It is the day of the launching of a Council candidate in Old Naledi, a ward of the downtrodden of Gaborone. Moupo, who has just ‘resumed’ his duties following leave from political office as head of the BNF, arrives late, almost at dusk. The followers who have been waiting patiently suddenly get into frenzy. The mood is ecstatic. The poor masses chant slogans and almost hoist their President into air. The marshals have a tough time in escorting him to his seat, let alone ensuring that the crowd gives way for the Secretary General and Secretary for Political Education to usher in their boss. As I witness this scene, I am enveloped by sadness. So, this is the way of the world! A man of the people indeed, exploiting the lack of political consciousness of the people, riding on the crest of ignorance and playing the populist card. It is almost dusk, late and purposely timed. And I leave, dejected.
If there had been a media face award for 2006, Moupo would certainly have won it as newsmaker of the year. He featured prominently in the media, largely projected in a negative light. When his personal problems saga unfolded, I was one of those who fiercely defended his initial actions and judgements, inviting a vitriolic wrath of one BCP academic activist. I think now is the time for reckoning.
So much has happened and is still happening.
In this piece, I attempt to reflect on Moupo’s leadership style and it’s implications on the future of the BNF.
This piece also seeks to shore into the muddy waters of a perceived aborted palace coup within the BNF, allegedly engineered by Moupo’s close aides and confidants. I argue this as an unsubstantiated myth that is only helped by the failure of the concerned comrades to clear the air and tell their version of that fateful weekend when Moupo ran frantically from pillar to post in the face of an unprecedented media backlash emanating from his perennial personal problems – bordering on disregard for professional and leadership ethics.
Although Moupo has insisted that these problems were personal, used by his comrades to push him out of the leadership of the party unconstitutionally, the truth seems to lie elsewhere. It is the organisation that he leads that suffered badly and was subjected to bad publicity. I doubt if Bill Clinton would have simply brushed aside the Monica Lewinsky affair as a simple personal problem.
It is a well-known fact that when Moupo was approached to lead the BNF, he was to rebuild party structures, restore order and instil party discipline. Further, he was elected on a left wing ticket. The people who encouraged him to challenge Kenneth Koma were comrades who identified with him as the loose left within the party. To a large extent, Moupo and his team succeeded in restoring order in the party, between 2001 and 2005. However, party structures still seem to be failing to take shape and function. In view of this, it is the same associates who rallied behind Moupo in his bid for the second term. But some of the 2001 pro-Moupo group reneged on this mission in 2005. They discredited his leadership and Central Committee (CC). Among these were the then Vice president, Youth President, Secretary for Political Education and others. Their gripe was that the leadership alienated them. In reality though, these comrades alienated themselves following the 2004 primary elections. It, therefore, brings to question Moupo’s judgement, if he were to assume that the same comrades, who had misgivings about his leadership, are now his saviours from the so-called cabal of university lecturers. The so-called foot soldiers. It is the so-called cabal that has a long history of a relationship with Moupo; spanning over years. These were his confidants as much as he was their confidant. Surely they know a lot about him as much as he knows a lot about them. One would not be badly off the mark if he were to suggest that even before Moupo relocated to Gaborone West South, they had insight of his “personal problems”, which were then said to be well managed. At that stage, it would appear he only told them that he had a ‘personal problem’ which he hoped to solve within a short time ÔÇô details were not forthcoming. Otherwise they would never have not recommended that he relocate to Gaborone with all the false promises they made to the public which now make them look ludicrous. Despite this, they still battled behind the scenes to help him and keep this story under wraps but because of the bourgeois nature of the problems and their magnitude the story eventually came out in the press. The fact that he had confided in people outside his close associates meant that it was a matter of time before the story became public knowledge. This group also battled behind the scenes to persuade a senior BNF member not to insist on converting the Lobatse Conference into a special congress because they felt that at that time it would have been suicidal.
But it would appear Moupo was not very open and transparent about these problems. Thus when these problems hit the headlines, everyone was at a loss as to what to do. While some of us assumed that the London hiccup was a minor error of judgement, it was the tip of an iceberg. It was a precursor of big things to come. The law firm crisis certainly threw the cat among pigeons. It clearly put his leadership credibility on the spotlight, rendering his defendants helpless. But true to his character, Moupo dismissed this as a personal and minor issue until it became unmanageable. It is then that he approached his close comrades about what course of action to take. When the news of his law firm broke, they felt they had a new situation which dictated that if the man understood the principles of the BNF that the organisation comes before the individual the man should have had the decency to resign. It is now apparent that his comrades correctly told him that the ship was sinking with the captain. Unless and until the captain jumped ship, the BNF was heading for a political Titanic. This was a fair assessment and judgement by these progressive comrades. They were not instructing him to quit. They advised. A sincere comrade would have openly convinced why he rejected that advice. But that was not to be. The long time allies had proven that they were traitors.
