Dear Editor
My desire to communicate effectively with the readers always compels me to present my views and ideas in very simple and plain English. I never use big English words because I do not want to cause any confusion to the readers. I am, therefore, at a loss as to why a very wise political veteran and commentator, rre Dingake, failed dismally to understand the simple issues that I raised and presented in very simple English in my two articles (The Telegraph 11th January & 8th February 2012). Instead of responding to the simple issues that I presented in both articles, rre Dingake keeps on misdirecting himself and is sadly rendering himself irrelevant to the discussion. But as an academic, I can never give up on him because I have a duty to guide and enlighten people like him who seem to be drowning in a pool of confusion and darkness.
The issue of age: I said, “Michael Dingake is one of the politicians that I highly respect. He has contributed immensely to the political development of our republic. I always read his articles and he inspires me to continue contributing to political debates. I always tell myself that if someone who is old enough to be my grandfather can still contribute to political debates with so much zeal, then I have no excuse of not participating.”
He responded by saying, “Why does Bashi Mothusi find inspiration to participate in political debates because rre Dingake, a grandfather is still at it? Does it imply granddads seldom or never participate in political debates according to him, or could it be an insinuation that those granddads, like me who participate in political debates must lay off because political debates are not for them?” He goes further to talk about the school of thought that teaches “absurd puerile theory that politics is for the youth” and even states that, if young people had their way, “they would banish oldies from politics and political debates.”
It is very unfortunate that rre Dingake failed dismally to realize that I was simply acknowledging his contribution to political debates. That’s all. I never questioned or despised his contribution to political debates on the basis of his age. The president of this country does not have the power to banish people from politics and political debates on the basis of their age. So, where would I, as an ordinary citizen, get the power to banish rre Dingake and his peers from politics and political debates? What a false start by the political veteran!
The use of the word “us” instead of “I”: rre Dingake had this to say about me, “In his defensive response where he becomes a spokesperson of others (he uses the word ‘us’ instead of ‘I’)…Yes, I used the “we” because the first article written by rre Dingake was an attack on all people (including myself) who commented on the collapse of the umbrella. He accused “us” of failing to base our arguments on “facts.” I used the word “us” in my response because he attacked us as a collective. And if I may ask: how did the word “us” distort the facts and issues that he presented? The granddaddy is not only misdirecting himself here, he is also petty as he concentrates on semantics rather than concrete issues.
Painting my generation and colleagues with the same brush: despite accusing me of appointing myself a spokesperson for other people by using the word “us,” rre Dingake in his wisdom, deems it appropriate to cast aspersions on the integrity and thinking capacity of all people belonging to my generation and my colleagues in academia on the basis of the things that I said. I expect rre Dingake to know that blind general statements casting aspersions on the integrity of other people can only be made by narrow-minded people who cannot see beyond their noses. He seems to be oblivious of the fact that I belong to the same generation as some of the leaders of the BCP, including its president. Is he saying that they are as useless as he wants to portray Bashi Mothusi?
Consistency in debates is very important rre Dingake. If you have a problem with me representing people who commented on the umbrella, why do you then want me to be a representative of people who have never uttered a single word on the issues that we are discussing?
The allocation of constituencies: in my second article, I stated that, “If the 40% threshold that was agreed on by all parties, that the BCP used to allocate constituencies was based on facts, I expected rre Dingake to give us examples of constituencies where the BCP or any other opposition party obtained 40% of the votes in past elections only for them to win the same in the next elections. Such examples would assist us to appreciate where the BCP was coming from and where they were heading. Taolo Lucas, Dr. Gobotswang, Vain Mamela, Morgan Moseki and Habaudi Hobona among others, are still not in parliament despite trying their luck several times. Why?”
