National Arts Council - A manipulative ploy for patronage!
This article is issued in the spirit of fairness and a broader notion of social justice in the arts, although it may seem an ideal that is hard to achieve in Botswana. Being an initiate of Augusto Boal’s Popular Theatre of the Oppressed and as a student of Paulo Freire’s literacy programme, and having worked alongside one of Africa’s Popular Theatre Gurus, the late ideological Ngugi Wa Merii, I write to argue that fairness is a dynamic category that has to be continuously re-negotiated. As in the words of the Fair Arts Almanac: “Fairness is constantly in a precarious state if we don’t care for it as an ongoing practice. Fairness cannot be reached by structural changes alone. As it is based on mutual trust, it has to be in constant public discussion - aware and woke to current economic, social, and political developments. The revolution has to be continuous.” In light of this afore-statement, I am thus of the strongest conviction that to perform its role in society, the arts sector needs to be aware of the injustices it reluctantly participates in or helps perpetuate and must develop strategies to avoid and counterbalance this tendency.
The deliberation of this article points to the crucial factors of the National Arts Council of Botswana (NACB) and its funding mechanisms, all of which was supposed to contribute to more equity in cultural promotions, capacity building, entertainment, competitions and awards ceremonies, and literary works. The NACB is a State Arts Agency that is officially designated and financially supported by the State to provide incentive grants designed to assist arts development in Botswana. Yet already, its funding and programming decisions are not made on criteria that take fairness and excellence into account, at least in my experience. My views about the NACB are influenced by my recent interaction with the institution as I happen to be one of the arts and culture workers who did apply for the September 2023 arts and culture grant for a book production and publication titled: “African Proverbs for Youth Character Building and Moral Education.” The aim to produce the book is meant to make a claim of our African philosophy (wise sayings), which will serve to offer guidance to children and youth in today’s wild world of wickedness and bastardisation of the African family mainly because they are a peoples’ cultural memory and they also teach about morals and character. The book will be written in eight local languages and translated in
English for purpose of universal access of the book.
As a cultural development practitioner, I had taken the launching of NACB to be a correct decisive step by the government towards the promotion of cultural industries in the context of broadening public access to the arts and reducing barriers to cultural participation. But my presupposition has come to be proven wrong. Despite being a newly established entity, the NnACB has already failed to demonstrate their ability to deliver value to the artists despite the fact that Botswana artists have shown amplified interest in the agency towards refinement of their artistic talents. In my exploration and observation of the processes and procedures of the NACB, I have to come to realise that it is an agency that is structured more than by formal rational-legal institution, but is also characterised by vertical patronage networks that function through hierarchical dyadic relationships between “personal authorities with power” and their political support network. It is an organ marked by inequalities, structural disbalances, complex power relations and influences.
The goal of the NACB it appears to be emerging more with the issue of neo-patrimonial decorative. The institution has to do less with genuine funding support towards more fairness, more flexibility and more inclusiveness for the betterment of Botswana’s cultural heritage and artistic creations. Its support does not provide fair access to arts resources, especially among underserved populations. To me, NACB is placed as a structural incentive to engage in kleptocratic activity that takes public funds and uses them as ‘excludable’ and ‘rival’ goods.
In my attempt to make an appeal on my proposal, which has been rejected on “shallow, fabricated excuses”, I have noticed that there is no precise and transparent assessment criteria by the NACB to understand on what basis applications were assessed. Although having its own board and management structure, there is no well-defined decision-making processes, including who gets to make the decision, how and why decision-makers are chosen and how they end up making their decisions on the feedback about proposals.
The feedback mechanism meant to provide clear, informed, personalised and respectful information for all applicants – including ones that were rejected – to make sure that artists and art workers can learn and or appeal from the process is questionable and suspect. I have been sent from pillar to post like a “ping-pong” ball in appealing my rejected proposal. I have been told to register my appeal with the Chief Executive Officer of NACB, who happens to be the one who signed the letter of rejection to my proposal. This is a clear deficit and crisis of ethical leadership, responsibility and accountability in the NACB administration. It is utter mockery of the public service mantras of “Mindset Change” and “Reset Agenda”.
