By Sunduzwayo Madise
30 December 2014
In a game of chess, whatever gambit you chose, the idea is always to plan
ahead. You must always be several moves ahead and consider the: what if scenario. What is important also
is whether you have a backup or an 'escape route'? And in every game of chess
the king must always be protected. The king is not the most powerful piece in
the game, but is the most important. He must be shielded and protected at all
times. When the king is captured or cornered it is curtains; game over. Now
clearly this game was conceived when the thought of a female sovereign was
inconceivable – how times have changed! We will return to this analogy of chess
but let us extend the discussion to another aspect of the sovereign.
Traditionally, ambassadors were personal representatives of the sovereign. They
were appointed and accountable to the sovereign. However in recent times we
have noted that sovereignty has moved from a person (such as the Queen) to the
state. This is the state of affairs in Malawi where we have a constitutional democracy
and the doctrine of separation of powers calls for checks and balances between
the three arms of government. Under this doctrine we have a head of the
executive, head of the legislature and head of the judiciary. All these are
under the head of state. In the UK the Queen is head of state, the Prime Minister
is head of the executive. In Malawi the President is both head of the executive
as well as head of state. However in making his decisions, he will do so as
either head of state or head of the executive. Where his decision needs
approval by another arm of government, then clearly he is exercising functions
of head of the executive. To ensure that there is checks and balances with the
doctrine of separation of powers, modern democracies now require that certain
positions like of ambassador be approved by Parliament. Parliamentary approval is
a recent addition to the doctrine of checks and balances. The President as head
of the executive appoints, then another body, Parliament approves this
appointment. When Parliament has approved, the President as head of state now
sends the envoy yonder. Ideally this system should ensure that the candidate
that gets the final nod is the right candidate to represent our state. Two
recent appointments in which both appointees have turned down (or as they said
themselves: “opted out”) amidst rumours of rejection by the recipient countries
have prompted the writing of this piece. If true, this demonstrates a failure
in the system at many levels.
I can say without fear of contradiction
that both Dr Heatherwick Ntaba and Mr Thoko Banda are highly intelligent
people. Hearing Mr Banda reminds me of the extremely articulate and highly
intelligent Aleke Banda, his father. In the days of old we did not call Dr
Ntaba talking computer for nothing.
The man has a grasp of issues and speaks with conviction. Yes the fact that he
speaks the Queen’s language with such finesse adds up to the mystique. Sadly
however intelligence is not always equal to wisdom.
Mr Banda was appointed Ambassador to Zimbabwe.
It later transpired that he had said some not-so-flattering things about the
comrade. It is rumoured Harare made it
clear that the Ambassador-designate was persona
non-grata. Mr Banda then went on various media trying to explain himself;
and in the process said that in fact he had not been consulted before the
appointment. Ooops! Now people have asked:
is Mr Banda not entitled to air his opinions? What happened to freedom of
speech? And therein in lies the problem. He may be so entitled but maybe the
question to be asked is whether he was wise to be so blunt, especially if he
was planning for political office or diplomatic service. I read the article
that caused all the furore and it reminded me of the phrase shooting off the hip. Shooting off the
hip in this regard describing a person who does not censor their actions or
words. At this point I recall the song by Robert Fumulani; ukayenda kumasiya phazi osati mulomo chifukwa mulomo uzakupeza.[1]
Which brings us squarely to the good
doctor. During the time of the late Bingu, Dr Ntaba was part of the President’s
press and PR team. And one thing you can bet on Dr Ntaba is that he will never disappoint.
So during those politically charged moments when the British High Commissioner
was given orders to leave, resulting in a tense diplomatic stand-off, Dr Ntaba
naturally had to be on the side of the big
kahuna[2].
Do I believe that Dr Ntaba believed the strength of his own arguments? No, definitely
not. Do I believe that he nonetheless spoke with passion and conviction? Definitely
yes. What was clear was he was shooting
off the hip. Once again we have a situation where Dr Ntaba may not have
been wise considering posterity. In hindsight he was not wise at all. He ought
to have censored his words or exercised an element of restraint. But it is easy
for us to say this after the fact, but nonetheless it is a lesson which
hopefully others have learnt from. Therefore rumours that London indicated that
Dr Ntaba would not be received as our emissary by the Queen are not surprising.
In fact what is surprising is that these appointments were made in the manner
they were in the first place.
When the Secretary to the President and
Cabinet (SPC) was asked about the recent appointments to parastatal boards (in
which some folk turned down and cried I
was not-consulted), the SPC boldly said they do not consult before making appointments.
That got me worried. I read in that response that they either do not have time
to consult (which is worrying) or they do not bother to consult (which is very worrying).
And if this consultation does not extend to ambassadors then it is even more worrying.
And should we be surprised when one day a person happily rotting in their grave
is appointed?
I did say earlier that this has exposed
failure of systems at many levels. How are candidates appointed to key
positions vetted? Is there even a process of vetting candidates?
If we refer back to the chess analogy, shouldn’t
we have someone or some pipo planning
ahead and contemplating what the other side might do? The Catholics gave us a
good name for this, devil’s advocate.[3] Shouldn’t
we have someone play devil advocate? Dig out any dirt and lay it on the table?
