I thought it proper to respond to Spencer Mogapi’s article entitled ‘Problems with an opposition that lives on the edge!’ from The Watchdog (Sunday Standard, December 9 ÔÇô 15, 2012). There are various reasons why I think I needed to respond to his claims. Chiefly, he misdirected himself. And below I will show why I think that is the case. Secondly, the key problem that explains why there is no Leader of Opposition in parliament dovetails with the argument I raised in one of my past instalments: that is, we need to strengthen our governance instrument if our country is going to further consolidate impressive democratic development and, thereby, avoid any reversal in good governance and democracy.
Yes, I make it clear from the onset that Mogapi misdirected himself in his explanation of why the opposition finds itself where it is today – a crisis mode, according to Him. In the same article Mogapi pays attention to recent unfortunate developments or lack thereof that has come to characterise relationship between our opposition parties. In particular, his focus has been on the latest fiasco regarding the Leader of Opposition position in parliament. For those who might have missed the news, as a leading light of democracy in much of the developing countries, Botswana does not have a Leader of Opposition in parliament!
This is not just another ceremonial position. The LOO plays a crucial role in our democracy. The incumbent, as the position rightly states, takes a leading role in advancing the interest of the opposition in parliament such as responding to the President’ State of the Nation address. He/she has a lot in terms of what they have to do to make the opposition a legitimate player in our democratic set-up and, in the process, build public confidence in them. He is the public face of our opposition parties in parliament. The crisis that we seen in parliament as far as the LOO position is concerned is not a deliberate design by BNF and BMD meant to cut short BCP’s Dumelang Saleshando stay in that post. But Mogapi wants us to think otherwise. He writes, ‘whatever the reasons, was it in the best public interest to remove Saleshando when it was clear to both BNF and their BMD handlers that such behaviour will render the position vacant? Or was removing him the be-it all-for BNF and their BMD friends? That if they would not have the position to themselves, then nobody would have it?’ He goes on and on and on. Come on Spencer, I know you can do much better than this! The BNF and the BMD did not remove Dumelang. They were merely seeking recognition as a new entity in parliament and in that regard the Speaker saw it fit to declare the post vacant.
In short, the vacancy that resulted was an unintended consequence of their actions.
In fact, we were fortunate enough this Sunday night when BTV’ Matlho-a-phage programme discussed the LOO vacancy. The invited guest did a wonderful job in explaining the turn of events much better than Spencer did in his column. Honourable MPs Rammidi of the BCP and Modubule of the UDC traced the genesis of the current stand-off for the LOO post to gaps in our governance instruments currently used in the House. They did not come across emotional but more collected in their reasoning. As far as the two MPs were concerned, the standing orders failed to anticipate a similar situation like the one we currently find ourselves in parliament, thereby rendering the process of filling the LOO position under same circumstances much more problematic. In short, the two MPs avoided the usual blame game and concentrated their efforts in establishing the root cause of the current unfortunate reality.
But Spencer seems unimpressed by opposition parties in parliament save for the BCP. He argues, ‘more to the point, allowing the position of the Leader of Opposition to fall vacant is not something that should happen in this era of low public confidence in opposition parties.’ He goes further, ‘in so far as the removal of Saleshando from position of Leader of Opposition had nothing to do with the BDP then all blame should squarely be laid to the opposition doormat.’ Why should he single out BNF and BMD? Frankly, no one party is to blame for the mess we find ourselves in. Even the BDP, as he rightly points out. Actually and not surprisingly, Rammidi, in Matlho-a-phage programme absolved both the BNF and BMD from such an unfortunate development. I could not see why Spencer could not reach the same conclusion.
Spencer also seems to be falling in the familiar trap of faulting our opposition for the continued dominance of the ruling party in our politics. For instance, in the same article he writes, ‘viewed pragmatically, it would easily appear that rather than allow the BCP to occupy the position of the Leader of Opposition, both the BNF and the BMD are all too happy to have a BDP that does as its pleases for that is exactly the outcome of their recent behaviour.’ If we don’t get the rules of the game to be fair, the outcome is most likely to be unmerited ÔÇô often favouring the strongest of competitors at the expense of the least resourced. And this is exactly what Deputy Speaker, Pono Moatlhodi was telling us on BTV programme: the BDP is not going to amend rules of the game because they don’t see any need for such. According to him, the onus is with the opposition to sort its mess out.
Honestly, I don’t think we are going to build a lasting democracy if we adopt the attitude displayed by Rre Moatlhodi. The current scenario in parliament is more a sign of outdated rules and procedures that have no place in modern society. Hence, parliament needs to amend its standing orders to facilitate easy and orderly way of running its business. Within this environment, then, lies a brighter future for our democracy.
Dr Molefhe teaches Public Administration at the University of Botswana
