Generally, discipline can be punitive or correctional. A punitive form of discipline is usually vindictive and destructive. It can destroy persons against whom it is directed.
It turns the imposers of the discipline into feared monsters. This kind of discipline is normally imposed by select individuals who misuse the power to discipline and approach the imposition of discipline vindictively and spitefully. It is mainly a one side rule based process where the select individuals with the power to exercise discipline would do it for their selfish purposes to settle personal clashes and grudges.
This type of discipline is based on hatred and is informed by the desire to destroy those that it is applied upon and has the unintended consequence of even destroying the imposers of discipline and the entity it is falsely meant to protect. There is also a correctional mode of discipline.
This type is constructive. It builds. The persons against whom it is directed are mended, corrected and reconstructed. The enforcers become virtuous. They become happy that they have corrected an errant behaviour. They look forward to an improved behaviour and better relationship and even possibly improved operations of the entity sought to be protected by discipline. It fosters unity.
The correctional form of discipline is mainly a collective process that involves a number of people. It is more of a group affair. It is reconstructive and emphasis a correctional or group approach to discipline. It is not informed by bad faith, malice or spitefulness. It is foremost driven by the desire to build and act in utmost good faith.
These are generally the core characteristics and consequences of discipline in most settings. In family settings, social clubs like churches, football clubs, political parties, business entities and many other associations, discipline could take either of the two forms described above. In the case of political organization, if it adopts a punitive form of discipline to target those that have different views from the leadership, and uses this explosive mode of discipline to address political differences and problems then it is in the path of destruction and instability.
Such a party can never know peace. It can never be stable and let alone would it be able to carry on with its political programme. It would spend extended time dealing with the crises it fomented by adopting such destructive measures of discipline like arbitrary suspension of party members and expulsions. It would do this at a cost to continuing with its political programmes. Arbitrary suspensions and expulsions of members of a political organization by select individuals within the leadership create such a monumental crisis that destroys the party and delays its forward movement.
In a political party like the BNF to impose a punitive form of discipline on other members it’s a recipe for crises. The BNF does not in anyway have the luxury of suspending or expelling members more especially that its unity, organizational cohesion and stability are precarious given its turbulent history of acrimony.
There has been a lot of infighting in the BNF. Now its time for recovery and healing, not to start another infighting. It should adopt a correctional mode of discipline towards its members and find political solutions to internal party matters. In fact this punitive form of discipline where members are suspended or expelled its Un ÔÇô BNF.
The BNF of Koma, Dabutha, Bathoeng and others dealt with discipline politically. Their approach to discipline was not rule based and punitive. They did not use discipline to purge opponents or critics.
Koma’s BNF tolerated dissenters and critics. Discipline was never used in the BNF as a leverage to silence or purge critics or those that hold a different opinion. The traditional BNF approach to discipline is that it is correctional and a collective process that involve the general members at wards, constituency and regional levels.
Rarely did the central committee members ever suspend or expel other members. This is the tradition we know in the BNF. However the current leadership of the BNF seems to think that by suspending Lemogang Ntime, Malatsi Mokhubame and Kagiso Ntime threatening to suspend others, they are addressing the question of discipline. They are not, in fact they are creating a political crisis which will surely dent the public image and profile of the BNF. A rule based punitive approach to discipline in a headmasterly sense in a political party like the BNF cannot work.
The BNF leadership should not think that they can silence members by suspending or expelling them. They should stop approaching the issue of discipline in vindictive sense and a top down approach. In the BNF if any member has committed an act of indiscipline, his conduct must be reported to his ward or constituency and the people in his structure of activity would determine the form if any to be imposed for the ill discipline.
In most cases, members found guilty of any indiscipline would never be suspended or expelled. They could be fined, punished by doing party work, or given some other reconstructive sanction. Suspensions and expulsions were extreme form of discipline or punishment which the people rarely imposed. They were the last forms of disciplinary measures.
This type of people based approach to discipline is correctional and constructive. It does not create any crises or instability in the party. It is even consistent with progressive character of the BNF. What the BNF Leadership is doing in suspending Lemogang Ntime, Malatsi Mokhubame and Kagiso Ntime is Un ÔÇô BNF. It hides behind discipline to suppress opposing views. In a typical stalinist fashion it is purging its opponents for narrow political interests. It does not care whether the suspensions would create instability within the party and invariably they do. In 1998 other than that the BNF was heavily infiltrated by CIA functionaries and BDP spies, the party suffered and even split because of suspensions.
In 2003, it split again due to suspension of Kenneth Koma, Lemogang Ntime and others. Before the 2009 elections the party was tattered, disorganized and badly bruised because of suspensions and expulsions of some members. It even performed disastrously in the elections owing to this form of punitive discipline of suspensions and expulsions.
Now the party is busy suspending other members and thereby exercebating its fragile political stability and unity. The suspensions are worsening the BNF’s bruised political image. An organization whose recent political history points to a conflicted and acrimonious existence should be slow to suspend members. It must nurture its stability and unity.
It cannot afford to be carefree and be more focused and concerned about idiosycrancies of its leadership and their cronies. I therefore call upon the BNF leadership to immediately call off the suspensions of Lemogang Ntime, Malatsi Mokhubame and Kagiso Ntime. I invite them to find a political solution to this matter.
The BNF leadership must understand that suspensions and expulsions are a destructive form of discipline that undermines the organizational stability of the BNF. It is problematic moreso that it appears to be applied selectively on those members who differ with the leadership and others who behave inappropriately are not disciplined.
This selective application of discipline would also harden attitudes and feelings of the suspended members and their supporters and thereby foster an environment of crises with the BNF. The Political character, tradition and morality of the BNF is that discipline must be correctional and constructive. It must be a tool or way of rebuilding the BNF and uniting it. Discipline should never be used to silence those that differ with the leadership.
If it is used to silence others, this becomes a stalinist type of political practice where opponents are purged. It also turns the BNF into a banana political party where inner party debates and democracy are stifled. One of the things that saw the BNF grow under Koma was its inner party democratic credentials. During Koma’s leadership inner party debates and differences were encouraged and this led to the growth of the BNF.
We must therefore encourage the culture of debates, differences and finding political solutions to political problems. This rule based regulative approach to discipline is destructive and counter progressive. It is un ÔÇô BNF.
