Someone has said that a coward gets scared and quits and is like a useless dog that barks more fiercely than it can confront the trespasser. This descriptive conjecture fits well the character of a person who uses the pseudonym Peter Mosarwe.
A couple of weeks ago an individual by the penname Peter Mosarwe launched a malicious, scathing attack on my person branding me a fake intellectual and accusing me of nursing a Pull Him Down syndrome and relishing in plagiarism.
A great deal of his pieces were intended to mutilate my integrity rather than discuss the issues I raised.
Whereas I cared less how he chose to see me, I was nonetheless offended by his decision to conceal his identity precisely to throw his tantrums from a comfort zone. My subsequent interpretation was that the fellow is a coward, a poor nameless coward, a political hack. This motivated me to hunt out the mysterious political pretender.
In my last response to his purulent accusations against myself, I provided proof that what the poor being alleged I plagiarized was in actual fact opinions I expressed almost two years ago and that plagiarism is after all not about expressing an opinion already expressed by others.
The search for the elusive rabid careerist has narrowed considerably and I hope his fear to engage in frank and open discussions was not motivated by behaviors and values that would prove an embarrassment of the highest cunning. Perhaps he is more ‘fake’ than I.
Unmasking an underground operative is standard practice in public debates that tend to fuse reasoning with deliberate cynical indifference to intellectual honesty. But in doing so the objective is not to assassinate the characters of the opponents but to show that their arguments make pretence of reasonableness while in actual fact are a caboodle of hatred, subconscious mental prejudice and vanity, motivated by a curious mixture of cowardice and inflated ambitions. My firm determination to expose the fellah is to ensure that we at least engage in obscenities (his source of gratification) from the same platform.
While the fellah has taken an extended leave of absence perhaps because he sensed imminent exposure or due to his inability to defend and perpetuate his spurious claims on plagiarism, it is certainly too late for him to run away or change tactics. It is time to face the world and count in the battle rather than resorting to ambush and appalling acts of ‘intellectual’ terrorism. It is disgusting that people could stoop so low as to pander to the dictate of violent opportunism and excessive greed. It is disgusting that some political novices could fling themselves to the mad whirl of defending President Khama even for patently irrational decisions. One would expect mature and honest citizens of this beautiful country to at least try to explain rather than deny illogical and ridiculous decisions that clearly fly in the face of rational decision making.
It is unbelievable and frightening that we have, in our midst, people who are too proud as quislings only to enlarge their social status for future political purposes. It is unbelievable that we have in our midst people who are, by all intents and purposes, sacrificial lambs of the ruling party. Such miserable citizens seem to have been recruited into the politics of the BDP solely to give it a modern image, to help in re-branding the party, to stir partisan passion amongst disillusioned members of the society who while identifying themselves with the party, are embarrassed to publicly prostitute with it on account of its composition (until very recently it has been taken for a crowded house of imbeciles and choir masters ÔÇô an inappropriate, inaccurate and unfair inference though).
They certainly joined the party much against their consciences but the promises of instant wealth propelled them to seek membership and because they joined late and are therefore relatively unknown, they make the most noise to impress their leaders, to make a name for themselves as a new crop of sophisticated members ÔÇô the face of a modern party, which is why they are characterized by a dreadful display of intolerance and often load their analysis with gangster logic intended to perpetuate hate politics. They are used as bait but because they are pre-occupied with their selfish selves, they fail to acknowledge that they are being used.
One thing that makes me content is that I take pleasure in my knowledge that the issues I raised and I continue to raise will have to be raised and discussed sooner or later by other people and if these other people happen to be more competent or relatively tolerated by militant opportunists and enemies of the truth than I, so much better. I do not claim to be a political pundit neither do I claim to be a philosopher but I do not intend to embrace the nonsense that is monoculture. I am pretty aware that our bigoted opportunists only tolerate their own views and accept only opinions identical to theirs which is why they take criticism for a madman’s vocation.
Despite their cruel and evil resolve to marginalize critics, I do not intend to make myself available for the infinitely vacant positions of cheerleaders. It doesn’t matter how political speculators chose to see me, whether as a fake intellectual, a rural boy who smell fish and onion all the time, a poor chap who has been hardened by the experience of walking to school barefooted and in tattered pajamas, it is their choice. But if they hold the view that the less privileged cannot comment on their leaders, they are dead wrong. If they derive pleasure from chiding those they consider poor or intellectually barren so be it, but they should remember that those who have no vices have no virtues. The proliferating brutal laws will not discriminate between a pseudo-BDP activist, a charming master of opportunism and a desolate, ragged nonentity.
In March 2006 I wrote an essay titled ‘Botswana under Siege’ (Mmegi, 10 March 2006) which elicited ham-fisted responses from the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Office of the Vice-President. Part of the essay sought to correlate President Khama’s dislike for alcohol and the promulgation of the then proposed liquor regulations. I had then reasoned that ‘the new regulations are simply transitional, temporarily stupefying us into submission before an ultimate ban on alcohol is affected’. We are soon to arrive at the ultimate point, yet we are blasphemed for sharing such thoughts with those who care to listen and reason.
Threats are often deceptive but short-lived and threats generated by people who are scared of facing the world do not count in the combat zone. It is terrifying that some political speculators intend to suppress public debates with savage cruelty. Yet we know that robust and honest exchange of opinions are necessary for our society to be truly democratic and for the seemingly arrogant government to stay on course.
