I approached Lediretse Molake’s contribution ‘Does Rre Motswaledi really support democracy?’ (Sunday Standard 21August) with more than passing interest on his account as a correspondent who gives careful thought to the issues about which he writes.
The civility and erudition evident in his writings does not mean I always share his sentiments.
However as an active player in the marketplace of ideas, his opinion pieces attract easy attention because he provides insightful analysis on issues of public interest.
It is against this backdrop that I found myself underwhelmed by the contribution under reference. Consequently it is my wish to engage the author on certain aspects of his article.
That the domestic political landscape has been irrevocably changed by the formation of the BMD is not in question. Central to the formation of this movement is the figure of Gomolemo Motswaledi, whose democratic credentials Rre Molake seeks to dispute.
To advance my case, let me at the outset state that were it not for the campaign of persecution visited on Baratapathi the split of the BDP would have so far existed only in the realm of imagination of its worst detractors.
The lightning rod for the historic schism is the treatment visited on Mokaulengwe Motswaledi, and his colleagues by the leader of the BDP after the Kanye congress.
To refresh memories of those not familiar with this seismic development, the BDP went to congress with two distinct lobby lists, representing the factional dichotomy in the party.
Speaking for Barataphathi our campaign revolved around the sanctity of the party constitution, and the intrinsic right afforded every member to contest leadership positions, irrespective of the whims of the party leader, particularly in instances where consensus was not possible.
Members of the party who rallied behind Mokaulengwe Daniel Kwelagobe took the view that in a scenario where the party leader’s antidote for factionalism infringed on their rights, then the constitution must be the final arbiter.
It is now a matter of historical record that following a most vicious campaign spearheaded by the party leader, the majority of congress delegates endorsed the Baratapahathi list. Of the ten names on our ticket, Mokaulengwe Motswaledi, contesting the portfolio of secretary general, registered the highest number of votes, underlining his cross over appeal.
This should have marked a lull in age old BDP factional feuding, until the next bout of hostilities. But this was not to be because a systematic campaign to undermine the mandate of the popularly elected leadership was promptly instituted.
Against party tradition and practise, a raft of appointments was made, unilaterally by the party leader, aided by operatives of the vanquished faction.
By the time the appointments were completed, the elected Central Committee was completely emasculated, and served only an ornamental purpose.
In this maelstrom of chicanery, a rare meeting of the Central Committee managed to cause a resolution to seek legal advice from three firms regarding the powers of the president to make the appointments and decisions referred to earlier.
In the discharge of his functions, Mokaulengwe Motswaledi invited Peter Collins Attorneys, Sidney Pilane Advocates and Collins and Newman Attorneys to furnish the party with their respective interpretations of Article 34 of the party constitution.
It is this action, carried out at the instance of the Central Committee that precipitated a chain reaction of events leading to the schism.
Having received a set of legal opinions from the latter two firms, and awaiting Collins and Newman Attorneys to make their submission, the secretary general was taken aback when the media published a statement from the firm disclosing the contents of their opinion to the public before presenting it to the party.
Disturbed by this act of insubordination, the secretary general issued a counter statement reprimanding the law firm for overstepping their brief.
In defence the lawyers revealed they were instructed by the party leader to make the statement in question. Nowhere in their statement was this instruction reflected. This was the trigger which led to Mokaulengwe Motswaledi’s 60 day (extended to five years) suspension from the BDP, ostensibly because he had undermined the authority of the president.
Of course, this was pure fiction and amounted to the opening salvo in a strategy to neutralise the Kanye verdict. Overtures were made by bagolo, including the two former presidents and Dr Gaositwe Chiepe to find an amicable resolution but to no avail.
Of Mokaulengwe Motswaledi was demanded an apology to the party leader, which he rendered in writing. This expression of regret was discussed at a meeting held at Office of the President with all bagolo present. At its conclusion, all parties found the statement satisfactory.
When all thought the matter had been laid to rest, days later, the party leader commenced a nit picking exercise, indicating the word ‘regret’ was not sufficient and instead he preferred its substitution for ‘sorry’. Even to the admission of the mediators involved, this was turning into a pantomime of sorts.
It need be noted that whilst the phantom debate over ‘regret’ and sorry’ was ongoing, Mokaulengwe Motswaledi, was losing time in his campaign as parliamentary candidate for Gaborone Central. His decision to tender the letter of regret was done under much persuasion from bagolo, and not on any acceptance that he erred in carrying out the functions of his office.
