We like to hear our own voices so much so that we have overrated our enjoyment of freedom of expression to having a say in how we are governed. In the process we have also overrated the expressions of our members of parliament when they tally with our own views. For example if we want a law on declaration of assets and a member of parliament says the same, we celebrate and view the Member of Parliament as our champion. We fail to appreciate that the Member of Parliament has power to go beyond freedom of expression, he can actually make the law. He can only be champion after making the law.
If there is a relationship between state power and freedom of expression after elections founded on any law in this country it is controlled by those who wield state power. Our members of parliament are supposed to fill the gap between our expressed view and the law but they have instead reduced themselves to our level. They instead of making the law also call for its formulation.
Once one appreciates the tenuous link between freedom of expression and state power one then begins to realize that the BMD link with Rre Kwelagobe presents a political risk to the opposition. Rre Kwelagobe has inhabited the freedom of expression territory all his political life. In my view a party that draws inspiration from Rre Kwelagobe will likewise inhabit this territory and cannot really offer an alternative position.
Kwelagobe as a member of BDP cannot seriously support BMD. At best he can use it as a bargaining tool inside the BDP. When one bears in mind that there is no real link between the BDP and state power a relationship with Rre Kwelagobe is worthless. The BMD cannot through Rre Kwelagobe get state power, at best it can get concessions within the BDP, but it does not know the extent to which those who wield state power can make Rre Kwelagobe jump. I would be surprised if they cannot make him jump if they really wanted him to.
The BMD relationship with Rre Kwelagobe also presents a difficult scenario within opposition ranks. It suggests that BDP has a say in opposition cooperation efforts. It is my belief that every relationship is two way or has a feedback loop. There can never be a relationship where BMD has through Rre Kwelagobe influence within the BDP and where the BDP cannot through him have influence within the BMD. Effectively BMD gives Rre Kwelagobe a foothold within the opposition and he can use this to get a better deal for himself within the BDP.
At the heart of the relationship between BMD and Rre Kwelagobe lies poor grounding on political issues within the BMD leadership. There is no way that a substantive distinction can be drawn between the president of BDP and its chairman. A distinction can only be made on superficial grounds and such a distinction cannot advance our country. A distinction on superficial grounds suggests adherence to core values of the BDP on the part of the BMD leadership. If this be the case then BMD is asking the opposition to uphold the core values of BDP and this amounts to asking them to change the packaging and not what is inside.
This idea of asking the opposition to look at the packaging and not the contents is typical BDP philosophy. We are asked to consider ourselves Batswana and to gloss over issues. A small minority own freehold land in this country and our governments have since independence respected the property rights of this class, and upheld the constitution. In regard to tribes at the change of one word our various tribes were dispossessed of their lands for no compensation in clear violation of our constitution. When this dispossession first took place (1972) Rre Khama was not in government but Rre Kwelagobe was. I believe at one time he headed a ministry that oversaw land boards.
In my view a political party that glosses over Rre Kwelagobe’s centrality to core issues that have alienated our people from that which is theirs, is a threat to the opposition project. A party that preaches democratic values but that fails to appreciate the discontinuity between democracy and our realization of our people’s needs and preservation of their tribal property rights is not properly grounded in national issues. A party that associates itself with people who have used democracy as a barrier between our people and their needs and aspirations is not serious in charting a new vision.
The trouble for the BMD leadership is that it is trying to gloss over its role in the history of the BDP. As a tool to hide their role they need to have a foil in the BDP, and Kwelagobe is that foil. An experienced politician that he is, Rre Kwelagobe is very much aware that BMD leaders need him for this purpose. The issue though is that the other opposition parties are not really a party to this arrangement. This is another way in which BMD in its current form presents a political risk to the opposition. To minimize this risk BMD must break links with Rre Kwelagobe.
When Rre Motsamai Mpho addressed BMD in Maun, they missed the point of his speech. He was suggesting that they had now seen the light. That was an opening that BMD should have seized upon to break ranks with Rre Kwelagobe without too much aggravation. Unfortunately for BMD they seem to lack the courage to face up to their past. They seem content to ask others to face their shortcomings but they lack that courage. BMD has asked questions about BDF tenders in line with this attitude. A leadership that behaves like this is very easily silenced for we all have a past.
The trouble for BMD leadership is that for all the pretense about bravery and sacrifice they are unwilling to account for their past association with BDP. At one time Rre Motswaledi was chairman of the youth wing and a member of the central committee. Are we to believe that at this time there was nothing wrong with BDP policies and their implementation? Rre Ntuane was executive secretary of the BDP for ten years. Are we to believe that there was nothing wrong with BDP policies and their implementation in this period?
A brave leadership acknowledges past mistakes. It does not matter how the relationship with the mistakes came about. The BMD leadership lacks the courage to trust our people to forgive them for their past mistakes by association with BDP. In my view a leadership that cannot muster the courage to place itself before the people is dishonest and cannot be trusted.
Freedom of expression is empty space available to all. One can fill it with truth or lies. One can fill it with fake or genuine ideas or arguments. There is no duty on anyone in the freedom of expression arena to do a particular thing. But in the arena of leadership there is a duty to be honest and frank. That is how trust is developed between the people and its leadership. A leadership cannot use freedom of expression to avoid duties imposed on leaders.
If Rre Motswaledi had won his case would he not have asked for his costs from BDP and Rre Khama? Why the pretense that by seeking its costs BDP is somehow victimizing him? Why the attempt to link recovery of costs to an assault on democracy? It is in the public domain, through Rre Ntuane’s writings, that Rre Motswaledi went to court because time was running out for him to stand under the BDP ticket. Rre Motswaledi went to court to be allowed to contest under a BDP ticket. Why did he not stand as an independent? Our laws allowed him to do so. There is no way that Rre Khama could have taken this away from him.
In a political system where numbers matter, freedom of association takes precedence over freedom of expression for a political party. BNF and BCP are investing time in freedom of expression. BMD is enjoying freedom of association with its former colleagues whilst both BNF and BCP are supportive of it in the freedom of expression arena. By participating with BMD in the freedom of expression arena both BNF and BCP are missing the reason for their existence. They were supposed to be repositories of an alternative vision not partners in freedom of expression with a splinter of the ruling party.
Both BNF and BCP were supposed to be rallying points for freedom of association for those who seek an alternative to BDP. I have yet to hear of a political formation that took state power on the basis of freedom of expression rather than on the basis of freedom of association. BDP understands this, that is why some of their members associate with BMD and it is highly unlikely there will be disciplinary action.
