Conventional political thinking amongst proponents of a multi-party framework is that the system accommodates and promotes the expression of divergent political interests, especially on an ideological basis.
The existence of a multitude of malnourished political parties presents an opportunity for the freedom of the individual in various aspects of political life, particularly the participation of the individual in choosing his/her representatives.
In this regard, it matters little that though there exists many political parties, the chances of one of the opposition parties winning a mandate to form a government are close to zero.
This simplistic admiration of utopian multi-party system is nonetheless bolstered by the popular disclosure that opposition parties function as oversight institutions that guard against the excesses of the ruling party, in spite of being perpetual losers.
It is debatable whether the opposition in Botswana, in particular the BNF, has been able to perform this role with aplomb.
However, what can be said with some measure of confidence is that the Executive has not been exposed to the critical gaze of a lively Parliament intent on exposing errors, inefficiencies, corruption and other faults, and demanding improvement.
Whereas the opposition, in particular the BNF, can claim to have been performing oversight function, it cannot be said with accurate confidence that they were taken seriously (by the ruling party).
Readers may recall how often BNF members of Parliament were publicly ridiculed even when raising thoughtful national issues.
Fierce debaters such as the late Maitshwarelo Dabutha and Paul Rantao were even given aliases supposedly intended to show their negligible value in influencing government decisions.
Despite being regarded as heavyweights in opposition ranks, Dabutha was nicknamed ‘bombshell’ rather than a bomb that can detonate and cause massive destruction and harm.
Rantao was named ‘ostrich’, one of the few birds that cannot fly and is thus easy prey for predators.
In essence, it is reasonable to speculate that the BDP has never taken the BNF seriously and has never felt seriously threatened and has always tended to rubbish their (BNF) ideas and suggestions to the extent of bluntly stating that they do not run the country jointly with the BNF (or should they have said that they do not need the political ideas of the BNF to govern effectively). Whereas the BNF constantly claims that most of the political reforms that were effected by the BDP government originated from their camp, it cannot be said with certainty that the BDP was completely devoid of such ideas.
Neither could it be said that the BDP government effected such reforms in response to pressure from the BNF.
It is quite possible that the BDP government only effect reforms at a time when they are pretty certain that such changes are concomitant to present circumstances and that the changes would not in any way significantly compromise their privileged position as the ruling party.
When the BDP government resists to effect reforms on account that the present set up is serving the country well, it, in actual fact, means that the current situation is favourable to the BDP’s continued dominance.
If this was to be the case, as it seems to be, it is highly likely that the BDP’s assertion that they do not need BNF ideas to govern the country is not without a strong foundation.
This would then bring us to the point that opposition parties in Botswana only exist to cement our democratic values, principles and practices. This is even so when we consider the universal belief that in order for other parties to effectively criticize the BDP they necessarily need to worship left wing politics, Marxist ideology to be specific, which, in essence, implies the espousal of politics as a mere expression of a rival ideology or simple revolutionary rhetoric.
It is really absurd that most people cannot fathom the possibility of a capitalistÔÇôoriented party taking the BDP head-on.
Departing from the above synopsis, this essay seeks to introduce an unexplored perspective from which to analyze and appreciate the dynamics of the BDP as a state-sponsored ruling party within a de facto single-party framework.
This essay argues that for meaningful and lasting social, economic and political advancement, Botswana could do well with a relatively weak opposition (in particular the BNF as the oldest and main opposition party).
The second largest party, the BCP, is spared the rod for it is still, like a human body, developing critical organs including those which would ultimately make it stubborn and lead it astray.
This argument is in sharp contrast with the conventional theory that a strong opposition is a sine qua non for a vibrant democracy in which the opposition guards against the excesses of the executive.
Experience shows that when the BNF somewhat defy logic and become stronger, the BDP solidify into an unusually firm, robust and coherent organization, perhaps to guard against their collective interests.
Its members close ranks. They chide and reduce the BNF into a hapless nonentity by arrogantly rubbishing each and every comment or motion they (the BNF) advance.
This is a tactic by the BDP to display the power of incumbency; that they are the ones in control of government business and that the opposition can carry on with their mindless criticism that has negligible impact on government operations.
Under these conditions, even seasoned debaters are made to look mediocre, pathetic and shamefully lacking in competence while, on the other hand, the normally hopeless BDP spectators, who hardly ever make a point, rejoice in new found confidence.
This is specifically what becomes when the BNF resembles a serious entity – forgotten and unrecognized BDP members suddenly find their voice and become lively, often in a stupid manner hence turning Parliamentary deliberations into petty politicking characterized by mudslinging and innuendo, character assassination of the highest cunning.
The BDP has always resorted to these tricks to humble the BNF even unashamedly rejecting useful suggestions in a ridiculously insensitive manner, but of course with huge success and effect.
