This is a rejoinder to an article by comrade Otsweletse Moupo (who is among the most revered leading lights of the left in the BNF) entitled “A call for national debate…” in which he bemoans lack of serious debate on the ramifications of unity of opposition parties without BCP and went on to outline generally what a political debate should aim to achieve; which in a nutshell is to locate the nature and scope of the issues of debate and unpack them to help the recipients to assimilate and use.
There are contestations of ideas as to 1) the likely effect of none participation of the BCP in the umbrella or put differently what consequences will arise for going solo in the 2014 general election contrary to what others consider a national project and perhaps also discuss whether indeed it is, 2) What are the likely benefits which may accrue to the umbrella partners (assuming it is successfully concluded), or how is the umbrella likely to fare taking into account the constituent members and their attributes 3) whether regime change is feasible in light of the foregoing (umbrella minus BCP) and who is likely to gain and why and finally 4) the prospects of future unity of opposition parties (assuming BDP wins in 2014). These issues are discussed taking cognisance of history particularly with regard to splits and instability in the ruling and opposition parties, public sector strike and political development and or consciousness in general.
There has never been a rigorous evaluation of the performance of the major political players in 2009 which should inform this debate, however an attempt would be made to discuss albeit scantily some issues relating thereto.
Since 1999, election dynamics have changed drastically, so much so that the political landscape is hard to predict. First it was the BNF split, then the Schlemmer report that had a huge bearing on the BDP, and now the BDP split and the historic public sector strike which issues effectively redefined the political landscape. The BMD formation has legitimised both the party split and floor crossing which are no longer anathema. BDP aimed to increase its popular vote to 70% which appeared unattainable, but it managed to increase it votes substantially in almost all the constituencies. This increase was in spite of deteriorating living conditions generally. When the opposition attacked the schemes such as Ipelegeng, its beneficiaries did not only appreciate but also rewarded the BDP with votes and openly and publicly praised these initiatives which brings us to the popularity of president Khama as per the recent Gallup survey. Despite the opposition offering decent jobs and higher old age pensions etc but nonetheless voters did not only return BDP to power but did so in exceptionally high numbers. Most politicians delude themselves about civil servants votes, in reality middle to senior civil servants support and vote BDP. The fallout as evidenced by the historic public sector strike may have raffled some feathers, but to assume a phenomenal turnaround is self deceiving. None participation of BCP in the umbrella is no where nearer its split from the BNF and the ensued massive vote splitting and floor crossing campaign against it, but nonetheless warrants intensive probing in light the aforesaid developments.
Proponents of umbrella tout it as national project though it is not clear how it came to be or what precisely that means. There is absolutely no legitimacy in assuming that unity of opposition parties is a national project as this is not supported by empirical evidence or study, at best it is a consensual position of members of the opposition axis. Political parties are by nature national projects, for BMD to form leaves one wondering why they did not join an existing party, granted, they could form in order to coalesce around issues that brought them together and later join rather than cooperate with an existing party. Much as it is in the interest of democracy for government to change hands between political parties, the fact that BDP continue to win convincingly must be respected as it clearly demonstrates that the majority of Batswana continue to consciously return it to power. The opposition has a mammoth task to unseat the BDP even with skewed political playing field and rampant abuse of incumbency, such is Africa, hence the unity conundrum.
Unity talks dominated the opposition for over 4 decades, since Botswana National Front was formed. Kopano (the BNF) slogan symbolises that party’s overarching objective to unite the opposition parties into a formidable force which could usurp political power from the BDP. The BNF is a heterogeneous political formation which was so made to facilitate coexistence of divergent interests and its constitution and philosophy are predicated on this ideal. BNF has not only failed to live up to this but its slogan has been rendered obsolete due to its perennial failure to attain what it set out to achieve, in fact it has become an epitome of disunity and instability with dire consequences to the entire opposition. Immediately after 1999 general election, when BCP had suffered a debilitating defeat, when its viability was questionable, a sizeable number of its foot soldiers went back to the BNF, hoping that to advance their agenda to remove BDP through the latter was easier and much more feasible. It was mainly because of their strong allegiance to the BNF brand that they helped build which continued to entice them. These are hardcore activists dyed in wool of the alternative politics who abhor BDP and what it stands for, fathoming the idea of the BNF (as opposed to BCP) ousting the BDP. They were not only welcome but also quickly rose to higher echelons of power. For ten years (1999-2009) the two parties viciously fought to eliminate each other at the expense of BDP, which in turn took advantage and entrenched itself, it attracted even those who did not subscribe to its philosophy but instead used it as a stepping stone to power and self aggrandisement, politico-preneurs. BNF still failed to cease the moment to stamp its authority as the party of choice.