But even then, his statement of regret failed to placate the party leader. With time running out for him to register as parliamentary candidate, Mokaulengwe Motswaledi was left with no option, but to petition the courts.
So, contrary to Rre Molake’s take, I would posit that by taking the matter to the High Court, Mokaulengwe Motswaledi sought to protect not only his personal political fortunes, but internal party democracy which was under threat from an individual who had no qualms undermining the outcome of a democratic process as expressed by members of the same party that granted him the privilege of leadership.
I concede that some within our polity, especially within academia, had raised the question of excessive presidential power before. And at least as far as I know no one has ever said Mokaulengwe Motswaledi made the discovery.
However, what Mokaulengwe Motswaledi’s court action did was place the matter right in the public consciousness to the extent that it provoked the kind of debate still raging within our country, which has in turn led to a chorus of demands for a review of the Republican Constitution.
By the court reaching against him, Mokaulengwe Motswaledi inadvertently played Trojan Horse for a matter had all along been of cursory academic discourse.
Today Article 41 is a subject of popular debate, and even outrage. It has moved from the abstract to the real. That some support the status quo and others want a constitutional review is precisely because it is now in the realm of common narrative.
By taking a courageous step to litigate against the State President, Mokaulengwe Motswaledi has strengthened our democracy. He has struck a blow against any misplaced notions of presidential infallibility. Quite how this action is not in the interest of democracy and good governance leaves me disoriented by Rre Molake’s premise.
It is stretching logic to levels of incredulity to suggest those who question the constitution are by definition not democratic. It is news to some of us that our nation’s founding document is sacrosanct and without flaw.
Of course, this cannot be so because the constitution itself allows for its own review. Going forward it is not my desire to psychoanalyse Rre Molake, because the tools to do so are not within my competence.
But that said, I seem to detect a whiff of irritation that says why should this personality be getting all these accolades and outpouring of goodwill.
Frankly I don’t know either, save to hazard that Mokaulengwe Motswaledi’s political persecution by far more superior forces, and his principled and dignified resistance to such an onslaught might have endeared him to many of our citizens.
If many consider Mokaulengwe Motswaledi an icon, let us accept that he did not create himself, but was created by a party leader who could not find it within himself to live with a gifted citizen whose only ambition was to serve his country to the best of his abilities.
Hence, I would humbly submit Rre Molake pose the question to the party leader why through his undemocratic actions, he created this iconic individual.
If anything, Mokaulengwe Motswaledi has become the embodiment of a society that jolted from inertia by his shocking persecution, suddenly realises it can no longer countenance abuse of power, disregard for human rights, personalisation of public resources, unaccountable leadership, rule by fear, wastage of revenues on personal vanity, erosion of civil liberties, abandonment of the rule of law and all ills afflicting our country since 1 April 2008.
Batswana who yearn for change will never thank President Khama enough for laying the foundation for a new beginning beckoning on the horizon.
Proceeding, Rre Molake makes a foray into the BMD’s draft policy document saying “Given what one has read in the media about the BMD policy proposals that suggest an increase in specially elected members of parliament one cannot help but see a reflection of the undemocratic appointment of leaders rearing its head again…this process is intended to parcel out leadership positions to friends…” Indeed, Rre Mokalake deserves credit for his confession that he has not read the BMD’s draft “People’s Aspirations in the New Beginning”.
His welcome interest in BMD’s policy framework deserves to be satiated by clarification on two points of elucidation.
First, indeed the draft advances the possible need for an increased number of specially-elected members of parliament to bring in special skills to the executive at high-level as well as to bridge lapses of the electoral process by bringing-in previously sidelined groups such as women to the executive.
According to the draft proposal, all specially elected members of parliament will not have the right to vote in parliament, other than to execute their roles in the executive.
This provision was necessary to accommodate those who feel strongly that all legislators should necessarily be elected. It is easy to note that this is a hybrid of governance systems around the world; in the United States, for instance, all members of cabinet are not elected, but report to a senate consisting only of elected representatives.
Second, and most crucially, it is noteworthy that all policy proposals will come before our movement’s congress for approval, rejection or modification.
The membership will make the final decision regarding the final contents of the policy document.
We have found from our tours across Botswana, in which our Policy Stream, headed by Mokaulengwe Ndaba Gaolathe has been briefing stakeholders, that the masses of our members embrace many of the proposals.