I have come to discover that instead of providing an environment that promotes arts and culture growth and human development through a funding structure that is guided by inclusiveness and that promotes and reinforces the notion of fairness, the Arts Council staff has placed greater focus on diverting public revenue to a select group of constituents. I am deeply aware that many if not all of those whose proposals have received funding depended on how close they are to the “centres of state power.” This shows how unequal and dis-balanced the NACB is and how it is also actively contributing to further isolation and ghettoisation of certain art workers. The weak administration by NACB disproportionately hurts the Botswana artists and damages the cultural sector’s ability to provide jobs, goods and services to communities. This exclusion not only hurts the artists and their prospects of human development, but also reinforces the existing hierarchies on the society at large. Using institutions such as the NACB as an incentive for selfish predatory behaviour among those in power at the expense of the masses is unjust, irresponsible and has a serious negative consequence as regards the need to transform the abundance of talent and cultural assets of Botswana into thriving creative industries. This bad, unjust and unethical beginning by the NACB serves to distort the intent purpose of supporting arts and culture creatives.
The NACB is not able to recognise that grants are not a handout; they are a handup. Arts grants are the means through which a country can build a robust, self-sustaining creative ecosystem that benefits not only artists but society as a whole. Artists, like all other human beings, want justice, equity, transparency, responsibility and accountability. They want respect and human dignity. They want a decent life and an opportunity to feed, shelter and clothe their families. International research repeatedly shows that artistic work is burdened by precarity and insecurity, often leading to poor living, hence when we speak about arts and culture commodities and their communities, it is important to be concerned about justice. I seriously doubt if the NACB will accurately assess the country’s cultural needs and assets, then organise efforts to help the State achieve goals that are relevant to its policy priorities.
The current arts council cannot reduce barriers to public participation in the arts, such as those linked to poverty, geographic isolation, limited education, lack of information, disability, age or ethnicity. Precisely because to the NACB, grants are merely financial transactions, not investments in the human spirit. The NACB cannot understand that in the creative sector, grants provide the much-needed oxygen for innovation to flourish. They serve as catalysts for experimentation and risk-taking, allowing artists and cultural institutions to push boundaries and challenge conventions.
A true, fair, flexible and inclusive funding support requires understanding the context in which the artist or art worker is acting. It requires a deep understanding of artistic processes and the conditions of work and life of the artists, as well as the audiences and communities they address. It also necessitates insight into the specific situation, artistic or organisational evolution, even life experiences of the applying artist or art worker. A true, fair, flexible and inclusive funding is also one that seeks to achieve objectivity outside of the political agendas or even political pressures. Arts and culture development requires building and continuously reaffirming funding structures as safe spaces, rather than tools for short-term political priorities. It also requires putting additional efforts in building trust in institutions where this trust is lacking; eradicating nepotism and opacity in decision making processes and resisting untransparent lobbying; paying attention to the equal treatment of all potential beneficiaries) to prevent any kind of inherent bias or what is called the system of random choice or lottery.
All in all, fair arts funding systems can only stem from a broader agreement in society on the value of arts and artistic work. When arts, artists and artistic work are truly accepted as being of value to society, this acceptance can lead to treating artists with care and respect; acknowledging the amount of work required; the experimental nature of the practice that they develop and their specific needs. The presence of a national arts council must as a State arts agency ensure that all communities, regardless of their geographic location, political affiliation or economic status, are systematically and equitably served. An arts council proper needs to be positioned to provide strategic and equitable leadership and support to all areas of the arts fraternity.
The agency must demonstrate leadership in providing public access to the arts and arts education as well as addressing the needs of underserved communities. It must invest in grants that nurture our talents, celebrate our diversity, and elevate our voices so as to ensure that Africa’s cultural renaissance shines brilliantly on the global stage. In a fair, flexible and inclusive funding, arts grants enable the birth of new narratives, new sounds, and new visions that reflect the evolving world experience. That is the type of democracy and development most artists are striving for, not the one characterised by opportunism, personal advancement, enrichment, personal glorification and self-serving propaganda!
Yet in contrast, the NACB does not function like a state agency that possesses specialised expertise related to creative business development and cultural planning for sound stewardship of resources. Their competence, integrity, vision, commitment, and skills leave much to be desired in making the economic, educational and civic benefits of the arts available to all communities. I doubt if the agency has a comprehensive statewide plan for the arts that includes input from the public and is responsive to the needs of the artists. The current NACB in my opinion has been set up to act as a mere manipulative ploy that is masking the “hidden” patronage networks to expand opportunities for kleptocratic behaviour and private benefit as well as to influence the societal norms of who can participate in arts!