2009 election saw a convergence of BCP/BNF power play; the two parties were at parity, BNF with one Member of Parliament and only (2830) more and BCP ahead with councillors. Some political pundits underplayed this and instead preferred to gloss it over with the main opposition tag. It is this parity, the fact that BNF remains trapped in self destructive demonic possessions while BCP continues to show cohesiveness (which seems not to bode well with sceptics like Spencer Mogapi who dismisses it at as a facade) that pose a real threat to BDP, which in turn help it attract its cofounders who had given up on it and some of the core alternative agenda activists who wish to realise regime change in their life time, who constitute bulwark of the call for unity of the two, some even from within the confines of the BNF, even if it is at the exclusion of BMD. The animosities of the two have produced a point where their interests intersect, which has the potential to unite and reconcile them and reinvigorate their resolve and hope for regime change which was postponed due to the split. The BCP pact with BAM which later bore a merger gave rise to hope and the possibility of attaining this noble ideal. Duma Boko is seen as an impediment to realising this dream; he is seen more as a BMD man, which led to swelling frustration and mutiny against him from both parties’ core activists. Mayhem in the BNF and abrasive attack on him is precipitated by his unwavering disdain for those who hold a different view, who know that an umbrella with neither BCP nor BNF is but a kite which will not produce the desired results.
This could as well be the last round of talks where the two parties came to the table as equals, and a time may have come where one of the parties will go under and a legitimate big brother backed by strong public support emerge. In the meantime the core alternative activists will defect to one of the parties which they deem capable and ready to pose a formidable and real challenge to the BDP. The results of the last general elections when BDP had not split and led by its most popular president after Seretse Khama and used a lot of money to campaign point to its vulnerability, BDP can still be defeated in 2014 provided appropriate strategies and issues take centre stage. Unity is just one of the many ways to effectively engage the BDP, others include credibility and stability of parties, research based responses to the needs and aspirations of the voters etc.
The 1998 split that bore the BCP left the BNF a house divided; beneath the rancour of the two parties lies natural allies who know that their union is key to governance. Even when the opposition bled profusely, the core activists remained steadfast, refusing to submit to the marauding capitalist with all the allurements they could master. The core activists in both BNF and BCP are tried and tested, and though with seething mistrust, they still subconsciously know that they need each other. Unlike comrade Duma Boko, at least comrade Moupo accept that there is umbrella 2 which came after the former had collapsed and which BCP was never party to, and as a matter of fact therefore never withdrew from. Umbrella 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, and interestingly most of his postulates could be attributed to 1 and not necessarily U2, i.e. that the project commanded substantial goodwill, trade union support and that the sum total of the 2009 results will be far more than that of the individual parties, particularly due to latent support expected to be generated by unity of all as opposed to unity of some of the opposition parties.
Even as trade unions declare none partisan subsequent to the fallout within the opposition, the proponents of umbrella continue to hope for their support. Trade unions adopted a more cautious approach when they realised that it was too risky to be partisan without guarantees after taking due diligence on the prospects of U2. Moupo’s condescending attitude towards BCP, his conceptualisation of equality of the participating parties beats logic to say the least. Big brother in politics as well as in life is good, however BNF burnt is fingers because of how it used it, tactless and clumsily. He fails to acknowledge the problems currently bedevilling the BNF and those that may still confront the umbrella such as registering symbols, colours etc of the existing parties to be used by the new party which will require deregistration of the existing parties and which may further cause problems. Umbrella is effectively a merger contrary to clear mandates of the contracting parties which categorically said that the identities of the parties should be left intact. He underplays these threats, including of course the challenges that come with marketing a new party, especially in villages which form the bulk of the constituencies. To the consternation of Moupo and his ilk, BCP has not earned the big brother stigma, which to them is inexplicable and unpardonable to the media; this show how they fail to read the times. Most fascinating is Moupo’s intellectual dishonesty and new found reactionary tendencies which are appalling and nauseating.
BNF partnering with BMD is positive opportunism but Moupo displays negative opportunism by not rendering good counsel to the BNF to the effect that it is inconceivable to reinvent the colossal that is BNF, unless of course BCP is part of the matrix, the political deficit would be too ghastly, the pill too bitter to swallow, and therefore BPP and BMD should join BNF in whatever manner. This is what the firebrand Moupo of our time would advise (as BNFYL central committee members), not misleading, dangerous and treacherous capitulation by a sworn Marxist and if indeed Duma Boko is bold, decisive and on top of his game, this is what he should proffer to his erstwhile allies and save the titanic. There is discernible silence of a corpse from the BNF left who appear dejected and despondent to step to the podium to appropriately guide the party at this hour of need; they have simply become irrelevant, and would rather adopt a trial and error attitude, this is suicidal and catastrophic to the multitudes who yearn for leadership that will deliver them to the promised land.
