Shashe

We have identified a problem regarding the SADC unity referenda between South Africa and Lesotho. Given that there is only one boundary involved, the referendum in Lesotho would simply reduce to whether the Lesotho nationals want unity or not, rather than to assigning different weights to different boundaries as in other countries, South Africa included. The referendum billet in Lesotho would then be about unity, and not about which country to unite with. If UNITY passes the referendum test, then we could end up with a new composite country called South Afr-otho (South Afrotho) at Level1. Well, just thinking... 

 The referenda can be conducted simultaneously or at different times in all SADC countries. However, the best results are likely to accrue from simultaneous referenda because such referenda eliminate neighbour contamination bias. Unity of SADC countries is assumed to be in stages, herein referred to as unity levels (UL). Unity Level1 (UL1) proceeds from the current state of country sovereignty to the first composite sovereignty, where some countries will have united with others. Unity Level2 (UL2) involves the unity of composite, as opposed to initial, sovereignties. As Unity levels are progressively traversed, the nature of the SADC organisation itself will gradually approach a Union State. How long a stage or level lasts will be determined by the SADC organisation prevailing at the time.  This write-up concerns itself only with Unity level1 (UL1).  A SADC member country (SMC) may unite only with a SMC with which it shares a common border. A sea border is considered a co...

Broadcasting news in national languages other than English and Setswana is a good thing. The government deserves to be praised for that. However, the implementation of the measure leaves listeners somewhat confused, When a report written by correspondent X is presented on BTV, it has to be translated by correspondent Y into whatever the current newscast language is. The identities of both correspondents X and Y are revealed. So far, so good.  The problem comes at the end of the translation. The translator signs off as if the report was WRITTEN by him/her, and not merely so translated. This is wrong. Unless the listener followed the report all the way from start of introduction, the listener is left with the false impression that the report was written/crafted by the translator Y and not by its true author X. The correct approach  should swap the introductions around. The news reader should present ONLY the name of the WRITER of the report. At the end of the translation, the tr...