Hello Spencer! Yes, allow me to salute you this intimately but for no sinister intentions. Sunday Standard, January 27-2 February refers, but I would also touch on other related issues not necessarily arising from your esteemed column. Let us chat.
At first I thought of just SMSing you that you forgot to insert a disclaimer after your missive; the one usually found in certain books which would read: “Names of people, places, and political parties in this column are fictitious and do not resemble any living…blah! blah!”
But I thought, no, ke tlaabo ke kgakgafala, why not just chat?
When I read your piece on BCP, I asked myself; is Spencer really the neutral person that he probably claims to be or could there be something I am missing here.┬á But first let me confess; I don’t trust opinion activists who claim neutrality. I hope you do not fall in that lot. That just does not exist in my world. I would rather someone acknowledges existence of his political residence but without necessarily giving out the address. That I can comprehend.┬á┬á Interestingly, I reflect on this question whenever I read your criticism of opposition parties, be it BCP, BNF, BMD or UDC. I ask myself, why is Spencer seemingly so committed to ruffling opposition feathers and in whose interest?
But admittedly, I am being unfair. Yours is a political column and you are expected to make observations across the spectrum. And true, you occasionally throw one or two jabs at the BDP.
 You can write a bucketful of criticism about any matter anyhow you like. If it gives some of us goose bumps then let it be. It is only that I am one of those who believe democracy without electoral substitution lacks legitimacy. I am an enthusiast of a strong opposition, although; unlike you and some other people seem to think, strong opposition to me does not necessarily mean one opposition party. Democracy to me should not be a quick fix; a laboratory invention.
BCP is one of the hopes that we have. And they are few. UDC is the other. Putting them in one basket and hoping that political dynamics will remain constant, is quiet a gamble.  Too much of a risk.
There is no one medicine for the opposition but if there is any advice they need it is to concentrate on strengthening their parties, in this case the UDC and the BCP. Sustaining the confusion between the parties is only meant to benefit the ruling party. You and some UDC leaders are so obsessed with this thing of always asking BCP to join UDC at every given opportune time. It is becoming too much of a broken record. If unity is that elusive why not try cooperation? You may give it any name but to me it simply means reducing hostilities but remaining competitors. They both must just trudge into the battle field and engage BDP from different angles; if it means occasionally taking a swipe at the BCP, like they did by denying it the LOO in Parliament, it’s just part of the script; BCP too does snatch one or two of their members, anyway. Eventually, the weaker will give in to the stronger but if they both survive, the better.
Personally, I am not a fan of the current arrangement of the UDC. I find it too vulnerable and experimental.  I still maintain BCP did this nation a great job by jumping out of the dish. I find the model too chakalakish; like that spicy chowder usually enjoyed with braai meal. Its ingredients are identifiable and separable and yet claim to be composite. 
I have resigned to the fact that regardless of my views on the UDC or BCP, Batswana who want to replace BDP could still have chakalaka and some other morogo (BCP) side by side in the same plate. This way they can still choose either of the two or decide to swallow both. Such is democracy!
For a long time opposition parties have worked hard in this country but unfortunately not smarter.
BNF is a case in point; it was growing very strong prior to its split in 1998; unfortunately it lacked strategic mechanisms to contain its growth. Remnants of this lack of strategic thinking are evident today. One just need to look at the kind of explicit┬á vulgarity spewed by the party’s youth scribes to wonder if there has ever been conversation about the values that the party stands for.
By brandishing such profanity, have they given a thought to the goodwill they might jeopardise both internally and externally, including within their new partners?
Its splinter party, BCP, came with a different approach, which was to prioritise the growth of the party ahead of toppling the BDP. An observation of BCP shows a party that is strategically enjoying both worlds. Its official image is that of cleanliness and organised entity but engages roughly and loosely at other platforms like public rallies. You do not get official written statements laced with such terminologies as ‘farts’, ‘thugs’ etc. Slowly and slowly the party grew and to add cherry on top its growth was credited on its strategic attributes such as been organised and stable.
Then after 2009 elections BMD, a splinter of BDP, was born. Many of us thought BDP was in for a hiding. At the time I opined to some journalists that BMD should not expect to immediately and directly benefit from the damage it did BDP. I said like HIV, its task was fore mostly to just do damage on the body.  The party started well but on hind sight one can realise that something was amiss.
