The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) is a party which seems to have lately been infected with self-destructive controversy, which puts to risk the sustainability of the collective project. The umbrella which came into effect prior to the 2014 elections without one of Botswana’s two largest opposition parties, the Botswana Congress Party (BCP), was expected to give the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) a run for their money. Sadly this didn’t happen and the saddest thing is that the UDC failed to maintain its dominance in the South, a factor which severely dented its prospects in its pursuit to occupy the echelons of power.
The largest opposition party attributed this loss to the rigging of elections by the BDP. Unfortunately the allegations were never tested in a court of law and to this day we are not sure of the veracity of such allegations. We could possibly be operating under an illegitimate government which rigged elections. The allegations that of the three judges who set on each of the two panels, two of them were not chosen through the computerisation system as is believed to be conventionally the case, brings into question the partiality of the courts in determining the outcome of the cases of election rigging. If it’s indeed true it also brings into question the credibility of our legal system as the custodian of our rights as citizens of this country.
It emerged that the decision to go to court was not a resolve by the UDC national executive committee (NEC), for the committee had not met to determine the way forward regarding the elections outcome. For an organisation of the magnitude of the UDC to Be run in total disregard of the democratic principles upon which our civil rights are anchored does not augur well for the party’s image. For almost a year following the 2019 elections, the UDC NEC had not met and this leaves some wondering as to why the second largest party in the country could go on without meeting for such a long time.
Just recently we have observed the suspended opposition chief whip accusing the leader of opposition and deputy president of the UDC of disrespecting him. It emerges the differences between the two are difficult to resolve as the LOO is being accused of not consulting on the suspension, whereas the LOO holds an opposite narrative. Certainly one of them is being dishonest and economic with the truth. The other leaders are cited as being cognizant of the suspension by the LOO while the suspended whip also cites others as having given the assurance to the contrary. The suspension of the chief whip has been followed by his suspension by his constituency from his contracting party the BNF.
Sadly for the UDC, its cadres have been at each other’s throat this week with the battle lines drawn between the BNF and BCP. It is clear that the two organisations differ on the issue of merger of the contracting partners and possibly on who amongst the two parties is the senior partner in the umbrella. There could also be some concerns among some within the party regarding the processes of how issues are to be addressed. It is in the best interest of the UDC that its leaders follow the laid out internal procedures in airing their views and concerns regarding certain aspects of the running of their party and the path the party should take. Leaders by meddling in the social media spats compromise any meaningful initiatives to calm the warring factions, for they will come across as conflicted and therefore unfit to quench the fires.
While I totally believe in meaningful engagement aimed at organisational improvements and the enhancement of democratic process, I have serious issues with the lack of respect and decorum in engaging those within ones party as well as those from opposing ends. When comrades engage objectively with the view to improve and not to demean, this will help enhance the capacities of their organisations to the betterment of those they seek to represent. It requires a lot of restraint and selflessness for any organisation to achieve its intended objectives in the midst of challenges, differences and offences. It is my conviction that the pursuit of the objectives of an organisation or party should be supreme to any personal agendas their constituents might have. It is also very important that the leadership should be seen to call their membership to odd, even when such members are appear to be fighting from their own corner. A silence on the part of the leaders renders them accomplices to the altercations which are ongoing amongst their members.
As long as the BNF and the BCP remain at each other’s throats in the manner witnessed recently, their sustainability as a UDC partnership is certainly at stake. The greatest losers will be Batswana who continue to languish in poverty, unemployment and inequality. The UDC’s alleged quest to emancipate the citizens of this country as contained in their manifesto is the one under a litmus test. At this stage it is their actions which might be worthy of great reliability rather than their documented agenda. If they fight at this stage, one wonders whether they could be trusted with running the country. It is for them to convince us the voters of their maturity and their democratic credentials.
Lastly it might be important for the members of the UDC that leadership should not be an entitlement and there are possibly more competent leaders within their organisation and such should through democratic practices be given room to rise and catapult the party to greater heights. For some within the party to think that there are certain individuals anointed for leadership is to constrain their organisational capacity.
