Leading members of Umbrella for Democratic Change like to say that it is a national project. I like most people have taken this claim with a pinch of salt. But a closer examination of the underlying thinking of what Botswana is about may show that the claim is not too farfetched. In fact UDC has its roots in the thinking that has held this country together. Those of us who are of Tswana stock usually take for granted the transition that we ask those who are not of Tswana stock to make for them to be taken as Batswana. A Mongwato was a Motswana before 1966 and continued to be afterwards.
A Mumbukushu was not a Motswana before 1966 and was asked to become one after 1966. The two cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to have taken the same path. It would be downright dishonest to suggest that the Motswana assumed the same burden as a Mumbukushu. It is interesting that some of the people who wonder how BNF, BMD and BPP can at the same time be UDC are the very people who have no problem asking people of non Tswana stock to call themselves and assume the label that they are Batswana, purely on the basis that they are citizens of Botswana. In my view it is hypocrisy that underlies the doubt being expressed. We are asking people of various ethnic groups to assume the label of Motswana yet we have a problem when BNF, BMD and BPP assume a common label.
Those within BNF who are hell bent on so called preservation of the BNF identity are no different from tribal purists who reject the notion that we are all Batswana. They also suffer under the mistaken belief that tribes are natural formations which cannot change. How many tribes can trace their current cultural and ideological characteristics to the origins of mankind? None. Historians and archaeologists like to go back and make claims about tribes, yet as we all know no one has been able to revive a claimed ancestor to con? rm that he ever thought of himself as being their ancestor. We accept it as a fact that we originate from the Great Lakes region. I am not aware of any claim that there were Bakwena or Bakalaka in the Great Lakes. Yet for some strange reason we have elected to become frozen in time. In fact I would submit that tribal purists are really oppressors for they deny us the right to form new tribes. On what basis have they acquired such power? I see no reason why we cannot form new tribes. Given that we cannot claim to be the same tribes that we were in the Great Lakes we must as a matter of logic then have formed new tribes. Who said there is a law that prohibits formation of new tribes? The formation of UDC therefore puts to the test our claim to be able to transition from a tribal Motswana to a national Motswana. If we have a problem with BNF, BMD and BPP becoming a new party then this demonstrates our shallow adherence to the claimed ideal of a Motswana. If an Mbukushu can be asked to call himself a Motswana on the basis of nationhood why can a BNF not call himself a UDC? It is possible to originate an idea and to have someone else put it into proper perspective for others. The BDP originated the idea of promotion of a unitary state in which we are all Batswana irrespective of ethnic origin. Coupled with this idea was that there should be no arbitrary exercise of power. Yet in drafting the national constitution the same party created unfettered discretion for the president. Even though in Setswana it said that it was going to lighten the load of ruling imposed on chiefs it took the same load and placed it on the president. It did not spread the load. UDC has an opportunity to put in place procedures and structures that lighten the load on a president.
UDC may have ordinary people at its helm. This gives an opportunity to test our claim that we look at the capability of a person rather than his birth or station in life. In my view we can only prove our adherence to this idea by electing a person of no known pedigree to become president purely on the basis that they are capable. I recently heard from a colleague that old people in the rural areas cannot be swayed from the BDP. The problem is not the old people, but a failure on the part of the educated opposition to appreciate certain simple facts of life. If you are in power, why invest money on the educated elite when they do not matter in a numbers game? If you want to retain power through elections you invest money where the numbers are. If you can get someone’s vote by employing them for three months in a year why invest resources in thinking ways of creating year long employment? If your opponent goes out of his way to rubbish that which is acceptable to the majority of the voters you have only to smile and wonder at how elite education has blinded your opponent to real politics. The opposition is investing time and resources preaching to the converted when it otherwise needs to increase its numbers. It is investing time and resources in labels when its real task is to win a numbers game.
It is not impossible to win a numbers game. The ?rst step is not to rubbish that which is acceptable to the majority of the voters. The opposition by attacking Ipelegeng alienates a signi?cant number of voters. The second step is to avoid falling into the trap of generating alternative policies for public consumption. This is because in a situation where the other side has access to the media all it need do is dismiss your policies. Observe how in Botswana even if the opposition puts forth alternatives the ruling party can claim that they have not done so and get away with it.
So the opposition should stop ?ghting battles that it cannot win. The voter pro?le is not receptive to alternative policies. One of the mistakes that the public sector unions made was to engage in a ?ght in a self imposed siege situation. By self imposed siege situation I mean whereby you have dwindling resources because of something you have done and yet think you can win a long term ?ght in the short to medium term. There was no way that the unions could ?ght and win when its members had no income. It was relatively easy for Margret Thatcher to destroy the mining sector unions. It is a mistake to think that her success against the mining sector can be replicated in the public sector. This is because the public sector is the hands of the country leadership. If the country leadership alienates the public sector it gets into a self imposed siege situation and cannot by any stretch of the imagination succeed. No organization can function only with its leaders and no hands- on people. Where the leadership alienates the public sector it places itself on a path to failure. How do I function if I keep my mind and alienate my hands?
Recruitment of like-minded people into parliament does not solve the problem of alienating the public sector. It only means I have more people who think like me. What is the point of my acquiring more people who think like me if there are no hands to give effect to my ideas? In my view there must be a recognition that the hands give effect to the ideas that I have. If I create a disconnect between my brain and my hands then surely I cannot succeed. What sort of country are we? We place so many of our children in tertiary institutions largely owned by foreigners and where the lecturers are also foreigners. I know of one case where a foreign lecturer was dismissed from a local tertiary education institution because students had complained about his capability which led to their failing. He joined another local tertiary institution.
In fact one will notice that where there is external marking of exams the students fail but where there is local marking by the foreign lecturers they pass. The foreign lecturers know that they have no real interest in producing quality graduates. Welcome to UDC, for it gives us an opportunity to put into practice some of our core ideas. It gives us an opportunity to interrogate some of our underlying contradictions. It is only when we do this that we may advance as a nation. One only hopes that UDC does not become another organization that behaves like tribal purists who are, as I have argued, really oppressors.
