In one of the past instalments, I did indicate that the silly season is, indeed, here. Certainly, 2014 general elections promise to be hotly contested, similar to 1994 ones. This will be good for our democracy in that lack of alternation in the system has given rise to entitlement mentality on the part of those in charge of our republic. We cannot, as a beacon of democracy, continue with a ‘business as usual’ kind of attitude, particularly in the political arena. Electoral competition plays a key role in ensuring accountability in the system. Put differently, where there is little ÔÇô as has been the case in our country ÔÇô or no competition, the propensity of maladministration, corruption and other governance ills increases. The effects of such ills are well documented in other parts of our continent. I am definitely sure that, collectively, we do not want to go south. I should, therefore, express my delight when I see political parties working hard to make this year’s elections a fight to the end, where no stones are left unturned. A strong opposition will surely usher in a new era, where politicians serve the interests of their principals ÔÇô who happen to be me and you.
Couple of interesting issues came to the attention of the public over the past few days that underscored the seriousness – or should I say lack thereof – by some aspiring candidates and their political parties to come tops come October. These issues had ethnic or tribal undertones, which if handled well would prove important to socio-economic and political development of this wonderful desert of ours. Conversely, these same issues do have a potential of raising unnecessary tensions, which in most cases are inimical to national development. This instalment focuses on three such issues.
First, electronic and print media were last week awash with reports that Batawana and government were at logger heads over ownership of Moremi Game Reserve. Specifically, Batawana through their Kgosi, MP Tawana Moremi, are placing a demand on government to return what they deem rightly theirs ÔÇô Moremi Game Reserve. To cut the long story short, somewhere in the late 1970s Batawana approached government seeking assistance as far as administration of the park was concerned. Their pleas, it would seem, were answered, but over time the issue of who exactly owned the park became muddy. To Tawana Moremi and his subjects, this was never the case because they never ceded ownership to government. On the other hand, government ÔÇô or should I say the Executive ÔÇô are reportedly looking for a different outcome, where central government will own this heaven on earth. This issue has, in turn, become a hot potato in the fight for 2014 elections. Batawana, unfortunately, cannot currently enjoy benefits arising from the park. For instance, community trust that were formerly there to help areas around the park are no more. Maun remains a dusty town with few prospects of development. Unemployment, especially amongst youth remains high. All this takes place despite the park generating million of pula yearly. Therefore, this matter though brought into politics by Tawana, should be viewed as a positive use of ethnicity/regionalism to demand recognition in pursuit of development.
The second issue relates a debate we had last week Friday. In here, a strong and, at times, emotional debate erupted focusing on the language question in Botswana. The genesis of that heated argument largely had to do with a circulating copy – or rather, a summary – of BCP manifesto which has been translated from English into Ikalanga language. This act proved a hot potato around the revolutionary table. I have never thought the language question was anything to raise temperatures the way it did, for that matter, amongst so called enlightened members of our community. To me, and many other colleagues of mine, the language question has never been a subject of any considerable interest. It was, of course, one of those issues that I never thought will come to dominate political discourse, especially in a somewhat homogenous community like ours. I was mistaken.
I should say from the onset that I am not an expert in language matters. Like many of my contemporaries, I have listened, albeit with less interest, various people deliberating on this subject. The arguments were wide and varied. Two schools of thought, in particular dominate the discourse. Introduction of mother tongue in curricular, we are told, will enhance student performance. This position takes a dominant position when the language question is debated. The second position is that mother tongue does help in cultural preservation and development of so called minority groups. Interestingly, proponents of mother tongue do acknowledge historical context that gave prominence to Tswana language: nation building pursued by our founding fathers. And certainly, our leaders have done a stellar job in that regard. But the beauty of democracy is that so called minority group will over time place demands for recognition. And we should be mature enough to listen to them.
Indeed, when the language question surfaces my understanding was that our democracy was strengthening. It was becoming robust. The BCP, following on historical call by the BNF for recognition of other languages, pursued the issue with vigour. Unsurprisingly, last week the party translated summary of their manifesto into vernacular ÔÇô Ikalanga. Soon the revolutionary table members were at each other trying to make sense of the latest 1st by the lime party. Those sympathetic to the party found the initiative a welcome development. The promise was that other languages’ versions were in the pipeline. My hope and others was that the pipeline would not be akin to the BDP’s famous strategy employed often when they could not immediately deliver on their promises. The critics, on the other hand, had a field day pointing in particular to production of the English and Ikalanga versions, while the party found it fit not to offer a version in Setswana ÔÇô another official language together with English ÔÇô or any other so called minority languages. Yes, the BCP is not forced to print the Tswana version of their manifesto, but they should avoid projecting a negative image of a party that wants to serve tribal interests of particular groupings. This will not be good for enhancing democratic development of this country.
The third incident that raised interest concerned reported utterances by a certain BCP parliamentary candidate for one of the Francistown constituencies. At his launch, the parliamentary candidate is reported to have advised another competitor for the ruling party to go stand for elections in Zimbabwe ÔÇô a place of her origin! One thing I have observed is that politicians hardly learn: they repeat mistakes of the past. If my memory serves me well it is still in Francistown where in the past one candidate leveled similar accusations to his opponent. Instead of growing our democratic credential, such utterances have a potential to tarnish not only the name of the concerned party, but the nation at large. In pursuit of diversity, therefore, we should not forget those things that unite us! Otherwise the silly season will leave us divided.
