A coalition of 28 arts associations has issued a sharply worded rebuke of a newly announced national arts strategy, accusing the National Arts Council of Botswana of sidelining the very creatives it is mandated to serve.
In a press statement released on April 7, the associations described the strategy, unveiled by the council’s chief executive, as a unilateral exercise that bypassed consultation with the organised creative sector. The move, they argue, undermines long-standing governance principles and threatens to erode trust in one of the country’s key cultural institutions.
At the heart of the dispute is a familiar fault line in cultural policy, who gets to shape the narrative of a nation’s creative economy. For the associations, the answer is unequivocal, artists themselves.
“The principle of ‘nothing for us without us’ takes centre stage,” the statement reads, framing the conflict as part of a broader demand for inclusion, respect and sector-led development.
While the group welcomed the recent appointment of a new NACB board, led, notably, by creatives, it warned that administrative practices within the council appear to be continuing a legacy of exclusion. The associations accuse the NACB secretariat of adopting an “isolating posture”, effectively shutting out sector voices from decision-making processes.
The backlash highlights a growing assertiveness among local cultural practitioners, who are increasingly organised and vocal about their place in shaping policy. It also mirrors continental conversations about decolonising cultural governance and shifting power toward practitioners.
This tension speaks to a deeper anxiety within the local arts ecosystem, the fear that institutional frameworks meant to empower creatives are instead becoming gatekeepers that dictate direction from above.
The associations’ demands are both immediate and structural. Chief among them is the urgent formalisation of NACB membership, including the recognition and registration of all legitimate arts bodies. Such a move, they argue, is essential before any meaningful national strategy can be developed.
They also call for the convening of a general council meeting, envisioned as a platform where artists and associations can collectively determine the trajectory of the sector. Without this, any strategy risks being, in their words, “inherently flawed and misaligned with Creative Sector realities.”
Beyond procedural concerns, the statement articulates a broader vision of the creative industry as a “national priority sector” capable of self-determination. In this framing, the NACB’s role is not to prescribe but to facilitate, a partner rather than a director.
The backlash highlights a growing assertiveness among local cultural practitioners, who are increasingly organised and vocal about their place in shaping policy. It also mirrors continental conversations about decolonising cultural governance and shifting power toward practitioners.
For now, the standoff leaves the future of the proposed strategy uncertain. What is clear, however, is that local artists are no longer willing to be passive recipients of
