Calls for opposition parties to cooperate at general elections in order to avoid vote splitting and defeat the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) have been so loud that one would be excused for thinking that pre-electoral cooperation is the surest stroll to state power.
Whereas there have been many attempts at opposition cooperation or unity, state capture has always proved elusive. Nevertheless, the voting fraternity never really got tired of calling for opposition parties to continue to cooperate in order to bring an end to the BDP dominance.
Some voters who strongly favor pre-electoral opposition cooperation have even made threats to resign from their parties should those parties demonstrate lack of interest in working with other opposition parties.
Similarly, some opposition leaders continue to mobilize voters to reject opposition parties that refuse to be in a coalition irrespective of their reasoning.
In this context, pre-electoral cooperation of opposition parties have the appearance of a necessary evil in the sense that from an frank point of view, these parties would not otherwise coalesce except for the realization that not to do so would deprive them of the chance to taste state power.
Understood from this perspective, it could be argued that in our context, pre-electoral cooperation of opposition parties is not really motivated by a desire to improve the lives of our people and/or safeguard the resources of the country.
Instead, the justification to coalesce is theoretically premised on pursuing it for purposes of satisfying the thirst for state power, hence the arrangements are often dubbed opportunistic.
Perhaps this explains why opposition parties are often unable to justify their being in cooperation with others beyond the quest for collective action to remove the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), hence the lack of real commitment to the cooperation project.
In other words, while opposition parties may share a common interest in ejecting the BDP from power and whereas that common denominator interest is necessary, it is not sufficient for long term cooperation because these common interests may not necessarily translate into knowing what they stand for.
Similarly the pursuit of state power may not necessarily need cooperation especially when cooperating parties pride themselves on some obscure historical references that make them look like they are on a mission to exploit others by seducing them into the cooperation project for their own advantage.
As a result of the overwhelming calls for pre-electoral cooperation, Botswana’s opposition parties have tried a variety of these arrangements, often doing so on account of pressure from the electorate than their willingness and readiness to do so.
Whereas their performances as a collective have been encouraging, such has only made Botswana’s opposition parties more attuned to the theoretical or academic opportunities presented by coalition politics as a source of hope for a fresh start.
An overriding theme to explain the failure of Botswana’s opposition parties to sustain previous cooperation projects has been that such efforts are driven by people who, first and foremost, pay allegiance to their individual political parties.
The explanation is that opposition cooperation initiatives are originated and managed by people who were most likely to place their personal interests ahead of group interests hence would not want to forfeit chances of laying their hands on the ultimate prize or other positions that would enable them to consolidate their power in the group.
Basically, opposition parties engage in cooperation fully determined to consolidate their individual power over others and/or secure deals that have the potential to cement their position in the group relative to others hence the opposition is in actual fact its own competitors.
Bearing this in mind, one could argue that cooperation initiatives are largely dependent on the role of played by and the behavior of key political figures in ways that make such initiatives personal affairs tailored to meet the narrow ambitions of the leading players and their privileged vulgar henchmen.
This approach means that the cooperation project has gradually shifted toward personalism, allowing those in commanding positions to extend their hegemony in a variety of ways.
The loud calls for the democratization of the UDC particularly in order to improve its governance framework seem to suggest that the UDC president governs absent of the constraints of other leaders of member parties.
A quick peep into the past nevertheless reveals that personalism is not a new phenomenon in local politics. Thus, the increased influence and dominance by individual politicians, especially party presidents has been a feature of politics for some time now.
In the Botswana National Front (BNF), it was abominable to challenge party founder and longtime president Dr Koma. Similarly, it was offensive to differ with him and those who dared were discredited and publicly paraded as hired guns.
In the words of former BNF president Otsweletse Moupo, Dr Koma’s personalist rule grew out of the party’s failure to develop solid organizational and administrative structures, allowing Dr Koma to become the supreme ideologist of the BNF with overwhelmingly unchecked authority.
At that point, the BNF had inadvertently created a ‘life president’ and subjecting him to political competition for the leadership of the party always evoked angry reaction from his punch-drunk loyalist.
In 1998 at the height of the BNF internal squabbling Dr Koma told members of the party’s Central Committee who differed with him to form their own party if they did not want him as leader of the BNF.
In consequence, there came a popular refrain that went like ‘party ke Koma’ – Koma is the party (BNF).
In the Botswana Congress Party (BCP), a similar situation manifested itself when following a humbling defeat at the 1999 general election its then founding president Michael Dingake sought to resign to pave way for others to lead the movement but was coaxed into staying on and did so until 2001 when he convinced the party that he has run out of steam.
Elsewhere, the ruling BDP is synonymous with its founding president Sir Seretse Khama. It is not uncommon to hear the talk of Khama’s party.
When Seretse Khama’s sons, immediate past President Dr Khama and former Minister Tshekedi Khama resigned from the BDP, many people couldn’t understand how it was conceivable for them to dump their father’s party. At about that time, Tshekedi Khama was widely quoted remarking that ‘pary ya ga Seretse ba e bolaile’ – They have destroyed Seretse’s party.
Thus, the legacy of personalism or put differently, power grabbing by political leaders is not unique to our contemporary politics.
The difference is that today’s leaders not only want to amass power, but they deliberately are weakening their parties to ensure that no single party structure or individual exert any control whatsoever.
In the context of this discussion, personalism means the domination of the political party by a single individual. In personalist cultures, policy/program initiatives are modelled around the leader and decisions largely reflect the preference of the leader.
When political leaders are aided to hoard power relative to the parties they lead, such leaders ultimately become larger than life individuals with powers to censure and/or purge those they see as a threat to their position.
For instance, the UDC president is the coalition’s chief fund raiser, chief marketer or salesperson and the coalition’s de facto attorney. And the UDC has used the BNF offices for the longest time.
The concentration of power in the hands of party leaders has the effect of making the parties live in the shadows of these larger-than-life leaders whose personal preferences are often recast as party policy.
Personalism allows leaders to crush structures necessary for checks on their power in ways that intensify their stranglehold on power.
Personalism also enables leaders to steal the limelight and increase their prominence relative to their parties mainly by limiting the party’s capacity to bond with members.
Recognizing the powers that the leaders have, party members see their future and success in politics as a matter of servile devotion wherein they have to take to bullying others into a life of fear of the leader.
By seeing their future prospects as being tied to the leader and having assumed servile status, party members reinvent their lives to become delinquent guardsmen famous for abusing people on behalf of the leader with the aim of ensuring that the leader is untouchable.
Essentially, personalism means that leaders become political entrepreneurs who promise opportunities to terror boys for doing dirty work. This invariably creates violent strongmen who are believed to have the wherewithal to provide quick fixes to society’s problems.
Yet, we are reminded that politicians come and go while institutions must endure. In this regard, personalism is far from guaranteeing continuity of parties or their distinctive politics. Thus, there is an urgent need to annihilate the phenomenon of personalism in politics by strengthening legitimate structures to grow parties so that they do not rely on the charisma of the leaders and this is a must do for the UDC to authentically become a people’s project.
