said the same about the same with respect to the former Vice Presidents. I have since turned against the idea as will be discussed hereunder. I will concede this conversation is prompted by the recent brouhaha over the now purportedly withdrawn Bills on the Presidents Pension and Retirement (Amendment) Bill No 12 of 2024 and the former Vice Presidents (Pensions and Retirement Benefits) Bill No 13 of 2024. Before delving on the subject matter, it is important to reflect on the ‘purported withdrawal’ of these controversial two Bills.
To start with, one more Bill was scheduled to be presented to the National Assembly by the Minister for State President Hon Kabo Morwaeng. And that is the Amendment of the Ministers and National Assembly Gratuities Act. This amendment was to be brought about by the creation of the Vice Presidents (Pension and Retirements) Bill whose effect would be the removal of the former Vice Presidents from benefitting from the Ministers and National Assembly Gratuities Act. The import of removing the Vice Presidents would not equate to the Ministers and Members of the National Assembly benefitting financially or otherwise from the Bill as would be the former Vice Presidents.
With respect to the withdrawal of the former Presidents and Vice Presidents Bills, Hon Morwaeng peddles some blatant untruths about the withdrawals and, he must be called out. He says in his statement of withdrawal that ‘Accordingly, the conduct of our national affairs as a sovereign State, has always been, and continues to be, gauged, assessed, critiqued and validated by invoking democratic principles, amongst them, being broad-based participation and consultation in decision-making on issues of national concern, and in the public interest.’
This is a blatant untruth regards being had to the withdrawn Bills. There was no broad-based participation and consultation about these Bills and he knows it. If there was any, he would have mentioned where and when such took place, what the terms of reference were and who participated. He must be reminded lest he believes I have forgotten that the country is saddled with a flawed Constitutional (Amendment) Bill where he and his government blatantly refused ‘broad-based participation’ by inter alia, civil society organisation and other key stakeholders. Hon Morwaeng goes further to talk about the timing of presenting the Bills by saying ‘The common sentiment is that this is not the time to bring such Bills’. The common sentiment is that there was no need to bring them in the first place and that Batswana cannot afford to continue to sponsor two individuals together with their immediate and distant family members to enjoy opulent lifestyles when we (Batswana) wallow in perpetual, desperate socio-economic circumstances.
He concludes by saying ‘…We will withdraw the Bills from Parliament pending further consultation.’ Further consultation with whom and for what purpose because people who should be consulted have already spoken hence the purported withdrawal? Nothing suggests Batswana who are speaking against such Bills will change their minds anytime soon if at all. The prevailing sentiment is that Batswana are fully aware that similar Bills whether downgraded or otherwise could resurface in the future and that importantly, they will offer the same if not heightened push-back against them. Hon Morwaeng must be reminded of the saying ‘you cannot fool people all the time’. The sum total of the Bills for former Presidents and VPs is a sign of a tone-deaf government whose intention is to loot Batswana to the last Thebe to fund the opulent lifestyles of the privileged. A government that has overstayed its welcome will behave this way: arrogant, complacent and falsely entitled. It’s a stink that will be in the air for the longest time. Back to the subject matter.
I argue very strongly that Batswana should no longer be burdened by providing for the welfare and upkeep of former Presidents post their retirement. The current salary of the President of the Republic is P110,425 per month. I am excluding the P 20,000 constituency allowance and some other such allowances I am not aware of. Added to these are the substantial allowances like per diem the President earns when travelling abroad and probably internal allowances for their internal travels.
The nation will be shocked if the true amounts of per diem the current President has earned this far since coming to office were revealed. It probably far exceeds his annual salary. The cumulative earnings of the President in Botswana terms, are good enough for him/her to create a comfortable retirement package for when he would have left office. Needless to mention that during his time in office, the President’s daily needs whether he is at the State House or his/her masimo are all catered for by us the taxpayers predictably at a huge cost. In a nutshell, the Presidents of Botswana do not use their salaries for their daily upkeep as is normally the case for gainfully employed persons elsewhere who over and above using their salaries for such upkeep, use it as well to contribute for their retirement upkeep.
What are Batswana rewarding former Presidents for? Presidents’ main performance indicators are the quality of the socio-economic circumstances their compatriots experience. And these will be inter alia, the quality of education and health care; that unemployment levels are kept as low as possible by creating sustainable and decent jobs; that corruption is meaningfully and effectively dealt with not through word of mouth but demonstrable and tangible interventions. As the term of the President is in its late afternoon, his performance indicators for these issues are well below the bare minimum standards. I will concede there will during any President’s tenure, unforeseen tragedies like the Covid-19 pandemic. But such tragedies should not be a scape goat because even where such never existed, socio-economic circumstances of the population remain as bad. I will not be averse to a once off thank you to a retiring President if during their tenure, the socio-economic circumstances of their compatriots would have remarkably improved.
The common thread that weaves retiring Presidents together is the destruction they leave their countries in. In some instances, they leave the presidency with the country worse off than they found it while they themselves leave ‘stinking rich’ than they were when getting into office. And this I must add, is not peculiar to Botswana. Nevertheless, the focus is on Botswana. Why should Batswana be burdened to reward a former President in whose office corruption was institutionalised-to this day, no one involved in Covid-19 corruption has been brought to book to account; why should Batswana be burdened to reward a former President who found it fit to amend/review the Constitution on his own terms and with his own hand-picked people; why should Batswana be burdened to reward a former President who is alleged to be influencing Court of Appeal justices to rule in a particular manner-remember Kgosi Mosadi’s allegations that have not been convincingly refuted and, why should Batswana be burdened by a former President who would have enhanced his retirement benefit double fold for no good cause?
Gone is the era where Presidents were said to have sacrificed their precious time to serve the nation. This era has come and gone. In came the era where offices of the President in Africa and elsewhere are used to cut high-end deals for them such that when vacate office, they are far richer than when they came into office. The case in point amongst others is the former President of Angola whose daughter was regarded as one of the richest women in Africa with a reported net worth exceeding US$ 2 billion until her world came down tumbling after the departure of her father from office. If the daughter was worth this much, it should be scary to imagine what the value of the father was.
I argue that Batswana should not be burdened with looking after former Presidents, particularly that in most cases they leave office when their compatriots are wallowing in humiliating socio-economic circumstances amongst others -the very thing they would have promised to prioritise when they took office but neglected due to the trappings of the high office to cut their own deals. Dumelang Saleshando has consistently told us how the President and his immediate family members have become rich since he came into office. If this is true, then the President is well endowed with financial resources to cater for themselves upon leaving office. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise as always. Judge for Yourself!