It is a point well made that some local communities and individuals have suffered a great deal of inconvenience occasioned by the BNF’s attempts to speak for them. This is exacerbated by the party’s penchant for politicizing each and every issue, and sometimes exaggerating and, in the process, trivializing matters.
With a relatively weak BNF, the BDP could afford, by shifting their attention from the BNF and redirecting their vigor towards addressing serious national challenges, allow open Parliamentary discussions amongst their own members.
When the BNF is visibly incapacitated, the BDP would have the luxury to violate its political tradition and allow free vote for its members.
The just ended session of Parliament has shown that when BDP MPs are not inhibited by the evil rules of a party caucus, ideas and principles reign supreme.
Open and uninhibited Parliamentary discussions tend to promote responsible and reasoned debate thereby enriching the national conversation and a serious and genuine approach to national issues. This responsible and reasoned open debate soon graduates into mature democratic deliberations and practices which enhance our celebrated democratic culture both at the national level and within own organizations. Over and above, open debates limit the distorting influence of money, career ambitions and dummy popular charisma.
When everyone is allowed to speak freely, there would be little room to characterize one’s outspokenness as the ranting of a bitter fellow annoyed at being excluded from the Cabinet. Sycophancy will be replaced with attributes of high performance, assertiveness and competence.
It can now be said that recent open Parliamentary debates have inadvertently helped to debunk the myth that the opposition possesses the monopoly of political wisdom; that the BDP is naturally bereft of creativity and imagination; that its members are numb and dumb, and that only the opposition can competently guard against the excesses of the Executive and, to do so, they (the opposition) have to be schooled in the politics of the left.
Open Parliamentary debates, as have recently been spearheaded by BDP MPs, have shown that it is certainly possible that a small measure of vitality should enable Parliament to exercise control over the workings of the government.
These new revelations point to the hitherto unacknowledged opinion that in Botswana a strong opposition is a stumbling block for meaningful and lasting socio-economic and political transformation.
As has been illustrated, a strong BNF leads to a unified BDP, which then uses its unity to affect a gridlock with a view to demonstrate their absolute power in a way that suggests that the opposition can go hang.
Lately, the BDP has been fielding, both at the council and Parliamentary level, mostly retired civil servants who boast of a decent education and considerable experience in the operations of the government. This shift was expected to add more creativity in Parliamentary deliberations but, unfortunately, the sacred doctrine of caucusing has tended to suppress open and free discussions because this arrangement gives the ruling party MPs only two options ÔÇô to either speak for overall party position or simply shut up. Learned MPs within the BDP were, as a result of this, rendered garbage.
Partly because the BDP now has a rich pool of quality members, the party must, of necessity, tolerate different opinions within its ranks, whether this be called rebellion, defiance or sabotage. When its MPs reject proposed legislation, they should not be threatened with draconian rules of party discipline but rather the Executive should seek to effect concessions so that each organ is accorded the necessary respect. In any case, this is the price of democracy, a necessary evil in all its manifestations.
The BDP stands to gain immensely from this arrangement. On account of their numerical strength, the BDP stands to drown the small and husky voice of the opposition and thus continue to form government. Intelligent deliberations arising out of freedom of thought and expression, as was the case during the just ended session of Parliament, would place BDP MPs at part with Hollywood celebrities in terms of public envy and this would prop up the BDP’s image and profile and present it as a party proud to be home to some of the best brains on earth. The BDP would then use this measure of public appeal to denounce the opposition, in particular, the BNF as rhetorical ideologues. Other than resorting to mundane and discredited revolutionary dogma, the BNF would be left with zero issues to sell itself to the general public and would surely become just an opposition party only efficient as an election machine to legitimize multi-partysm.
The BDP would also up its marketability and/or attractiveness, particularly to academics most of whom have been shunning it for its lack of internal democracy, specifically freedom of expression, but whose conscience would not let them identify with an ideologically discredited BNF.
This will expand the BDP’s pool of quality personnel, of talented, spirited and visionary members while at the same time reducing the BNF to a group of misguided pupils who derive extreme excitement from their association with Marxism. As has been shown during the past session of Parliament, when BDP MPs are allowed to express themselves, the BNF MPs look disjointed, pathetic and brainless. When the BNF President who is also Leader of the Opposition in Parliament and his Secretary General declined to comment on President Mogae’s State of the Nation Address, it dawned on many people that unless the BNF was secretly becoming a BDP group member, it is surely hapless, and somewhat indicates that the opposition is not an imperative necessity.
Above all, free Parliamentary deliberations would make it possible for the nation to finally reap the fruits of a matured democracy characterized by freedom of thought and expression and of course we would be happy for comatose BNF, precisely for enabling us to retain our position as an ‘African miracle’ in world politics.