Besides being led by people of different motives, the mistake it made was not to listen to its then policy director, Ndaba Gaolathe, whose intervention, albeit delayed, was to re-direct the party priorities. BMD repeated the same mistakes BNF made.┬á It thought unorganised masses could be trusted. Instead of producing membership cards it prioritised disco tickets. It failed to recognise the simple fact that rain is not useful if you do not have deliberate harvesting mechanisms. What use is rain water if you don’t dam it? The party thought political communication was like selling a Mercedes Benz; in which you just parade a string of sexy honeys around it and in the meantime, guess which, between them and the car would attract more stares. Duma Boko was smitten by this; in one of his writings, he professed that BMD had revolutionised political branding; I thought; uhu!
In simple terms that is how BCP continues to outsmart its rivals. I often hear BNF friends complain that BCP usually gets a pat on the back for something that BNF would get a slack for, and I say to them, that is political branding comrades. This is what makes it difficult to infiltrate the party.
It has built multiple lagers around its stability that it is now benefiting from it in many ways.
There are three things that appear to sum up your article and are as thus: BCP made a mistake by staying away from the subsequent unity talks and must return; BCP is controlled by interest groups, namely the business and intellectuals; the BCP, with its ‘mythical fa├ºade as well-oiled and united political machine,’ shall fail in its mission. Curse! Spell! Jinx!
I see members of the rival parties, especially UDC, beating the drums; drooling!  Hurray!
Believe me; they would ululate even when you tell them you just had a call from Jesus.
But I don’t blame them. Anyone, including BCP followers would react the same way when the gun smoke is trained at their rivals? That is normal.
At long last, someone is able to tell a party with increased representation in parliament; council representatives spread across the country; that, it is, in fact, not growing. Someone is giving the statistics a middle finger. “to hell with numbers and figures!” Viva comrade!
But unbeknown to them you could be BCP’s scorned lover or at best a secret stalker because, really, on closer look, BCP’s face is smudged with your hugs and kisses. With valentine around the corner some stanzas of sweet nothings would do the trick!┬á┬á
In a nutshell, the drape you wrapped the BCP in could be undressed as follows:
1)      UDC needs BCP more than BCP needs it
2)      BCP, unlike other opposition parties; has managed to get the attention of key sectors in the economy such as the business and intellectuals
3)┬á┬á┬á┬á┬á ┬áthe BCP has maintained a ‘fa├ºade’ of unity for more than a decade and is still standing
 
I can see BCP blushing. Why not? But until they read this, they probably did not realise that what you wrote them was in fact a love poem. Poor kids! They have not read literature at high school.
To expound my thinking, let us unpack one of your previous take on the BCP. You had in the past accused its president of being ambitious, scheming and focused. I thought, ‘accuse?’ you see! In the literary world we have these literary terms that allow us to say things like, ‘this ugly stole my heart.’ So you could have been just figurative.
Let us agree on some things here; what is too ambitious in politics? If a presidential hopeful is not ambitious what are the chances of him setting himself high standards of performance? One would be a hopeless hopeful if he or she would think can beat President Khama without scheming (read strategizing) and focus. With Khama spending sleepless night with his DIS plotting the downfall of the opposition and civic critics, his opponents must utilise the best out of their resources and avoid been easily distracted. If it means spending night meetings with their key supporters and stakeholders for the benefit of their cause, then let it be. I also noticed that you have previously characterised Khama as a master strategist. So, he is a strategist while the opposition leaders are schemers but for the same deeds? Of course, they are synonyms but with different connotations.
If I may ask, what is wrong with ethical relationship between businesses and opposition parties? If indeed BCP enjoys this generosity, they deserve commendation, not condemnation. It does opposition no good to frown against the business community. Politics have moved on; even principled ideologues such as Themba Joina would be forced to move with the times and tolerate the presence of business.
If indeed you are right that there are some businesses ‘handling’ the BCP, then you have just given the party free advertising. The party owes you big time. Other businesses, previously stuck with BDP will now think; it is possible, after all. The difference is in ethical parameters.
But there is also danger, unfortunately. You probably have scared away business interest in the opposition politics, which would fear to be victimised by the ruling party. And I think this is unfair, Spencer. But like I said earlier, fair or not fair; right or wrong; fiction or non -fiction; you just have to enjoy your poetic license.
