The term essential is an adjective that is derived from the noun essence. In philosophical discourse essence means an attribute or a set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is and which it has by necessity, without which it would lose its identity, or be completely unrecognizable.
The term has its roots in Aristotelian philosophy in the phrase to ti esti, that is, the what it is of an entity. This Greek phrase is well known to have caused much problems to Latin linguists who then coined the term essentia which later came into English as essence and was later adjectivised to essential.
Much literature exists on the discussion of what an essence of an entity is. Recently this debate has come to our sandy shores through the proposed repressive laws which would designate certain professions as essential. The principal aim has been to block certain professionals, in particular teachers, from engaging in legal strikes as they have hitherto done. Limiting such freedoms has been considered important by the government not so much as a consequence of consideration for the rights and welfare of learners as the government spin doctors have often argued.
The principal interest has been to weaken the power of unions and effectively make strikes irrelevant in Botswana. This is supremely strange since a strike is a legal option available to an employee. However, in Botswana, strikes are poorly understood by government. They are seen largely seen as a rebellion which must be crashed. The ILO (International Labour Organization) has however laid out principles concerning the right to strike.
ILO has argued that the right to strike is “not simply a social act” but rather “it is a right which workers and their organizations (trade unions, federations and confederations) are entitled to enjoy”. The question therefore should be why has the current government demonized the recent strike and the right to strike in general? We will mislead ourselves if we restricted ourselves to the recent strike to understand the thinking at the heart of government.
There seems to be a running thread through the current government and this is it: the government does not tolerate dissenting voices. At one time it was the University of Botswana intellectual, a certain Professor Good, who was declared persona non-grata for expressing offensive opinions to those of the government. Persona non grata is a Latin expression which means an unwelcome person; really a person without grace; a person devoid of God’s favour.
It’s a scary prospect! He was expelled from the country! Imagine if the opposition party coalition wins and he is invited to the inauguration! Eish, that would hurt!
About three years ago when journalists were expressing views which were not pro-government, they were considered unpatriotic ÔÇô sell outs of the fatherland! It is difficult to consider a more offensive insult than that of being accused of being against the fatherland ÔÇô an insult which is sometimes uttered by persons who were not even born in this country! Perhaps, the lexicographer, Samuel Johnson was right in his critique of false patriotism in his famous article The Patriot, that patriotism is “the last refuge of the scoundrel”.
The term patriotism in Botswana has been used to intimidate locals from writing or expressing opinions which are considered against the government of the day. Within the ruling party the language changed as well. Those who held a different view were squeezed out to embrace opposition party politics.
They were criticised within the BDP for go rata maemo ÔÇô those who love positions ÔÇô literally meaning that they were power hungry. The irony of such accusations was that they were from persons who were over laden with positions ÔÇô it sounds better in Setswana: ba kukumere e bile ba kakaretse ka maemo! Fortunately one of the BDP elders posed one of the most cutting questions f the century: Ke mang yo o sa rateng maemo? It is little wonder his question remains unanswered!
After the suspension of recent strike, the government moved swiftly to declare teachers essential services without consultation, and in the absence of the Minister of Labour who was in Europe at the time. The MP for Gaborone Central, Mr. Dumelang Saleshando, then moved a parliamentary motion to have the law annulled by parliament. Mr. Saleshando rightly argued that “The instrument tabled by the Minister is a true example of an angry law by a very angry Minister who represents a government consumed by anger.”
To whom is the government anger directed? The workers? Why should the government be angry with the workers when they exercise their democratic right to strike? Perhaps, this right is not appreciated by the government of Botswana.
Instead of facing the full parliamentary debate the BDP through Siele withdrew the statutory instrument “pending further consultation”. The Office of the President then released a statement in which “Government wishes to express its disappointment at the move by parliament to annul Statutory Instrument No 49 of 2011 on essential services”. This was most bizarre. Office of the President failed to attack Siele for withdrawing the instrument; instead their guns were directed at Mr. Saleshando for seeking an annulment.
Why should OP, a government department, attack parliament which is an arm of government? Certainly such an attack is not warranted and is most bizarre.
The problem with OP is that it wishes it were higher and more powerful than parliament. Perhaps then, it would enact laws without consultation. If you followed the thinking of government, you would think that opposition parties, unions and parliament were a distraction and not partners in government.
Our democracy is yet to mature and accommodate those with dissenting voices, either within or without parliament. What is most surprising is how modern Botswana’s sense of democracy is developing, especially in the last few years. Individuals have grown fearful to express their views for few of victimization.
Our institutions, including parliament, have generally become weak and almost irrelevant and a lot of independence and power has become concentrated in one office: the Office of the President. How would we reclaim all of these institutions for national good? How would we reclaim the Btv, Radio Botswana and the Daily News for the national good? It is almost unimaginable this side of 2014.
That is why I personally look forward to post 2014 for indeed the changes in the country would be most basic but yet most dramatic!