And like a game of chess, shouldn’t we have someone getting into the shoes of
the 'opponents'? Now I am aware that Public Appointments Committee (PAC) of
Parliament is not exactly an opponent in the traditional sense but in this game
theory, the other side is treated as though they are. Shouldn’t someone pre-empt
PAC and what they will say or ask? Shouldn’t someone conduct an individual risk
analysis for all key positions before they are thrown to the lion’s den? Now
playing devil’s advocate does not mean that the candidate will not come out successful, it just helps to prepare for
any nasty surprises. And surprises have an uncanny habit of being brutally
nasty. As it is said forewarned is forearmed.
Let us start with our intelligence
service(s). I am aware that the intelligence service performs important state
functions to ensure that our country is safe from its ‘enemies’. However it is
no secret that intelligence services do more than this. Intelligence services
do a lot of information gathering. So let us assume the President intends to
appoint one Mr Thoko Banda as Ambassador to Zimbabwe, shouldn’t the first thing
be a request to the Director General of the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB)
for a full dossier on Mr Banda before the President makes it official? Now let
us be honest, information gathering these days is a different business altogether
comparing to the days of old. It is a sophisticated art which depends on use of
technology. For one it needs a lot of resources. I cannot say it for a fact,
because I do not know, but if there are no high speed and high capacity computers
and fast access to data channels (including the internet) at NIB offices then
Government needs to invest in this yesterday. Furthermore, to make sense out of
data collected, needs analysis. Qualification for intelligence analysts should not
be being a party royalist. We need people who have been trained at least at tertiary
level. They should be able to read chatter on the internet; social media and
draw a picture based on evidence. Intelligence analysts think in multi-dimensional
visions. They look at pieces of information and draw patterns. They connect
dots which most of us cannot. Like a game of chess they contemplate the next
move and several moves ahead. All intelligence organs the world over are now using
the internet as an information gold mine; usually within the law but at times
outside the law. There is always a big brother watching; what he is watching
though is what matters. Information not gossip; not opinions is what counts. Analysts
should be able to dig out information of every intended appointee such that a
dossier is presented to the President before the actual appointment is made. So
if the NIB cannot do this for people appointed as Ambassadors then it is clear more
resources and efforts need to be injected to enhance its information analysis
functions. Put simply, a dossier should have been presented to the President
indicating that there were likely to be problems in having Mr Banda appointed
to Zimbabwe and Dr Ntaba to the UK. It is elementary actually when one thinks
about it, so basic that it boggles the mind how this was even allowed.
Let me digress a little here. I am told
that two appointees; Mr Banda and Mr Voice Mhone all said they mothers come
from Thyolo. Now only a stranger in
Jerusalem would fail to connect the importance of Thyolo; the home district
of the President. My question is why is this information even important or
necessary? Did PAC actually ask these two Malawians where they mothers come
from? If so then I have big problems on the mandate of PAC. Should they be discriminating
Malawians based on their origins really? Shouldn’t being Malawian enough? Reminds
me of the Traffic Police when they stop you for a traffic offence and ask for
your tribe! Really? What has my being Ngoni got to do that I maybe a bad
driver? I hope the Police are aware that this is a colonial left-over legacy
which profiled Nyasalanders! I decided a long time ago that my tribe is
Malawian. This has irked several people but I have decided to stick to my
convictions. Now this doesn’t mean I am not proud of my Ngoni heritage but I
refuse to be containerised in this
imperial manner 50 years after our independence. In the UK, where we got these regulations
from, no one asks this anymore. In fact it would be a scandal if a Police
Officer did that!
So back to the issue at hand, and to
conclude, Government should have information on its people. This does not mean
spying on them although it is an open secret that all governments spy on their
subjects anyway. In fact you would be naïve if you think they do not or should
not, especially in these days when there is so much digital footprint left in
all our digital voyages. No organisation can succeed without an element of spying
and information gathering. No leader can successfully lead his or her people
without gathering information about those being led or governed. It is just
part of the business. Collecting vital information that can enhance decision
making is therefore part of management. Before the President appoints people to
become board members of parastatals, he should have a dossier about each of
them to see whether they are fit and proper for the appointments. Then there
needs to be a mechanism to obtain their prior approval, especially if there are
indications that they may reject the appointment. This information can only be
provided by those in the information gathering business. Ideally the President or
his emissary should actually have chat with any person targeted for a public
appointment of state importance to ensure the issue of acceptance is taken out
of the way. Sometimes in this chat, the appointee-to-be may actually indicate
any bottle-necks or pitfalls that exist and a plan may be worked out in advance
(hoping in the honesty of people to tell the truth). Crucially before he
appoints any Ambassador, the President must satisfy himself that they will pass
the PAC test as well as have no barriers to be accepted by the recipient country.
Does this mean that background check will guarantee that PAC will always
approve the President’s appointees? No, but the answer to this lies in the
realm of politics which is outside the scope of this piece.
[1] Ideally when you travel, leave a
good name (of your conduct), avoid leaving a bad image (bad mouthing) because
the character will one day surely catch up with you (or your ‘bad mouth’ will
follow you)
[2] Big kahuna was coined by Ralph
Tenthani and Dr Ntaba tried to convince the nation that it was a derogative
reference to the President. He was of course wrong. Big kahuna is a term
referring to the boss, leader or chief. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/big_kahuna
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate
Malawi had it coming; I am not sure if NIB would have prevented the gaffe, considering that there are some untouchables in certain circles. This is a well articulated piece.
ReplyDelete