THE political landscape of Southern Africa has recently been unsettled by allegations and accusations that seem more like desperate attempts to discredit the legitimacy of revolutionary parties than genuine grievances. At the forefront of this is former Botswana President Ian Khama, whose latest diatribes against Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU PF reflect not only a failure to adapt to the evolving dynamics of African politics but also a deeper alignment with narratives that undermine the liberation movements in Africa. Khama’s conduct is not just unbecoming of a former Head of State, but also reveals a troubling pattern of hypocrisy, selective outrage and political manipulation that seeks to delegitimise governments elected through democratic processes. In recent comments, Ian Khama accused the revolutionary party ZANU PF of attempting to interfere in the electoral processes of Botswana and called on SADC to sanction Zimbabwe if it was proved that it also interfered in Namibia’s elections. His allegations range from claiming Botswana’s Independent Electoral Commission undertook ‘dubious’ bench-marking trips to Zimbabwe, to suggesting that Zimbabwean nationals wanted to vote for Botswana’s ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP).

Khama also points to frequent intelligence visits between Zimbabwe and Botswana and attempts to relax immigration rules for Zimbabweans as evidence of interference. These accusations are riddled with inconsistencies and lack evidence. They are based on conjecture and hearsay rather than objective facts. For instance, the bench-marking trips by Botswana’s IEC to Zimbabwe could easily be seen as a legitimate eff ort to learn from a neighbour with extensive experience in conducting elections. Intelligence exchanges between neighbouring countries are routine and not inherently suspicious, especially given shared security interests. The proposal to ease immigration rules for Zimbabweans aligns with broader regional integration eff orts advocated by SADC. Khama’s claims are not only unsubstantiated but also dangerously infl ammatory. They risk undermining the credibility of democratic processes across the region.

A now recurring theme in African politics is the notion that revolutionary parties are on their way out and desperate. This is a fallacy that has gained traction in Western narratives about Africa, often perpetuated by local actors like Khama who align themselves with these external interests. According to this logic, any electoral outcome favouring ruling parties, particularly liberation movements, is automatically suspect. This perspective is not only simplistic but also deeply condescending to African electorates, who are portrayed as incapable of making independent, rational choices.

Khama’s accusations against ZANU PF are strikingly similar to the narratives promoted by Western governments and media. These narratives often portray liberation movements as authoritarian relics, out of touch with modern governance and resistant to reform. The selective focus on revolutionary parties refl ects a double standard that prioritises Western geopolitical interests over genuine democratic principles.

Khama’s alignment with these narratives is particularly troubling given his background as a former leader of a country that has historically valued neutrality and independence in its foreign policy. By parroting Western false narratives that seek to undermine regional solidarity, Khama is proving himself not to be a respectable African elder statesman but a sour old man. One of the most persistent myths propagated by critics like Khama is that liberation movements have outlived their usefulness. This argument is not only ahistorical but also dismissive of the significant progress these movements have made in post-independence Africa. Liberation movements were born out of struggles against colonialism and apartheid and their victories laid the foundation for modern African states. Their continued relevance lies in their ability to adapt to changing circumstances while remaining true to their core principles of sovereignty, self-determination and social justice. In Zimbabwe, for instance, ZANU PF has faced signifi cant challenges, including economic sanctions, a Western-sponsored political opposition that has unleashed violence. Yet, it remains a dominant political force due to its ability to evolve and address contemporary issues such as land reform and resettlement and indigenisation. Similarly, South Africa’s ANC continues to grapple with issues like inequality and unemployment but remains deeply embedded in the fabric of South African society.

As a former president, Khama has an opportunity to contribute positively to the development and stability of the region. Instead, his actions and statements suggest a leader more interested in settling personal scores and advancing his own agenda than fostering unity and progress. Khama’s inability to keep his party — the BDP — in power shows his failure to connect with Botswana’s electorate and address their concerns. Rather than refl ecting on his own shortcomings, Khama has chosen to defl ect blame onto others, particularly Zimbabwe and its ruling party.

This tactic not only undermines his credibility but also sets a dangerous precedent for political discourse in the region. Leaders who resort to baseless accusations and infl ammatory rhetoric risk eroding trust in democratic institutions and fuelling unnecessary confl icts. Khama’s recent comments also reveal a troubling elitism that disconnects him from the realities faced by ordinary Africans. His apparent disdain for liberation movements and their legacies suggests a worldview shaped more by Western ideologies than by the lived experiences of African peoples.

This perspective is particularly ironic given Khama’s own background as a former military leader and member of a political dynasty that benefi ted from Botswana’s post-independence stability. The criticisms levelled against liberation movements in Africa, whether by Khama or their Western detractors, refl ect a misunderstanding of their historical signifi cance and contemporary relevance. These movements’ continued electoral successes suggest that they remain deeply connected to the aspirations of their people.

Efforts to undermine them through baseless allegations and selective criticism do little to advance democracy or development in Africa. Khama, as a former Head of State, should be working to promote unity, stability and progress, rather than fuelling tensions and undermining democratic institutions.

The future of Africa lies in the hands of its people, who deserve the freedom to choose their leaders without external interference or undue pressure from former leaders with personal agendas or the West.