Calls for the review of Botswana’s national constitution come from afar with many championing their demands on the premise that the constitution needed to be refreshed to keep pace with developments not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the constitution.
It is on this account that the matter of constitutional review found a safe haven in political discourse, as a priority issue in the list of electoral promises of political parties. In the build-up to the 2019 general election, the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) committed itself to a timeframe for the review of the constitution, if returned to power, arguing that the review is long overdue.
After the BDP was returned to power, the opposition collective, the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) turned on the heat reminding the BDP to keep their word in respect of the review of the constitution, whereupon the state President reiterated his ruling party’s commitment to the review of the national constitution.
In response to the state President’s assurances, the opposition collective expressed worry that President Dr Masisi seems not keen to engage key stakeholders and threatened that if the president proceeds to initiate a BDP review of the Botswana constitution to the exclusion of others, they would not play any part in the process.
In keeping his promise, President Dr Masisi ultimately appointed the commissioners to lead the national project to which the UDC authored a formal correspondence expressing their disapproval of the manner in which President Dr Masisi was handling the national project.
Sensing that they were being ignored by the ruling government, the UDC announced that they were not going to play any part in the process pointing out that they do not want to confer legitimacy upon a constitutional review process that they consider fundamentally flawed.
It must be emphasized that staying away from formal political engagement, whether being simple absenteeism or organized boycott, is a normal political weapon used by various elements in society within the broader framework of bargaining.
Essentially, stay away, boycott or absenteeism is often used by opposition parties to get concessions and/or make the public and the international community aware of the inherent flaws in a process.
While the UDC’s contention that the ongoing constitutional review process is not transparent and inclusive is debatable, the sluggish disposition of the government in responding to the queries raised seems to suggest ill intents and malicious plans on their part given their history. That aside, the decision by the UDC not to play any part in this national project may come to haunt them for years to come.
The UDC is made up of free standing constituent parties some of which may have been itching to make comprehensive, wide-ranging submissions in their contributions to the constitution. A UDC stay away or boycott takes away the best chance from those who are willing to affect political change via constitutional review window.
The UDC’s decision deprives some of its constituent parties the opportunity to influence the direction of the constitution. It is noted that the decision not to take part came in the context of the offensive and malicious BDP’s unilateral decision in determining how the review was going to proceed.
Yet, the ruling party’s resolve to frustrate the opposition cannot validate the UDC’s childish response. It is a fact the BDP’s immediate goal is always to frustrate the opposition to a point of yielding from fatigue and hopelessness.
It is also a fact that the UDC coalition is fragile much so because of its form and individualized political beliefs and a decision of this nature, however its universal appeal it may appear, has the potential to frustrate some constituent parties or individual members of the member parties.
In the end, some who crave participation to influence constitution making as responsible citizens or who want to steal the limelight from the ever grumpy opposition collective may ignore the UDC and play a major part in the review process.
There is also a very likelihood of some UDC constituents taking part in the review process to avoid a backlash from their members and the voting public or guard against their reputation, resulting in distrust, toxic tension and ultimate fractures.
If this happens, whether on a small or large scale, it would significantly lessen the efficiency of the UDC’s non-participation and render their stay away hollow while also presenting them as temperamental crybabies who cannot be entrusted with national leadership.
Stay away or boycotts are tools that can be used to draw the attention of the international community to the undemocratic actions of the government in order to induce sustained criticism and/or extract public sympathy.
The expectation is often that sustained international condemnation will put pressure on the ruling elite to accede to some of the opposition’s demands, if the rulers are to remain credible and legitimate. However, this strategy does not normally work in obscure or smaller countries like Botswana with negligible strategic relevance to world politics.
Thus, the world may have very little interest in what is happening in Botswana, especially on such a localized issue like the processes of constituting a commission. The international community may pretend to be alarmed but really may not be interested in getting involved at this level and that could make the opposition look like they have been rebuffed or may appear like a tactical support for the rulers. A negative outcome of the non-participation could then be loss of public confidence in the coalition.
One might interpret the decision by the UDC to play no part in the constitutional review as an act of abdicating their duty of holding the government to account and generally in participating in the political system now and in the future.
A constitutional review is an occasion that does not come every day hence offers the opposition a window of opportunity to put their political skill to good use and beat the mischievous ruling party to its game.
In the past, the opposition bloc has successfully mobilized the civil society to mount sustained pressure on the ruling government to make concessions and by not playing any part the UDC is clearly abandoning a lot number of people and the civil society has no option but to fill the political void.
In the event that the civil society establishes a strategic negotiating leverage and dig out some concessions from the government, the opposition parties would be adjudged to have relinquished their political function at a very critical moment in the life of the republic.
The effect of this would be that the opposition would have a mammoth task to reclaim their rightful place in the political industry as the publics might dismiss them as tetchy and surly wannabes who always want things their way and always too quick to capitulate in way that often deprive their members a share in influencing the future of the republic. This then has the potential to further erode public confidence in the opposition, leading to marginalization of the opposition into obscurity.
By deciding not to take part in the constitutional review process, the UDC has missed an opportunity to utilize rare platforms to reach out to some members of the society who rarely attend political activities to get firsthand information about the UDC’s promises.
The constitutional review meetings offer platforms to various interest groups to stake their claims in the power game such that the UDC was presented with an opportunity to demonstrate their preparedness as an alternative government as the 2024 general election approaches.
Fundamentally, by staying away the UDC has actually surrendered the initiative to the ruling BDP by ceding the whole political space to the ruling BDP which could then, unmarked, unchecked and unrestrained propose provisions that would consolidate its grip on power.
Minister Morwaeng’s reported shooting down of the submissions made by members of the public during the commission’s Kgotla meeting in Molepolole goes a long way to show that the BDP is roaming freely in brazen attitude because they surely have the whole world to themselves. If the UDC participated, they would at least make the ruling party behave better rather than openly intimidate members of the public as is the case now.
So far the commission’s public hearings have been attracting a lot of people, perhaps indicating that people are not bothered by the UDC’s immature decision. Already the BDP is downplaying the UDC’s non-participation citing turnout numbers and the quality of submissions from individuals and organized groups.
Should the turnout at the Commission’s public hearings continue to be impressive, this might even be interpreted as a seal of public approval of the incumbent regime in way that could discredit the opposition in general and the UDC in particular as a mickey-mouse alliance.