They have been keen to submit alternative ideas in some areas. That disposed off, another subject that cannot go without rebuttal is Rre Molake accusing Mokaulengwe Motswaledi of appointing himself BMD chairman, thereby negating any claims to being democratic. This assertion is inaccurate.
But in all fairness to the author he is most likely not familiar with the process that led to Mokaulengwe Motswaledi’s current status. There is need therefore to give the general public the benefit of accurate facts, lest this misinformation become common currency.
Early in 2009, in preparation for the upcoming BDP Kanye congress, a team was put together to manage the Baratapahathi campaign. Initially convened by Mokaulengwe Kwelagobe, the responsibility later fell to me by default, owing to convener’s frequent travels on the hustings.
The team, known as EXCO was structured in such a way that certain duties were assigned those not on the lobby list to enable the others to hit the campaign trail.
We ran the campaign right up to Kanye and triumphed against a rival group that without state resources had little else to offer. All along the understanding was that EXCO would disband after congress and let the elected Central Committee run the party. As we all know that was not to be and new challenges thrown up by the ensuing coup de etat, in the form of reversing the verdict of congress, necessitated our continuance.
Each and every major decision made by Barataphathi was made at EXCO, including the difficult but unavoidable recourse to the courts.
It was EXCO that convened the historic summit of March 20th in Mogoditshane which brought together hundreds of Barataphathi to review the state of affairs in the BDP.
When the summit resolved to proceed with the formation of a new party, delegates mandated EXCO with the responsibility thereof, and for it to report back within two months.
The same EXCO, got to work drafting the constitution, identifying colours and other brand elements which were endorsed by the Letlhabile conference of 29th May 2010 attended by over 4000 participants, at which the BMD was formally born.
In our discussions of the draft constitution we adopted the position that only the party congress will enjoy the mandate to elect substantive office bearers.
Let us indicate that ahead of Letlhabile, the roles and functions of EXCO members were streamlined to respond to the new circumstances.
We had to make the transition from a resistance movement within the BDP to a distinct political formation. It was in the course of this realignment that agreement was reached for Mokaulengwe Motswaledi to assume the chairmanship on an interim basis, as was the case with all EXCO members.
At Letlhabile, the conference granted an extension to the mandate of EXCO to make preparations for the inaugural party congress at which constitutional elections would be held.
By settling on Motswaledi as chairman we recognised his abilities within the circle of EXCO members and the political capital he had accumulated, fortuitously, as a result of his persecution.
So to answer the writer, Mokaulengwe Motswaledi did not appoint himself.
On the argument that incumbency would give Motswaledi an advantage when it comes to congress elections, this could well be true.
But by the same token such an accusation could be levelled at anyone occupying any position in EXCO.
Assuming it were yours truly in the chairmanship, Rre Molake would still accuse me of enjoying the advantage of incumbency. In any case, a newly formed party cannot exist in a state of flux with no identifiable leadership to take it forward.
The successful indoor meetings and massive rallies we address across the country are mobilised at enormous effort in terms of human and other resources.
For this we need a committed team to undertake the day to day work. If we did not show leadership ahead of congress we would be nowhere near the 65 000 members we have registered in the three months of our existence.
Unless Rre Molake can show us a model of an organisation, embryonic such as ours going to congress without any interim structure, then we remain without blight. We are quite content to do the ground work in terms of the Letlhabile mandate, and it remains the right of BMD members to return us to office or opt for other patriots come November.
It is clutching at straws to equate individuals who were purchased for the amount quoted as P 1.5 million with a person whose colleagues foisted on him the responsibilities of leading them into unchartered territory, from which no material benefit is gained. Every member of EXCO recognises that at congress, they will contest for elections against other party members equal to the task of taking the reins.
This includes Mokaulengwe Motswaledi who has never suffered from hubris, because he lives in full knowledge that only BMD members will determine who leads their movement. Mokaulengwe Motswaledi left the BDP because of the death of democracy and there is no way he can betray the very ideal that informed his departure.
In finality, we are under no illusions that we will endure slings and arrows meant to question our integrity in a bid to derail this national project.
To the BMD this amounts to a test of character which can only strengthen our resolve to restore the values and cornerstones integral to the progress of our nation. We have it clear we want our country back.
On this score there is no turning back. Now facing clear and present threat to their hegemony on state power, apologists of the administration, in all guises, will attempt to stem the tide of imminent change.
Like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, the fight against change is futile; the end is inevitable as momentum for change in 2014 gathers pace.
* Basal Ntuane is interim deputy chairman of the Botswana Movement for Democracy.
