In an interview with Mmegi’s Mesh Moeti, BNF President, Otsweletse Moupo emphatically stated,
“The BNF has, over decades of painstaking political organizational work acquired considerable mass following … It has organized the masses around its banner and programme. Its name, symbols, programme and traditions constitute its political capital, which guarantees its mass support and loyalty. Any attempt to temper with these by dissolving the BNF into some other broad formation would disperse the majority of the forces already organized around the party …” (Mmegi: 25th February 2005)
It would appear that current arguments advanced by some compatriots within the BNF that other parties should disband and join them or that cooperation should take the form of an alliance, with BNF as the dominant partner, could well be influenced considerably by the premise laid by the leader. Reduced to its simplest form, proponents of these positions are arguing that the “BNF brand” is more marketable and therefore, all cooperating parties are well advised to buy into it. The people are so transfixed, the argument goes, to the brand and any attempts to transform it (irrespective of how well intended and managed the transformation is), would disorientate and alienate BNF support base.
I appreciate that the statement attributed to Moupo was made in the course of an interview, and that this was probably ÔÇô for lack of space ÔÇô not the right opportunity for him to lay the philosophical basis for the position espoused. Even without delving into the philosophical arguments, certain questions do arise from the position adopted by Moupo.
Firstly, although accepting the organizational cohesiveness of the BNF that has evolved over decades and the development of the “BNF brand”, objectively, regard being had to the conditions obtaining, is this brand likely to bring about a regime change? Secondly, qualitatively, to what extent has the value and marketability of the brand been enhanced or diminished, particularly with the emergence of competing brands, such as the BCP one? Thirdly, what are the factors that led to the popularity of the brand and do they still all exist? Last, but not least ÔÇô and most importantly ÔÇô what informs the view that a betterment of this brand would necessarily alienate the BNF traditional follower?
The Law of Dialectical Development provides the answer to the questions posed. This law discloses the connection, unity and essential relationship of certain opposites, namely quantity and quality. By so doing, it outlines the ways, forms and character of development of all the spheres of natural and social world. The process of development apart from its basic content always entails a diversity of other essential relationships, which, under the Law of Dialectics, are expressed in polar categories. These include, cause and effect, necessity and chance, possibility and reality, content and form etc. In analyzing any phenomenon, or social action using dialectics as a yardstick, two conditions need be observed. Firstly, any proposition of dialectics should be filled with concrete content regarding the nature of the phenomenon or action under consideration.
Secondly; an appreciation of previously obtained knowledge or the specific laws of nature or society.
In the context of the present discussion, the action under consideration is the fusion of the traditional BNF brand into a new-broadly formulated one that would take into account the identities and contributions of other parties in a coalition strategy.
‘Tempering’ with the BNF brand under the circumstances of a coalition relationship can occur under two distinct scenarios. Firstly, where parties lose their individual identities and transform into a single party ÔÇô a model commonly known as ‘total merger’.
Secondly; where parties retain their individual identities but resolve, (for purposes of consolidation of their strengths to achieve electoral dominance), to all come under one super-structure or “umbrella body”. The super structure being accorded its own symbol, colours and slogans ÔÇô amalgamated in a way that would give clear expression to the identities of the constituent parties.
Previously acquired knowledge of the specific situation and expectations of the Botswana society is that, for the entire period they have identified with the ‘BNF brand’, they have suffered continual subjugation, exploitation and repression. The gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ has and continues to widen unabated. BDP stranglehold on power does not seem to dissipate and regime change is more than ever, a mirage. The people of Botswana want change ÔÇô and quickly ÔÇô and in their quest, the niceties of ‘brand’ ÔÇô BNF or otherwise ÔÇô is superfluous. The resolutions of the broad memberships of all the key parties in Botswana, calling for cooperation of the opposition, is indicative of the fact that the people are prepared to accept organizational compromises associated with coalition relations. It appears that the people are miles ahead of their leaders ÔÇô pathetic ideologues, who would rather unpack all sorts of self-serving theories to stifle the tide of change.
Even if one was to harness such philosophies, the theory of ‘dialectical leap in development’ seems to militate against those in the BNF who are trapped in the ‘brand’ compartment. This theory postulates passage of old quantitative into new qualitative change. In this historical process, numerous contradictions accumulated prior, are gradually resolved. Materialistic dialectics classifies leaps by their content, scope, rates and forms of manifestation.
The rate and form of a leap depend on the nature of the contradiction it resolves and the material conditions under which the transition from the old to the new quality takes place.
Within the context of coalition relations that parties are endeavoring to forge, apart from the contradictions that exist between the classes that comprise them, no antagonistic contradictions exist between the parties themselves as entities. The material condition prevailing is, more than ever before, one of mutuality and commonality of purpose amongst the memberships of the parties.
It goes without saying that the BNF has excelled in its mobilization drive over the years because of its pro-poor and pro-workers’ policies. The masses readily found in the BNF an ally for the championing of their rights. For a long time, the BNF has enjoyed a monopoly of this role. The advent of the BCP, which pursued a similar Social Democratic Programme (SDP), has the effect, of apportioning the support, which hitherto would have been amassed by the BNF. The recent divisions in the labour movement ÔÇô which has been characterized by one of its sections sympathizing with the BNF and the other with the BCP ÔÇô is partly attributable to this.
The BCP factor is therefore bound to influence, materially, the continued marketability of the BNF brand. The two parties may now be able to retain their current support base, but their mere symbols and programme (which is similar) might not be able to woe that decisive, undecided voter. Faced with a choice between entities that are fundamentally not so disparate, the voter will look beyond the mere wrapping of the products, but at other attributes, such as, stability, administrative cohesiveness, quality of leadership, amenability to modernization, but to mention a few. The sustainability of demand for a political brand is a dialectical issue.
Surely, an amalgamated brand is likely to turn out to be more qualitative than a single party one. It would find consensual acceptance with the rank file of all the parties concerned. It would also disabuse the coalition process of the undesirable notion of “big brother mentality”. By parity of reasoning, have the proponents of the “BNF brand” argument, ever considered that imposition of such brand on other parties might instill a feeling of despondency among members of the latter parties, rendering the coalition effort a fiasco?
“… He says it is malicious to accuse the BNF of displaying a “Big Brother” attitude in its dealing with other opposition parties. Moupo points out that his party treats other opposition parties with ‘the necessary decorum and respect’, and there can be no question of BNF insisting on being a senior partner” (Mmegi, 25th February, 2005).
A very salutary, statemanly, far-sighted and sagacious assurance by Comrade President Moupo, I must say. But it is important that we couple such lofty pronouncements with practice.
* Dick Bayford is the President of New Democratic Front and a practising attorney. This article is a segment of a Discussion Paper he authored entitled, SO, WHAT KIND OF COOPERATION? ÔÇô A RESURGENCE OF COALITION POLITICS IN BOTSWANA.
