The discussions that took place on different private radio stations and private newspapers about the industrial action were very enlightening as different people looked at the issue from different angles. Some people supported the industrial action while others were totally against it. It is on the basis of the manner in which different people responded to the same that I would like to briefly reflect on and summarize things that came to light during the past two weeks.
It is very clear that there was failure to observe rules of the game by both the government and trade unions. Hence, the strike was characterized by accusations and counter-accusations. According to the rules of the game published in private newspapers, the government was supposed to ensure that 30% of the employees were at work to continue providing essential services. This did not happen as the operations of some hospitals, clinics and schools were literally brought to a halt. The government blamed trade unions for the situation, replaced the striking workers and asked the Industrial court to order all people providing essential services to go back to work.
Some government departments which were ordered to stop replacing labour and some public servants who were ordered to go back to work respectively, decided to ignore the court ruling. Inasmuch as we agree that government has a responsibility to provide citizens with services, and that public servants have the right to participate in a legal strike, it is very important that court orders are obeyed at all times.
It is only the courts that can protect the interests of the government and assist it to provide services to citizens at all times. And in the same vein, it is only the courts that can protect public servants against any form of intimidation, abuse as well as the repressive and vindictive tendencies of the current administration.
One other issue that came to light during the strike is the extent to which the state media can be used to spread untruths about the situation on the ground. This happened in a country that prides itself as one of the oldest democracies in the developing world. A deliberate decision was taken by government officials to present their side of the story on BTv while representatives of the trade unions were never afforded an opportunity to do likewise.
Those who control BTv did not regard the views and arguments of the trade unions as newsworthy items despite having halted the operations of different government departments. BTv reporters displayed high standards of unprofessionalism and unethical behaviour with their biased reporting. They abdicated their responsibility of disseminating information and chose to feed the nation with government propaganda.
Another issue that was discussed during the strike is the participation of political parties. BDP leaders released a press statement condemning the decision by leaders of opposition parties to address public servants participating in the strike. I am of the view that their complaint is misplaced, unwarranted and without basis. It is just a desperate cry by people who know very well that they do not have anything positive to tell the public servants.
If they had something positive to tell the workers (e.g. that their salaries will be adjusted by 10% with effect from 1st April 2011), they could have been the first ones to address them knowing very well that they will score political points. Unfortunately for them, the only thing that they can tell public servants is that there is no money to cover salary adjustment, an argument that resulted in workers withdrawing their labour in the first place.
They have failed to tell the nation how politics and salaries of public servants can be separated. Politics is about “who gets what, when and how?” These questions deal mainly with the manner in which the resources of the nation are distributed. Is it possible for us to talk about distribution of national resources without making reference to the financial ones?
There is nothing wrong with opposition parties addressing public servants on an issue that directly affects them (workers). Opposition parties have to be proactive and must seize every opportunity that comes their way, not only to protect the interests of the citizens, but also to attack and discredit the government of the day if it handles serious national issues in a casual manner as done by President Khama and his lieutenants.
If a BDP MP, Tawana Moremi, in the company of Rainer Makosha, can address public servants and express his unwavering support for their cause, why is it wrong when the same thing is done by leaders of opposition parties? If the ruling party can do it, why should it be a sin when opposition parties do it?
It is very unfortunate that innocent citizens were caught in the cross-fire. Some people lost their lives as thousands were denied medical assistance because doctors and nurses were on strike. Thousands of students at primary and secondary schools were not taught for two weeks. I need not continue indicating how people in different sectors were affected because the effects were felt by all in one way or the other.
The government, which has a duty to provide essential services and protect lives at all times, has directly contributed to the suffering of citizens. What is even more painful is that the Minister of Health is a medical doctor and a religious minister. The ethics of these two professions do not allow him to behave and act in the manner in which he did.
We should be worried when we hear a medical doctor and religious minister telling the whole nation on BTv that the strike did not have any significant impact on health facilities when the situation on the ground was the exact opposite. Who should we trust when a religious minister can deliberately tell the nation an untruth? Who was he trying to protect? President Khama, himself or the nation?
Let me conclude by saying that one thing that came out of the strike is that both the government and trade unions are on a learning curve. The government representatives, on one hand, are learning how to deal with trade unions given the fact that unionization of public servants is a new phenomenon in our country. Trade unions, on the other hand, are learning how to bargain for better working conditions. They are also learning to deal with an employer who can deliberately choose to be stubborn.
It is therefore important that representatives of both parties must go on bench-marking tours to countries where public servants have been allowed to unionize for many years. These trips will go a long way in enabling them to learn how to relate to each other so that they avoid plunging the country into a disaster in the future.
It is also important for President Khama, to change his attitude towards public servants and trade unions. He will always be remembered as a president who refused to meet trade unions’ representatives and went on leave when the country was engulfed by fire.