Instead of giving me the answer, rre Dingake misdirects himself by stating that I (Bashi Mothusi) “refer and denigrates selected members of the BCP…” Where in my statement did I defame or disparage the reputation of the afore-mentioned individuals? This is a clear case of a wise political veteran refusing to think! I mentioned their names to demonstrate that the 40% threshold as embraced by all the negotiating parties was just a mysterious number with no statistical basis and could not be used to assess and determine the future prospects of opposition parties. I challenge rre Dingake, for the second time, to stop misdirecting himself and enlighten us on why the people I mentioned above are still not in parliament if getting 40% of the votes guarantees one success in the next elections.
On being economical with the truth: in an attempt to present me as an ill-mannered and uncultured young man, rre Dingake states that I politely called him a liar. Well, he has the right to call himself whatever he wants, but he should never attribute the labels to me. I respect him just as I respect other members of our society and would never call him a liar even if I were to differ with him on many issues. Being economical with the truth does not only mean that one is lying. I understand it to also mean that one is being selective with facts; that s/he is not telling people everything that they need to be told; that s/he is hiding or concealing certain facts or information from the people that they are addressing.
This is exactly what rre Dingake did when he accused “us” of failing to state “facts” in our discussion of the umbrella. Instead of showing “us” how things are done, he only stated one fact as if it was the only one that resulted in the collapse of the umbrella: that the BMD did not compromise on the issue of incumbency. I discussed other facts that I believe contributed to the collapse of the umbrella that he decided not to present simply because they portray his party in bad light eg. that the BCP did not compromise on the issue of primary elections for disputed constituencies, that the 40% threshold was based on hope and expectations, not facts or statistical evidence etc. It is within this context that I faulted him for being economical with the truth. A well-grounded and wise debater, that he purports himself to be, would have demonstrated his point by presenting the missing “facts” instead of bragging to the readers that he will provide the same only if asked to do so.
He also states that I must have read about him somewhere whereas he has never read about me and therefore does not know me. There is nothing meaningful and interesting that I can read about rre Dingake just as there is nothing meaningful and interesting that he can read about me. I read his articles just as I read those that are written by different people in different newspapers. My intention is to appreciate how different people assess and interpret things that are happening in our republic. I am not interested in reading about them. And rre Dingake is not an exception. So, he should stop deluding himself by thinking that he has a special place in my heart. He is not my political icon and I can never waste my precious time reading about him. That is why I did not even know that he is one of the founding members of the BNF and that he served in two Presidential Commissions of Inquiry. His incarceration at Robben Island prison is of no importance to me and to Batswana in general because he was acting in his personal capacity. He was not sent to South Africa to represent our nation.
Let me also remind him that one does not need to be a genius to serve in a Presidential Commission of Inquiry. There are many people who have served Batswana in different capacities, men and women of repute who do not brag about their contributions to the development of our country. So, rre Dingake must just spare us the boredom of self-praise because as the saying goes, “self-praise is no recommendation.”
The BMD not being led by political lightweights: in my two articles, I never made reference to the political battles that were fought and won by Gomolemo Motswaledi and others as leaders of the BMD. It is rre Dingake who, for reasons best known to him, decided to narrow the discussion to the battles fought by leaders of the BMD after the formation of the party. I challenge him to read my two articles again so that he can fully understand the things that I said. I only made reference to the political experience that the BMD leaders acquired as members of the BDP and the BNF (in the case of rre Modubule) that I believe will assist them to navigate the difficult terrain of opposition politics. That is why I said, “That all the founders of the BMD are new in opposition politics is not in dispute. But to dismiss them as political novices who have no political experience is wrong, disingenuous and unfortunate especially when such an assessment is made by a political veteran. Their political life did not start when they formed the BMD.” Where in this statement did I talk about the battles fought and won by leaders of the BMD after the formation of the party?
In conclusion, I would like to assure rre Dingake that I can never be bruised by political debates. I am a big boy. I know how to take care of myself. All that he needs to do is to focus on the substantive issues that I raised in my two articles because trivialities and banalities will never benefit him and the readers.
Bashi Mothusi
Gaborone
