Edward Bule reports In the Northern Extra of the Botswana Guardian of March 2, under the headline ‘BCP ready to go it alone’: “Insisting that the BCP consultation process is a fa├ºade amid reports that members of the party are near unanimous in their disdain for the BMD and the Umbrella, observers say that the announcement by the party to go it alone at least in the 2014 general election is imminent.
“Asked if BCP would make it if it left the Umbrella, secretary general Kesitegile Gobotswang, said his party has invested in a comprehensive strategic plan that seeks to make the BCP the party of choice…”
Gobotswang is quoted: “The strategic plan is our plan A. Our plan B is possible cooperation with like-minded opposition parties to which we are still committed. In the event that plan B fails, we will be more than ready to take on the BDP.”
Bule quotes an anonymous member of the BCP central committee who says: “The Umbrella has been tainted and the relationship between the BCP and the BMD has been damaged beyond repair. For us, going it alone would be the better option.”
In Mmegi of the same date, Thapelo Nldovu, writing from Gaborone, seemed to have anticipated the foreboding from Francistown. The headline of his article rings: “Umbrella, BCP vs BDP is not a bad strategy”.
Ndlovu believes that the ‘collapse’ of the Umbrella talks at the end of 2011 was a ‘blessing in disguise’. He ventures to argue that “the one-party opposition is not necessarily a panacea for the one-party rule.
He says: “The other interesting aspect of this pro-unity talk is that it has never been scientifically supported. No one is asking the right questions such as: Does it really follow that the voting patterns will remain constant in the event the Umbrella unfolds? Will the BDP numbers remain stagnant in the event the opposition becomes a collective?
Several suggestions are made about the potential of a ‘stand-alone’ BCP, side by side with an ‘Umbrella’ composed of the BNF, BMD and Peoples Party standing against the BDP. It is suggested that there is some fundamental difference between the ‘lie’ that is the Umbrella and the alternative of the ‘Pact’.
It is further suggested that this configuration of the opposition ÔÇô BCP plus Umbrella ÔÇô will compel the BDP to strategize for the two oppositions separately, thereby getting confused in the process.
In The Sun of February 29, Log Raditlhokwa finds that: ‘Bad values foil opposition unity”. The columnist suggests that the ‘young lions who ambitiously promised to deliver the ‘Umbrella Project’ to the nation are irresistibly stuck in the mud”. He says “They are not wrong to fail dismally. A project of this magnitude can only be undertaken by people who are propelled by high values, not counterfeit leaders. Realistically, only strong people can unite the opposition. Genuine unity ineluctably requires radical political sacrifice”.
It is not directly said, but Raditlhokwa points to a dimension of the Umbrella talks that has received little attention: the aspect of Good Faith.
The above contributions seem to complicate the task and its reasons for it, rather than make it clearer for the voters.
There seems to be no mutual contradiction between Plan A; building a strong party, and Plan B; cooperation with like minds in the opposition as suggested by Mr Gobotswang. Rather, these ‘plans’, appear to be mutually compatible provided that the discussants are negotiating in good faith. Strong parties can only make a strong Umbrella. Presumably, it is that very idea that informed the decision of the party congresses to sanction opposition cooperation that was later named the Umbrella. Only in the case where the partners negotiate in bad faith does the contradiction between the party interest and the Umbrella arise.
Unity in diversity is a popular concept in Botswana. In their wisdom, the fashioners of the Umbrella deliberately selected to preserve the individual integrity of the opposition political parties inside the larger Umbrella. This calmed the party mongers who feel naked without the protective shell of their cult whilst also reaching out for the ideal of opposition cooperation.
Content informs form. Structure follows need. The difference between Pact and, Umbrella, cooperation, coalition is semantic. Those words mean only what their users want them to mean. The words become important only in the absence of Good Faith; when the forces of subversion at the talks begin to dominate the forces of progress.
There is concern that former president of the county and the BDP say that they support the Umbrella talks. The advocates of the ‘Go-it-Alone’ movement in the opposition say that this support means that the talks have been hijacked by the BDP. Did these people ever consider that the former presidents are themselves disgruntled with the manner in which the incumbent conducts thing’s at their beloved party? And that they want a strong opposition to call their fellow to order?
What is the special set of rules that exempts the BNF, BMD, BCP or BPP from the collective cooperative effort, any one of them pre-empting the efforts of the others at the negotiation table so that it should ultimately ‘go it alone’? Who is paying for this ‘go it alone’ campaign?
Why should the BDP suddenly be confused by a confused opposition? The BDP has had to deal with about a dozen opposition parties over the years and not a single time did it falter. History shows that the BDP might have been unsettled by the 13 seats that the BNF brought to parliament in 1994. Then, corporate South Africa and academia rallied to give the BDP advice that brought the royal names of the Khama’s and Seretse’s back into mainstream politics to help the bureaucrats ÔÇô Festus Mogae among them, to run 21st century Botswana.
The reader is advised that science should explain whether voting patterns will remain the same should the Umbrella unfold. Science should also explain whether the BDP vote will change or remain constant in the wake of the Umbrella.
That sounds more like the work of fortune tellers than science. The idea of the umbrella is to eliminate the factors operating against success and to optimise those that work in favour of a competitive opposition.
Should the opposition return to square one, to the pre-umbrella position, the likelihood is that the ruling Botswana Democratic Party may very well require about 40 percent of the popular vote in order to pass the test of the first past the post system. The opposition might share the 60 per cent of the vote among the four parties.
Should the constitution be changed to allow for presidential elections, Ian Khama will have the support of the constituency football, President’s Day cultural celebrations, drought relief funds, small agricultural projects, small hand-outs and bicycle appearances.
He will have the fireside chats in his favour as well as the conservative sections of the older population that has bought into the anti-alcohol campaign.
Log Raditlhokwa’s advice is that opposition unity is larger than the people who are trying to create it. If he is correct, then the talks will require the intervention of civil society ÔÇô the Botswana Christian Council, First People of Kgalagadi, the trade unions, the media, Botswana Law Society, students and others ÔÇô to impress upon the politicians the urgency of a united and competitive opposition going to 2014.
