Is there an alternative peaceful manner towards achieving a part of the vision of the new regime?
Machiavelli in the Discourses (and not in the Prince that is popular with dictators) describes Rome the way President Khama saw his Botswana: as undisciplined (in the Botswana case – widespread drinking and driving, over-speeding, passion killings particularly among the youth, high HIV-AIDS related illnesses, etc), corruption and laziness.
Unlike the new regime that sought to instill discipline through tough measures that might end up inciting rebellion, Machiavelli says Numa Pompilius of classical Rome sought to instill discipline and civil obedience through the art of peace.
He introduced religion to his people! ‘Anyone who examines the many actions of the Roman people as a whole and of the many individual Romans will discover how these citizens were more afraid of breaking an oath than of breaking the laws, since they respected the power of God more than that of man’ (Bondanella and Musa, 1979: p207). Machiavelli observes that through religion, Numa succeeded to instill discipline and this earned him respect and loyalty.
‘Thus, anyone who examines Roman history closely will discover how religion helped in commanding armies, encouraging the plebians, keeping men good, and shaming the wicked’ (Bondanella and Musa, 1979: 208).
Thus, according to Machiavelli, the introduction of religion in Roman affairs (both private and public) led to the creation of good institutions, good laws, good education and good culture.
Max Weber adds that the Protestant ethos had created the prime conditions necessary for capitalism to flourish in the West.
Protestant sects, particularly Calvinism, first and foremost emphasized asceticism (living a modest life and abstaining from spending your earnings on unnecessary material objects).
The Calvinists interpreted the concept of a job/work, as a Biblical ‘calling’, a duty unto God and a proof of genuine faith in the almighty. In turn, working long hours, and any subsequent wealth achieved and saved from such hard work, were interpreted by them as a sign of being in the good graces of, and a gift from, God (Weber quoted in Jacobs, 2010: 13).
Weber concluded that the Protestant ascetic and ‘calling’ to work not only created good Christians, but the best climate possible to provoke an entrepreneurial ‘spirit of capitalism’ (Jacobs, 2010:13).
Jacobs observes a similar religious pattern in Japan, and notes that: ‘Japanese labour works longer hours than those in the West because they have been conditioned to believe that it was morally the proper thing to do.
In this way, they have not been that much different from Weber’s Calvinists, who viewed their calling to work as proof of their devotion to God, and imperative to their success in the after-life (2010: 16).
Thus, Both Western capitalist countries and Japan in the Far East saw the importance of religious morality in cultivating a good man and a hardworking citizen.
Japanese firms practice long-life employment, seniority wages, profit-sharing bonuses, to cultivate individual commitment, loyalty, trust and a propensity to work long hours.
In contrast, the new BDP regime chose toughness and working closely with conservative traditionalists, appointing a traditional chief to head a commission meant to revive cultural values (the creation of new values was not on its agenda and the strengthening of religious values was marginalised).
The result of a system based on toughness was that traditionalists in the Kgatleng district supported the new regime’s toughness by introducing their own independent tough measures characterized by the banning of churches they dislike and the beating of priests they consider disloyal to the chief, the banning of shebeens (beer drinking spots) (this only encourages underground drinking) and the introduction of traditional rites.
Thus, just like so many failed African societies, the new Botswana is on the verge of re-traditionalising and not modernizing by creating new value systems or not moralizing by emphasizing religious morality.
In contrast, Machiavelli observes in the Discourses that imposing discipline in a peaceful manner (particularly through religion) achieves greatness.
And as the observance of religious teachings is the reason for the greatness of republics, in like manner the disdain of the practice is the cause of their ruin; for where the fear of God is lacking a [state] must either come to ruin or be sustained by the fear of a prince who makes up for the lack of religion.
And since princes are short-lived, it is most likely that a [state] will fail as quickly as the abilities of its prince fail; thus, states which depend upon the ability of a single man cannot last long, for such ability disappears with the life of the prince; and only rarely does it happen that this ability is revived by a successor’ (Bondanella and Musa, 1979: 209).
In contrast, Karl Marx cautioned that any state religion imposed by the state which occupied the status of ‘state religion’, such as in Germany during his time and in many non-secular Middle-East societies currently, not only discriminate against minority religions but compels the state to behave like a theologian and to threaten freedom.
Marx warned that freedom is preserved if the state frees itself from religion by not imposing a state religion. This means that religion properly belongs to civil society and not to the state.
The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, and religious man in general implies the emancipation of the state from Judaism, Christianity, and religion in the manner peculiar to its own nature by emancipating itself from the state religion, i.e. by not recognizing, as a state, any religion, by affirming itself simply as a state (On the Jewish Question, quoted in Waldron, 1987: 138-9).
This means that freedom is preserved if religions properly belong to civil society where they are allowed to expand freely and to attract many members in the society.
In that regard, the state is required to be secular, and to create conditions allowing civil society to practice diverse religions of choice. This means that religious diversity should be protected by the state and should be allowed to flourish.
The political state has just as spiritual an attitude to civil society as heaven has to earth. It stands in the same opposition to civil society and overcomes it in the same manner as religion overcomes the limitations of the profane world, that is, it must likewise recognize it, reinstate it, and let itself once more be dominated by it (Marx, 1987: 140-41).
