The case for a BDP split rested on very solid grounds.
Those of us who called for it and actively cheered as we watched it happen had been alarmed by the arrogance that had come to characterize our leadership.
When it comes to saving this country from total ruin only one other event competes with a BDP split – and that is John Kalafatis’ murder at the hands of our security agents.
We shall never know how many more were going to be killed execution-style had the nation not risen to loudly protest Kalafatis’ cold blooded murder.
Together with a few other points, the Kalafatis murder is at the heart of a BDP split that brought about BMD.
For President Ian Khama it remains an article of faith that John Kalafatis was a well known criminal – that is what he said in a recent interview that was littered with plentiful half truths, propaganda and twisted facts over a South African television channel.
In a cavalier manner, the president seems to suggest that being a well known criminal is a ground sufficient enough to have a suspect shot and killed like Kalafatis was.
Ever executive minded, it does not seem to matter to him that well known criminals have rights too. He does not seem to know that unless they pose a clear danger, as when they are armed, they should never be shot beast-like but should instead be arrested and submitted to the wheels of justice. But that is a discussion for another day.
For now it does not matter what views Khama holds or used to hold of Kalafatis. The important fact is that John’s death has forever changed Botswana’s course of history.
This is how family and friends should remember him. It is what they should use to console themselves as they digest the many callous and uncouth statements the state and its apparatus continue to insensitively churn out about their departed son and friend.
His death has proved an indelible blight on this country’s once unassailable belief in judicial reassurance.
After Kalafatis killing there is the BMD arrival.
I’m not sure the extent to which they are able to grasp and internalize it, but however one wants to look at it, the BMD project has made Botswana a safer country than the alternative route that Khama had preferred ÔÇô at least for the time being.
Even as we disagree with them on other issues, we should accept that the arrival of BMD somewhat challenged a culture of impunity that had taken root inside both the BDP and Government.
For those reasons in the eyes of many, on BMD’s shoulders rests the weight of responsibilities and aspirations to restore Botswana to the ideals that the country used to cherish; liberty, safety and security, corruption free and, perhaps most crucially, a respect for the rule of law.
Remaining true and achieving those ideals will not be easy, not even with the greatest of intentions. Some humility will be essential.
Thus if they want power BMD will have to give some away.
The current tussle for Leader of Opposition between BMD and BNF is, to say the least, disappointing.
The tussle is a lurid, welcome and much appreciated convenience for Khama and his BDP.
Such little side battles between opposition parties provide the man with splendid opportunities to revisit his temporarily derailed strategy.
Such petty squabbles allow him hope and time to reinstate this nation along a monolithic path he had mapped out and preconceived long before he became state president.
A continued stand off between opposition parties over a position that does not carry any influence beyond a chauffer driven black car, a house and a salary a single notch higher than that of other MPs can only serve to play into the hands of the ruling BDP.
Naturally, and as is to be expected, a fight between opposition parties drains the heat off the BDP and allows them more room to take us back to exactly the same evil existence that precipitated a split that brought the BMD about.
It is very important for BMD to avoid sparring with the delusional rascals that control the BNF, because such fights are BMD’s to lose.
A full frontal fight between BMD and BNF will set Botswana’s opposition politics back by no less than a decade.
If BMD are committed to democracy, they better be committed to paying a hefty price for it. And the price includes making concessions to the BNF, especially in the short term with the hope of attaining greater earnings in the long term.
But there is yet another reason why BMD, of all the parties, should be most willing and prepared to make greater concessions.
Never before tested at the polls, to many there remains a thick cloud over BMD’s representative legitimacy.
This is not to say what they did is illegal party, but rather to highlight deep seated feelings of a rigged existence that many detractors ascribe to the party, not least to its representatives in both parliament and council structures.
I write not as an enemy of the BNF or BMD, but as someone who understands so well the ingrained contempt with which BNF’s diehard ideologues have for anything that ever had anything to do with the BDP.
BMD has to understand that they will need to caress and tickle the BNF bellies before they win their trust and confidence.
Sadly, at least for now, forfeiting power and control seems not a favourite pastime for any politician, not even those claiming the highest of moral grounds like the BMD.
