Mr. Khama, Moral Authority Requires Consistency
_By Farai Ruvanyathi_
Ian Khama is entitled to question Zambia’s governance. But to describe President Hakainde Hichilema as “Africa’s newest dictator” demands more than the authority of a former presidential title. It requires specific evidence and a reasoned argument. The reported exchange supplied neither.
This matters, and context matters even more.
During the administration of President Masisi, Mr Khama himself travelled to State House in Lusaka to meet President Hichilema, underscoring the simple fact that lines of communication have remained open. This is notable because when Mr Khama was President of Botswana and Mr Hichilema was an opposition leader, Mr Khama refused to meet him in Botswana to hear his views on governance in Zambia under the PF.
If engagement is possible now, it was surely possible then. Moral authority requires that consistency.
Mr Khama’s current interventions on Zambia have become so extreme that even a prominent Zambian opposition leader has severed his relationship with him. When your stridency alienates those you purport to support, it is time to pause and reflect.
This is particularly important given the platform from which Mr Khama now speaks. As a traditional leader serving in the Bastwana Ntlo ya Dikgosi he carries responsibilities that extend beyond personal political opinion. He may properly question ministers about foreign policy. Yet to use that platform to attach an inflammatory label to a neighbouring Head of State risks giving a personal judgement the appearance of institutional endorsement.
Zambia and Botswana deserve greater care. Their relationship must never become collateral damage in a former leader’s political interventions. Botswana’s minister was right to defend attendance at President Hichilema’s inauguration as an opportunity for engagement and an expression of good neighbourliness. Diplomacy creates space to raise questions; name-calling closes it.
Mr Khama should also approach this discussion with some humility. Freedom House documented concerns during his own presidency about the concentration of executive power, pressure on journalists, and the appointment of military officers and relatives to senior positions. These concerns complicate any attempt to present himself as the region’s unquestionable democratic conscience.
The record is specific. It includes the arrest and sedition charge against Sunday Standard editor Outsa Mokone in 2014, following reporting about an alleged accident involving Mr Khama. His administration also faced criticism over restrictions affecting the San/Basarwa communities’ residence and hunting rights. Those episodes warrant the same scrutiny he now directs at others.
That history does not remove his freedom to criticise. It does, however, undermine any claim to a monopoly on democratic virtue. An ambition to become the grandfather of moral politics in SADC and Africa cannot succeed through selective memory and sweeping judgements.
Like any other government in SADC, President Hichilema’s administration would be willing to engage legitimate questions about governance on their merits, using established channels. However, Mr Khama must substantiate his accusations and allow a fair response. Neither public office nor retirement confers exemption from that standard.
Mr Khama seems to want to be a school captain for the SADC region. He has picked unilateral fights with Zimbabwe and Angola. It’s high time his government calls him to order.
Our region needs former leaders who bring perspective, consistency and the patience to encourage dialogue. Mr Khama can contribute to that work. He should begin by replacing inflammatory labels with precise arguments, and by treating the friendship between Zambia and Botswana with the sensitivity and respect it deserves.
Farai Ruvanyathi is a Zambian political and governance analyst based in Kimberley, Northern Cape, South Africa