Very often in life we hold strong personal beliefs. These beliefs sometimes need to be tested against public positions.
One of the instruments that often reflect public position are the decisions of our courts of law.
We have at the heart of our society the view that the decisions of our courts are binding on all of us. At the heart of this rule is the belief that anything contrary to the positions taken by our courts is a private position that is not binding on our people.
When the Court of Appeal ruled against Rre Motswaledi it made the pronouncement that presidential immunity was in the interests of democracy.
What this suggests is that if at the beginning there was some doubt as to the democratic credentials of presidential immunity, by the time of the pronouncement that such immunity was in the interests of democracy was made, any lingering doubts were a private position that did not reflect the public position.
The decision of the Court of Appeal does not suggest that there was a change in the public position between the time when the action was launched and when the decision was made.
This will tend to suggest that the public position on the democratic credentials of presidential immunity existed before the court action. One may therefore conclude that Rre Motswaledi’s position on democracy and presidential immunity was not in line with the public position prior to his court action.
What the above suggests is that contrary to popular myth it is Rre Motswaledi who stood against democracy. To therefore suggest as some have done that his court action was a fight for democracy is therefore a fallacy.
At best his fight was to try to give public support to his private version of democracy. In a situation where a private version of democracy competes with a public version of democracy the default position is that democracy is represented by the public version.
The error in Rre Motswaledi’s position lies in that most basic of human failings, the view that one is always correct on what constitutes democracy.
Once one looks at things from the distinction between a private and personal view and the public view as expressed in the law one cannot fail to appreciate the fallacy of suggesting that Rre Motswaledi by going to court was fighting for democracy. Democracy was already reflected in the law.
The proper position is to suggest that there was some inadequacy in the democracy reflected in the law and what some would like it to be. That cannot however be deemed to be a fight for democracy as if democracy did not obtain.
I seem to recall that some UB lecturers had long before the court action suggested that the extent of presidential immunity was not justified. In the absence of an amendment to our constitution their views were private understanding of democracy.
It will be a fallacy to suggest that because they did not take the president to court they are lesser adherents to their privately held views than Rre Motswaledi.
We must not mistake court action against a president for evidence of bravery. In my view a person who takes a president to court re-affirms their faith that the president will not step outside the law to harm them.
The same applies to those who write articles insulting a president. To suggest that their public insults show bravery if to miss the point. At the heart of their actions lies the knowledge and confidence that a sitting president will not step outside of the law to do them harm.
I have read in the papers that Rre Ntuane stepped aside as interim chairman of BMD and handed the baton to Rre Motswaledi.
This with respect is a dangerous sign that we cannot lightly dismiss. Why was it so important for Rre Motswaledi to become chairman without election? Does this not suggest little regard for democratic appointment of leaders?
In my view at the heart of this appointment lies the benefit of incumbency. It will be difficult for members of BMD to elect someone else as leader at their elective congress.
It is a given that by nature our people like to retain those who are already in leadership.
I cannot help but think that the interim leadership of BMD shows very little faith in the democratic process where they do not know the results before hand, and in order to hedge against such risk they appointed Rre Motswaledi by sacrificing democracy.
Given what one has read in the media about BMD policy proposals that suggest an increase in specially elected members of parliament one cannot help but see a reflection of the undemocratic appointment of leaders rearing its head again.
One can even see that this process is intended to parcel out leadership positions to friends who stood by the dear leader in his fight against his erstwhile president.
In my limited knowledge of choral music I understand that the conductor is king. He decides who signs and who does not. The process is undemocratic. If you have any views that are contrary to the conductor as to how a particular song should be sung you are likely to be expelled from the choir.
I would not be too surprised if a conductor who finds himself is a political setting once in while forgets about democracy and instead behaves true to form.
One may therefore ask if there is any real difference between a former military commander and a choir conductor. They are both used to dictating the tone of the environment.
They may pretend to take every point of view on board but in the end the character of their vocation is that the have final say.
The above needs to be borne in mind more particularly when protagonists profess to be proponents of democracy. It is not enough to look at the one who projects himself as a victim or activist and not to interrogate their stand as evidenced by their conduct.
If we are to draw conclusions about people from their past and current conduct let us apply the same process to everyone. It does not serve our national interest to be biased.
There have been accusations in the media about some politicians being bought. In my view if a politician cannot give up incumbency, such a politician is in the same position as those that are alleged to have been bought. The only difference is that of the currency used to buy the particular politician.
In one instance the deal is you rejoin us and we pay you P1.5 million and in the other is, you join us and we make you interim chairman which ensures the benefits of incumbency.
Both deals have nothing to do with adherence to democratic ideals.
