In July 1998 the Botswana National Front (BNF) experienced a violent split that would see the birth of the Botswana Congress Party (BCP). The formation of the BCP just before the 1999 general election meant that the new party did not have enough time to campaign and convince voters that they stand to offer something different from existing opposition parties in order to stand any chance of being favored by the voters.
The decision also meant that the BNF was ruptured and thrown into chaos soon before the national polls. In many ways, the decision gifted the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) a landslide victory as they easily own the general election against an opposition riven by squabbling.
Going to the 1999 national polls with eleven parliamentarians who had left the BNF, the BCP only managed to return a paltry 3 parliamentarians. Nevertheless, the party retained the bragging rights as the second largest opposition party in the country after the BNF.
An interesting point to note is that the rejection of the party by the voters did not dispirit most of those who associated themselves with its core values and principles. Rather the party publicly admitted to their disappointment for failing to attain the targets they set out to achieve.
The BCP further acknowledged that they never took it for granted that the task of competing with others for state power was a walk in the park, remarking that they knew the journey was likely to be rocky, bumpy and depressing. That was a commendable and reassuring proclamation that paved the way for a march into the political battlefield.
The party would go on to remind its members and sympathizers that the BCP was formed to usher in a disciplined, coherent, organized social democratic formation that can bring far reaching, political, social and economic reforms to this republic.
In that respect, the BCP family noted that in spite of their humiliation at the polls, they remained very relevant and were determined to honor the cause of freedom. True to its decisive and resolute disposition, the party thoroughly evaluated its performance at the polls and sought to use the findings to plan for the future in terms of strategy development.
This coherent and expert approach to party politics enabled the BCP to become a formidable political organization within a short period of its existence. The media branded it ‘the new kid on the block’ not so much for its newness but for its organizational finesse and cadre discipline.
Since then, the BCP has remained one of the fastest growing opposition parties in the country mainly because voters still find its message and political ideals relevant and persuasive.
The BCP enjoys the gift of tolerance and ability to remain focused in the midst of provocation. We will recall how some BNF members and other social misfits went about threatening to burn the houses of BCP MPs who were formerly in the BNF to a point where the Botswana Police Service had to step in by maintaining a heavy presence at the party’s political rallies to ward off troublemakers.
For many years, the BCP was used a template of a modernized political party that dared to do politics differently with an infusion of corporate values that sought to transform political organizations into business-minded entities.
The BCP was heralded for transforming electioneering practices by deliberately moving away from old-fashioned political propaganda to focus more on political marketing that allowed it to build the confidence of its cadres and enhance its overall reputation.
The party was envied for its image of a credible, issue-based, disciplined and stable organization whose leaders and followers personified its core values. The party subscribed to zero tolerance to indiscipline using formal and informal rules to ensure that members toe the line irrespective of their position in the party.
Party discipline was recognized as an essential ingredient that enabled everyone to perform their function and play their part in growing the movement. Yet, the party relied less on the application of strict control mechanisms such as punishment or the lesser evil of berating colleagues for indiscipline.
Rather the members were socialized into the party’s norms in terms of inducting them on their rights to express dissenting opinion but to do so in manner that sought to foster party cohesion. Thus, in the BCP party discipline never prevented members from expressing a contrary but rather cautioned them against the dangers of taking their disagreement to the public sphere.
The application of basic management principles in the administration of the BCP allowed the party to be disciplined, organized and appealing to voters who take politics seriously. This enabled the party to continue growing by attracting many who were disillusioned with their chaotic parties that having been moving in circles since their formation.
For many years, independent, nonpartisan research institutes and the local media referenced the BCP as a good example of a political party that that permitted open debates and allowed dissent without plugging itself into a stupendous degree of indiscipline that undermines the chain of command and basic rules of engagement.
However, this culture of discipline was recently tested when the party’s Parliamentary Caucus reportedly rejected the decision of the Central Committee to field a candidate parallel to the Umbrella of Democratic Change (UDC) for the Bophirima ward by-election.
In keeping with the culture of the BCP, the Parliamentary Caucus had every right to express its disagreement with the Central Committee decision but such differences should have been registered within the confines of the party core standards of decorum and established rules of conduct more so that this involved prominent members of the party.
Leaders, elders and distinguished personalities should at all times display exemplary behavior given that most are held with reverence and that whatever behaviors and mannerisms they parade might be mimicked by those who look up to them as role models.
They should know better that once indiscipline takes root at the top table, everyone else is not immune from infection and the effects are often devastating. For MPs to have pride in showing indiscipline as a means of expressing their grievances is absurd and should never be tolerated.
Leaders are the embodiment of institutions since they represent authority. They must demonstrate that there are structures for channeling grievances and should not allow their sense of importance to lead them astray.
It is in recognition of the reality that indiscipline might be taking root in the BCP hence the need for the party’s politburo to pick out the red flags, sniff around for potential acts of delinquency and take corrective action before the party is plugged into chaos and become another comic movement with disparate self-styled mavericks who hide behind masks of fake loyalty to pursue personal agendas.
The dissenters must be held to account not for their disagreement with the decision of the Central Committee but for defying established protocols to express their objection in a way that left the party with an egg on the face.
It is a fact that ever since their display of disobedience, the renegades MPs are portrayed as delinquent troublemakers who derive pleasure from playing to the gallery as when they used social media to excite their underage followers and enemies of the BCP.
Effective party organization and administration requires synergy and co-action especially the gift of sacrificing personal beliefs for societal interests. A march into the political battlefield is feasible with the confidence that party members especially representatives at various levels have the party covered. A perceived lack of solidarity has the potential to make voters lose the confidence of the party.
Opposition parties have always failed to project an image of a united force, individually and collectively, mainly because of their widely documented internecine strife and instabilities. The BCP has been an exceptional case whose membership of the UDC was celebrated mainly as an opportunity to revolutionize the running and marketing of the collective.
Thus, the BCP cannot be let to drift along the same slippery path which has seen many opposition parties slide into oblivion, not so much for its own sake but for the sake of the opposition collective and our politics generally.
The BCP’s value in the opposition playfield is far more important than it’s spiritual worth to its members hence the indiscipline of their key personnel should worry all those who crave regime change. In effect, the BCP must be pushed to ensure the dissenters are whipped back into line without humiliating them.
So much effort will go to waste should the dissenters be let scot free after behaving like rabid infected elite thugs on the loose. It is utterly wrong for MPs to behave like simpletons who just discovered their worth.
Going forward and keeping with its role as a model opposition party, the BCP should develop a social media policy to regulate its MPs, Central Committee and Councilors’ use of social media.
