It was really interesting to hear calls for constitutional reforms made from the parliament floor this past week.
More interesting, however, was the fact that the calls are, for a change, coming from the ruling party benches.
These are the same people who, over the years, have ridiculed, belittled and dismissed all such calls from anybody else.
I think I know why it is that some of them are today shouting above their voices calling for such reforms.
In recent months, some of them have been badly wounded by the same laws they have doggedly and carelessly defended over the years. It’s too remarkable to be a coincidence.
The English people have a word for it: it is called double standards.
That said we should welcome the calls ÔÇô whoever is making them.
We should, however, caution that constitutional reform is a very sensitive matter that should not be done on anybody’s capricious emotions, however badly wounded they may feel at any time.
Such a debate should be approached with absolute care, judiciousness and, above all, the sensitivity that it deserves.
Unfortunately, indications are that BDP factions are already positioning themselves to turn the debate into a new battleground for their now all too familiar phony fights.
That should not be allowed.
We have had too much of BDP and Constitutional review cannot be allowed to become yet another BDP affair.
Rather, it should remain a public affairs matter of paramount interest to every Motswana, including those of us who have not the slightest love for the BDP and what may be happening inside that party.
However seriously they may consider themselves as players in the process of the said review, BDP members, especially MPs, have to be prepared to pay whatever price it may entail by way of emotional detachment and disinterest on this matter.
Otherwise the whole project will be lost in the cracks of the mutilated BDP carcass.
We fully understand that for many of the BDP Members of Parliament, given the turmoil from which they are still to recover, maintaining objectivity and impartiality will not be easy. But still they have to give it a try.
It would be counterproductive, in fact tragic, if any of their motives were all of a sudden to be questioned.
Laws, we learn, are made for posterity.
To use a legalistic analogy (and I have a great aversion for law as a profession) BDP MPs would have to approach the issue with clean hands.
We all know that as a political entity, the BDP is steeped in internecine factionalism, mistrust and endless polarity. Nobody inside that party does or says anything without their motives being scrutised against the faction to which they belong.
But a national constitution is no playing matter.
I was impressed to hear veteran Member of Parliament Daniel Kwelagobe argue that it has now become unacceptable to continue amending the constitution in bits and pieces, “piecemeal” if I may use his exact word.
Students of constitutional law should celebrate the day Kwelagobe left cabinet.
Free from the shackles of what is vaguely referred to as collective responsibility, the old horse is back in his element.
Barata Phathi may hate and curse him for selling out. But they can only write him off at the real risk of their own peril.
The man still has some fire inside his belly.
We may differ on whether or not there is any need for constitutional reforms.
But what we cannot differ on is that abstract amendments can no longer be tolerated.
Whichever side of the debate one finds themselves there are difficult questions to be asked and answered.
The central question, in whatever form one wants to put it, should ultimately be “who really has to wield power” under our constitution?”
My answer is that the ultimate repositories of power should be the people, with parliament and, of course, the executive, as embodied by the President acting only as custodians who hold such power in brief for its real owners.
Thus it is very important that if and when there are reforms, deliberate effort is expended to ensure that whatever power the current system has taken away from the voter such power is restored back to its rightful owner.
I have in mind here what we call automatic succession.
That I think should come to an end.
I have in mind a system that allows for the nomination of Specially Elected MPs.
That I think is an aberration that has truly served its usefulness and should be discontinued.
Also I have in mind a system that allows a minister to nominate over a hundred councilors without the input of the voter.
That, I think is a cockeyed system for which as a nation we should all be ashamed.
I have in mind a system that disallows voters from directly choosing who they want as a President.
That I think is a shocking kind of arrogance that we should discontinue forthwith!
