“It is a pleasure to be here in this beautiful country that embodies what my husband has called ‘vision of Africa on the move’ÔÇôthat is BotswanaÔÇôthriving democracy, vital democracy, fast-growing economy and more importantly a kind and generous people who, in this short amount of time, have given me and my family such a warm welcome.” – Michelle Obama in Gaborone
This is contrary to the assertion that the visit by America’s First Lady, Michelle Obama, to Botswana “is misplaced as it is based on America’s wrong perception of Botswana as a country that upholds democracy and respects people’s liberties”.
It was further alleged that during the strike, the Botswana Government was insensitive to the plight of workers. What should be understood is that the decision by the Obama Administration to have the First Lady visit Botswana was based on their assessment of the situation.
They have their Embassy in this country that is well placed to undertake such an assessment. It is not surprising that they view Botswana as a ‘vision of Africa on the move’ if we consider the positive ratings by International Organizations.
The White House after having assessed the situation described the First Lady’s trip as an opportunity to highlight “Botswana’s enduring democracy, bolstered by its commitment to using its vast natural resources to invest in its people and grow its economy, models the potential for good governance, and strong institutions to advance prosperous and stable societies”.
In their assessment of the situation, one can logically conclude that they viewed the dispute between Government and BOFEPUSO as part of the democratic dispensation and indulgence, save only for some untoward acts of violence perpetrated by some drifters and vagabonds bent on tarnishing the good name of the country.
The disagreement between the Government and BOFEPUSO then on wage dispute should not be viewed as Government’s insensitivity to the plight of workers. Government had duly sympathized with workers but owing to the budget deficit and the volatile world economic climate, they could only offer 5% in September should there be sufficient economic recovery.
His Excellency noted on several occasions that unlike many other countries burdened with budget deficits Botswana had not cut public sector salaries or jobs. He expressed his regret that this fact was not appreciated by those on strike.
The President also reminded that Government was committed to spending large sums of money on critical infrastructure projects such as new power stations to ensure the country’s economic future, while at the same time assisting Batswana through various social welfare and empowerment programmes such as Ipelegeng (50,000 monthly beneficiaries at an annual cost of P330 million), ISPAAD (currently 156,000 beneficiaries at P 200 million) and Poverty Eradication (64,000 beneficiaries at P 100 million).
It was on the basis of an aggregate of these factors that government had pleaded with the Unions to assess the recovery and thereafter adjust salaries accordingly. Unfortunately another grouping of public sector unions BOFEPUSO thought otherwise and hence a stalemate.
Another union grouping or faction allied to the Botswana Federation of Trade Unions (BFTU) did not think the strike was at that point a logical option. We see here another typical example of groupings at variance, which is normal within a democratic setting. It will be foolhardy to argue that the other Union grouping that did not participate in the strike was ‘insensitive to the plight of workers’.
Britain, like Botswana and many other countries has come up with austerity measures to balance the budget. This has rubbed some of the Unions the wrong way and teachers have embarked on a strike. British Prime Minister David Cameron, like President Khama has pleaded with workers not to embark on a strike as negotiations are ongoing.
The Leader of Opposition Ed Miliband (Labour) renewed calls on public sector unions not to strike. This does not in any way suggest that Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour Leader Ed Miliband do not “uphold democracy and respect people’s liberties”.
To further buttress the fact that it is common for people to hold divergent views and continue to coexist, the BOFEPUSO Leadership and some of their members were at loggerheads when the leadership decided that they are suspending the strike. There was venomous and spiteful exchange of correspondence between the BOFEPUSO Leadership and their membership. This did not in any way suggest that the aggrieved Party (general membership) should then throw tantrums and become violent against the BOFEPUSO leadership.
On the basis of the aforesaid, can we conclude that the BOFEPUSO leadership was “insensitive to the plight of workers”? If there is that feeling, the documented and mature solution lies in voting out the leadership.
In Botswana, unlike in some other African Countries, it is acceptable for people to disagree and to hold divergent views and differing opinions, be it political or otherwise. For the record, at the macro level, Botswana has held free and fair elections ever since the country attained Independence in 1966. This system inherently allows for people to hold divergent views and freely express their opinion through the ballot.
It is for this reason that as Batswana, we must condemn in the strongest possible terms any form of violence or any other grouping that would want to justify violence simply because others hold divergent and diametrically opposed views to theirs. The violence and unrests that gripped the country during the strike and those that prevailed in schools should unequivocally and without reservation be condemned in the utmost by all responsible citizens and organizations.
