Long before the collapse of the Umbrella talks in December last year, which almost ended any hope of collaboration by Botswana opposition parties, that is, the BNF, BCP, BMD and BPP – leading to the 2014 general elections signs were very clear that the much talked about ‘national project’ was never going to see the light of the day. Unfortunately for the general public, we were kept in the dark about such an unfortunate development. We were made to guess on whether or not a project of such magnitude would materialise. Anyway, that is the nature of politics. Secrecy is the name of the game and that remains so until there is no more political mileage that could be derived by keeping mum.
By the way, keeping the lid tight for too long has never been an easy thing to do, particularly in our political circles. Unsurprisingly, revelations of what might have undermined the Umbrella talks are now starting to emerge. This is what happened over the past week. In two separate articles in the print media we were made to appreciate what might have led to an early demise of the Umbrella I and possible challenges surrounding Umbrella II project. I mean, finally we are getting key figures with significant bearing in the success or failure of the project coming out in public to enlighten us on prospects of combined opposition vote against the ruling BDP in any up-coming by-elections or the 2014 general elections and beyond. In the first article, the Voice newspaper (27th April 2012) carried an interview with acting leader of the BPP Motlatsi Molapise. The other article is penned by Hon. Gilson Saleshando, the immediate past president of the BCP, in the Sunday Standard newspaper (29th April ÔÇô 5th May, 2012) entitled “A response to ‘The Saleshandos and their BDP tags’.”
Undoubtedly, Molapise places the blame squarely on BCP. This is the man who represented his party at the negotiation table and, therefore, he is well placed to offer meaningful contribution to this debate. To quote him: ‘I was part of the negotiations and I can tell you that the BCP never had this national project in their hearts from the beginning even though they made the nation believe they did. I do not know why the BCP decided to take part in Umbrella I when it was clear to most opposition politicians that they were not genuinely interested in the umbrella working’.┬áIn this sense, the veteran politician does not mince words suggesting that all other partners in the Umbrella I were determined to make the project a success except the BCP. According to him, the BCP position was a classic case of self-interest placed ahead of the collective one. Going further, he asserts that, ‘if they were asked to explain why they pretended to be interested they will have no clear answer. All other parties were willing to compromise certain things but the BCP would not budge.’ Thus, not only was the BCP not prepared to shift its position; they would also refuse to play by the rules of the game. In his words, ‘they were the only ones to refuse to use primary elections, which show that they were only interested in themselves. We are in a democracy and anyone who rejects primary elections has no place in our society.’ Very strong words expressed in very clear terms pointing towards BCP as the main reason why cooperation effort that was meant to bring to an end almost half-century of BDP rule bungled.
The response by Hon Gilson Saleshando is quite interesting in many ways for the current discussion because it was not directly meant to shed light on opposition unity project. As the title of the article suggests, his was just a response to one Nthitenyana Nthite who has made it a hobby lately to question the credibility of the Saleshandos, particularly their purported dealings with BDP leaders. Reading his rejoinder, it does not take long before the veteran politician direct himself to the Umbrella project. He does not say much about Umbrella I but rather focuses his energy on the latest instalment of the project. To him, his party has opted not to partake in Umbrella II project primarily because of one individual in the name of Duma Boko who happens to lead the BNF. But before dwelling on Boko, he points to contrasting leadership styles of opposition parties involved in the talks and his noting that, ‘the BCP has demonstrated foresight, mature and principled leadership, by choosing to consult its membership before joining the Umbrella II project’. And the answer from members of his party was a loud and clear NO to the proposed Umbrella. I totally agree with the former leader of the BCP that within a democracy, members should be accorded an opportunity to decide whether they want their party leadership to pursue any given goal, including its involvement in the Umbrella project.
I, however, differ with the veteran politician when he faults an individual rather than appreciate differences that exist amongst individual parties in terms of how they opted to resolve stand-off that followed the collapse of Umbrella I and, subsequently, leading to emergence of Umbrella II which the BCP chose not to support. The problem to him is the leader of the BNF. According to Saleshando, ‘Boko came out clear that he wanted the presidency of the umbrella, and hurriedly resurrected the umbrella and nicknamed it umbrella II and became its leader’. In light of these revelations, one is therefore bound to ask few questions. For instance, who was supposed to be the leader of this project? And how was that individual going to be appointed? Again, was Boko wrong to express interest in the position? These are some of the many questions that arise from reading Saleshando’s rejoinder. Anyway, I would have thought that the veteran politician would have found nothing wrong with Boko’s competitive behaviour of seeking the leadership of the Umbrella party.
Actually, it is the nature of democracy that individuals will compete for various positions within an organisation as and when they arise. Absence of such competition points to other ugly forms of governance such as dictatorship. If the underlying principles guiding the project were that of a democracy, then one the four leaders of the participating parties or any other individual from those parties would have been entrusted with the responsibility of leading the Umbrella party. My take is that primary elections would have been used to select the most deserving individual for such a position. I, therefore, find it hard to fault Boko’s expression for the leadership of the proposed party as senior Saleshando would want us to believe. Perhaps, the key source of concern for the BCP, as earlier indicated by Molapise has to do more with their disdain for primary election as a legitimate method of selecting deserving members for party positions.
Molefhe teaches Public Administration at the University of Botswana