As I watch people like Rre Rammidi resign from the BDP I cannot help but be reminded of what I experienced in Mahalapye a few years ago. A very quiet councilor of Mahalapye East resigned to join the BNF. Suddenly he became vocal. I also happened to attend a political rally in the same ward where the late Obonetse Kakabale in reaction to a heckler remarked that “ e ntse jalo BNF, e taa go nkgela” ( that is how the BNF is, you will feel the stink). At that time the BNF was on the rise, and this rubbed some people the wrong way.
In the old days our people resolved their differences by moving to join other tribal groupings. There was therefore a geographical solution to disputes. I have remarked in the past that in this day and age such a solution is not available to our people. Substitute the word “geographical” with “political party” and see whether we have really moved. I submit that in regard to our politics some of us have not really moved far from this.
Independents are a form of geographical space for ideas that would otherwise not find expression within political parties. It is this territory that some of us have occupied for a long time.
Political parties are by nature monolithic formations that for all the pretence about inner party democracy are used to legitimize ideas. Given that in any organization there are only a few actors, talk about internal party democracy must be treated with caution.
It is therefore a blessing that we have a few members of parliament who are choosing to be independents. I believe this allows us to see whether we have reached the end of ideas. I have no problem with political parties, it is just that in Botswana all one needs do is get elected to a leadership position and then our media houses accord greater weight to ideas propagated by such a leader than to those propagated by an individual who is not in leadership. There is no pretence to gauge the quality of the idea coming from the leader.
The age of independents is very important, because political formations arose quickly in Botswana, and before private views were canvassed we had independence with a form of government that basically stifled independent thought. We then grew up to hate or even look negatively at those who pushed independent ideas. This situation had a firm foundation in our tribal formations. As we all know, with tribes members of one family dominate thinking. Effectively we had the dominance of one family replaced by the dominance of a political party. There was no time to promote independent thinking. Much as I would like to see the opposition parties come together to give Batswana an option to the BDP, I believe that we need time for independents so that even the opposition learns to deal with independent ideas. I think those members of parliament who are independent should stay like that for some time. The opposition likewise should not close doors to the future political ambitions to these independents so that they should not feel under pressure to secure a political home. I believe it would be a grave error to think that political formations can accept independent thought without having had the chance to see how they interact with positions taken by independents.
The age of independence is particularly important when we consider that the opposition unity project is largely led from within political formations. The curse of conformity and sharing of the spoils is very much alive and the survival of independents will provide a counter to this. All one is asking for is a window of opportunity to allow growth of independent ideas.
In regard to the issue of whether we have reached the end of ideas I would like us to look at the world economy. Slavery underwrote the success of the United States of America. But the issue was really that the cost was borne by Africa. In the new world order, for the first time the West if paying the cost of Chinese slavery. It is doing so by making their young too expensive. We have reached a stage where China has nearly 30 millions slaves to throw at the world in the name of lower labour cost. The world is in the interests of profits, prepared to pretend that Chinese slavery is productivity.
The West has developed new names for slavery; productivity and competitiveness. If the cost of a Motswana labourer is P5 per hour and that of a Chinese is P0.50 per hour there is no room to talk about productivity or competitiveness. The Chinese labourer is a slave.
For some time the West could gladly look the other way at Chinese slavery. Our government could also do the same. But nature does not work that way. There is always a cost. For sometime the cost was manageable but as populations grow and become largely young and active the cost becomes too obvious. We are unable to create employment for our young because of Chinese slaves. Even if China were to boost domestic consumption it still has a large pool of slaves to out-compete the rest of the world in the slavery stakes.
During the slave era it was largely the young and active who were taken into slavery. This feature of slavery has been missed by economic planners. They have failed to realize that at that time there was convergence between productivity and age. There was no discontinuity between age and employment. As people grow older they are socialized to become less active. It is generally acceptable for the old to be unemployed. The same cannot be said about the young.
A repeat of the slave era methods of production results in huge unemployment amongst the young of other nations, and is not sustainable. It brings instability to other nations. Effectively Chinese slavery is the key source of instability in the West. The Chinese are not really concerned that the US owes them trillions. They are concerned with exporting instability. They are perfectly happy to see the IMF and World Bank tell Africans what they know is not the real issue.
The Chinese know that for so long as the World Bank and IMF have control over African economic thinking the West and China have breathing space to put their houses in order. Unfortunately for them they do not seem to have any ideas that can take them out of the limits of the old form slavery, where Africa paid the cost, and new form of slavery, where the young in the West and Africa pay the cost. The West and the East have reached an end of ideas. Africa on the other hand is yet to start. Independents offer us an opportunity to start.
When someone accuses Botswana of being a threat to the African agenda I cannot help but wonder as to what an African agenda is supposed to be. In my view South Africa champions the sort of economic thinking that finds home within limits of old form slavery and new form slavery. South African entities have made it impossible for Botswana based companies to thrive. The ANC government lacks the requisite capacity to introduce a new economic paradigm. Talk of nationalization of mines is with respect overrated. Nationalization places wealth in the hands of the government. It does not deal with distribution of wealth. Given the desire to accumulate wealth on the part of the ruling class one fails to see how nationalization can be put forth as a mechanism for fairer and equal distribution of wealth. When one looks at the level of corruption in South Africa one fails to see how nationalization can be used to spread wealth.
African leaders have formulated a silly situation. They want to allow increasing profits every successive year and to maintain low inflation independent of youth unemployment. They are confused. The real question is how do we create an environment that mimicks nature. It is the young who should be employed, not the old. This should be Africa’s agenda. Nationalization and stopping prosecution of corrupt leaders who kill their own people is not Africa’s agenda.
I am not aware of a single African country that has set out to mimick nature in regard to employment. Instead all governments are concerned with engaging in useless talk like nationalization and foreign direct investment. The costs of the profits that the foreign investors want is youth unemployment. Nationalization is not a method for mimicking nature. It is therefore of no use to the resolution of the youth unemployment problem.
Profit in the face of youth unemployment and poverty is like the inefficiency of a machine. It eats into what an economy can give and thereby denies our young and poor what they could have had.