It would appear that after this brief, Moupo, the student of Kenneth Koma, remembered one of those old man’s popular utterances; “ Comrade, ha motho a dira jaana o ya go mo tlhobosa ko sechabeng.” Obviously, he learnt negative lessons from Koma’s Stalinist leadership style. A hotline was opened to all the constituencies and structures. The Leadership Forum that followed surely achieved its mission. It was a full circus that reduced inner party democracy to a sham. It was a circus of sorts where those holding dissenting views were shouted down! The erstwhile comrades had been fully mobilised and a dissenting voice was not tolerated. And some of these comrades thrive well where it is really politically dirty. Thus the outburst of Mogalakwe senior on national television. The whole thing was now sealed. Moupo was now abruptly closing his long chapter of a relationship with his left wing friends as quoted: “One has to be more cautious when dealing with people you regard as comrades…” Sorry, don’t write comrades, say friends” (Sunday Standard, 12 -18 November 2006). Today the man and his henchmen cannot even appreciate the efforts this group made to save him and this rekindled faction goes around calling them ÔÇô Makalakalanyana, matlolaterata, the university cabal etc. bent on overthrowing Moupo. They are now waiving the ethnic and middle class card. By extension, that marked the beginning of a return to the pre-2001 BNF leadership, a leadership that thrives on sycophancy and ruthless discrediting of those who hold an opposing view. It is, therefore, now almost a heresy to condemn Moupo ÔÇô and I have taken that risk. Yet his credibility in the eyes of the voting public has been dealt a mortal blow. He virtually nullified all the efforts and sacrifices party cadres made for the organisation in 2006.
A principled leader should know when to resign instead of asking party members on the basis of frugal information whether he should resign. As a consequence of his tactics of clinging to power, we had the unprecedented situation where the leader of the party became its greatest liability ÔÇô dragging the name of the organisation through mud for a very long time. In classical bourgeois democracies, the London debacle alone would have been enough to force him to resign not to mention the numerous scandals that followed. For someone who claims to be socialist, these are unpardonable blunders. But it is very clear that Moupo’s leadership blunders are not receding. He surely closed the year on a high note in Parliament. Any feeble apology for that blunder cannot convince anybody in his right senses. In any case, it was not the first of Leader of Opposition blunders. The past tells us that it cannot be the last.
I now wish to shift focus to the so-called palace coup against Moupo. It is not only naive but also illogical to suggest, as The Sunday Standard, quoting extensively from Log Raditlhokwa, that Moupo was betrayed by his close allies. It is unfortunate that a statement made by Dr Bucks Molatlhegi was to reverberate in the print media as evidence of a Putsch. When I first read that statement, I told Elmon Tafa that Cde Bucks should have kept this to himself and Moupo because the statement was going to be used by the press to send him to the political altar. Indeed, I was proven right. Editors waived this as exhibit to persecute “coup plotters”. But this was a statement of frustration and loss of faith in a friend at a political level. It is also false to suggest that there was an academic cabal working round the clock to ensure that the putsch went through. I am told a cabal means an interest group, a group of people that seeks to control things secretly. It does not refer to people who are wielding power, because they are supposed to have power. It means people who have more power than they are meant to have. Yet Moupo’s friends (former friends) in the Central Committee, as he described them as “friends” not comrades, are Elmon Tafa, Akanyang Magama and Monageng Mogalakwe. Where is the cabal here? Now where does this leave us? First, there is no university of Botswana cabal within the BNF leadership. Second, there has never been a palace coup within the BNF. Moupo was simply advised to consider stepping down in the interest of his party but he chose to take the advice of President Mogae. Honestly, when he asserted that Mogae told him that it was “silly” to suggest that he should step down, the statement sent shivers down my spine. I really do not know if Moupo knew what he was communicating to the nation by that statement. We should also remember that in the middle of his London debacle, Ian Khama suddenly appeared on the scene to rescue him. It is the same Khama who hinted before the saga unfolded that there was a group led by a university tribalist lecturer baying for Moupo’s blood ÔÇô note where this tribal thing comes from. During the Mabutsane by-election suddenly the BDP defended him saying they wonder why BNF hates Bangwato ÔÇô they ditched Koma now they want to ditch Moupo. Since when has the BNF leadership taken advice from The BDP leadership? What a farce!
To Moupo, this was a personal attack. But the fault really lies with the “coup plotters” who have failed to relate their version of events of the weekend of August 6, 2006. I guess now the million-dollar question is: Whither the BNF left wing? The next two years will surely be the most arduous for the progressives within the party. But he must be engaged, for failure to do so would be tantamount to endorsing unethical and unprincipled leadership.
*M. Mino Polelo, a University of Botswana lecturer writes from Melbourne, Australia where he is studying for his PhD.