Just as Divinity freed itself and withdrew from man (leaving him choice to sin or to be righteous on earth), the above quotation means that the state, even in its traditional bogosi form should be indifferent to all religious practices and should entrust the churches with the word of God and religious morality, and should entrust regulation with autonomous bodies formed by the participating churches. Where religious practice threatens harm (as it does not do so most of the time), a secular state gives citizens choice to find another church, or to resort to the judiciary where each party states its part of the story and is listened to by impartial judiciary officers, or to self-governing oversight bodies constituted by the participating organizations (in this case the Botswana Council of Churches and others like it).
Where the state (even in its traditional bogosi form) acts as a theologian in this era of religious diversity, freedom is threatened as priests get beaten and churches banned. This is the disdain and the absence of the fear of God that Machiavelli warned against, equating it with the symbol of state collapse.
Judith Andre (1995: 193-4) says the law must be limited in matters of religion for the following reasons: first, religious claims by their very nature cannot be settled by vote, nor, by political bargaining. Secondly, religion should be kept largely independent of political power because religion in an independent source of meaning and self-affirmation.
It has been a sanctuary for the disenfranchised and the persecuted’. This means that political principles of voting and bargaining are unsuitable for resolving religious differences and challenges.
It also means that religious truth is completely different from political truth, and the two should be treated as two separate spheres. However, while religion cannot be adjudicated politically, it can be adjudicated socially. Judith Andre (1995: 94) writes that:
‘But though the law must be limited, society has more scope…social pressure is fearsome.
When honours are corrupted, exchanged for money, or for favours, then gossip, public outcry, and organized resistance can come to the rescue. When friends are false, other friends may sound a warning. When religion grows corrupt there is likely to be a reformation or an expulsion’.
Thus, corrupt religions incite public outcry from society and reformations from within, leading to revival.
In other circles, some of the new BDP regime’s supporters threaten their opponents through SMS (Thabo Seleke of Gaborone was one such a victim) and others encourage it to deport opposition elements (such as Sidney Pilane) that are accused of carrying dual citizenship. What is most shocking is that some of its supporters, who are calling for Pilane’s deportation, are staunch supporters of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
There is no doubt that the supporters of the new regime are ready to commit human rights violations and are driving the regime to commit the same.
However, this is unlikely to help it win the ideological war. It will have to recognize the ideological war for what it is, and conceptualise a coherent and appealing ideology for itself. The new regime can only meaningfully participate in the ideological war if it expands its formal and informal advisors and infuse a new and moderate outlook.
The new regime will also need to tone down the perceived one man rule, evidenced by the star rallies that have started mushrooming where President Khama has to feature for their success.
The new regime would have to learn to listen to public voices. Had the new regime opened its circle of formal and informal advisors and interacted more with elite in other sectors (The Democracy Research Project Invited Khama twice in 2005 and in 2007 to its book launches, a sign of warm welcome.
On both occasions, he declined – in the first case he later showed up briefly and unannounced. Thus he forwent the chance to interact with non-partisan scholars who would have shared with him alternative politics and their scenarios.
Had the new regime democratized its intelligence community by embracing elite from other sectors, had it forgiven Motswaledi and amended the controversial Media Act in consultation with the media fraternity, and had it moderated other tough policies as it did with the alcohol levy, sustained opposition against its rule would have suffered a major blow and it would have earned its leader respect from the diverse elite who were ready to respect and to obey him, and of the priests who were ready to praise and exalt him for his forgiveness and God fearing attitude.
But none of these was forthcoming.
Had the new regime appealed to the churches and empowered them to embark on a moral crusade, it could have archived discipline and morality peacefully and could have lessened its appeal to traditionalists who believe in toughness as itself.
But the new regime chose to distance itself from religion, with Vice President reportedly banning a priest from his meetings. The new regime chose to listen only to its small legal team of advisors and to its intelligence community, isolating itself from non-partisan scholars, warm private journalists, friendly priests who cherish religious freedom and good morality. These could have helped to shape the new regime into a forgiving, tolerant, positive and God fearing government.
The philosophy-less vision of toughness of the new BDP is generating enormous resistance from many different quarters because it is exclusionary in its conception (toughness is always about other people), ignores religion and consultation that are at the heart of Tswana societies.
Its authoritarian approach towards implementation has turned fear into anger in the minds of many and risks a full blown rebellion by the elite from different sectors. While discipline is important for any society to flourish, it needs a public philosophy to legitimize it into an acceptable democratic political tool.
Naked authoritarianism will always face stiff resistance. At a 2003 IEC workshop for religious organizations which I facilitated, Mr Eddie Makue, Director of Justice Ministries in the South African Council of Churches encouraged religious organisations in Botswana to make their contribution towards ensuring that ‘as fathers and mothers, we are to pass the nation we live in to our children and ensure that it will continue to be the land of the free’.
He reminded religious organisations to commit themselves to the promotion of democratic principles if they ‘are to remain true and consistent in our quest to achieve equality and social justice’.
He quoted a theological theory that posits that ‘democracy is an expression of faith in the power of human beings to shape their own lives’.
*Dr MAUNDENI is a senior lecturer in Political Science, University of Botswana. He presented this paper at a workshop for priests on May 25th 2010
