Opposition parties, by their very nature, seek to capture state power from ruling parties and do so by promising to do things differently. When they fail to win elections and form government, they are expected to remain as a constructive opposition, offering alternative views, looking into the dealings of the ruling party and challenging government in everything that is considered undemocratic or not in the interest of the people.
By so doing, the opposition acts as a watch dog by criticizing its misconduct and/or inaction. In a democracy such as ours, the opposition is required to play a countervailing role to government in way that makes the government more responsive, transparent and accountable.
To satisfy the basic tenets of constructive criticism and legitimate participation in the political space, opposition parties are expected to present clear ideological and policy alternatives to the ruling party.
Significantly, opposition parties must establish an identity that permits them to project themselves as truthful and reliable organizations with the capacity to form an alternative government. Opposition parties exist to question the government of the day and hold them accountable by scrutinising policies and the overall administration of the Government.
Given this critical role of the opposition in a democracy, the biggest challenge for the opposition is that they need to be seen as credible in word and deed. In order that they are credible, they ought to be responsible and avoid flip-flopping on major issues.
The opposition has a duty to themselves and to their members and sympathizers to play the role of a government in waiting that offers something fundamentally different from what is currently being offered by those in government.
It is the duty of the opposition to behave in a manner that will earn them respect from voters across the political divide and to do so, they must be seen to be making sound contribution towards the efficient running of the country.
In this regard, Botswana’s opposition parties have sought to ensure that government functions within the confines of the law by exposing instances of abuse of power, essentially by checking the ruling party and restricting its powers and privileges.
For much of the republic’s life, Botswana’s opposition has comparatively done well to keep a watch over the activities of the ruling party. One such area has been the opposition’s consistency in lambasting the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) for receiving campaign funds from anonymous sources.
It has to be noted that Botswana’s political parties do not receive any funding from the state hence it is incumbent upon the parties to source their campaign funds from wherever, whoever and whatever.
Whereas opposition parties have always struggled to raise campaign funds, mostly relying on membership subscriptions and contributions from their political representatives and well-wishers, the ruling BDP never really struggled to assemble resources for its campaigns and overall party activities. The BDP actually receives generous contributions from its faceless friends with monotonous regularity.
For instance, in the run up to the 1999 general election, the ruling party boasted that they received a P2 million windfall from a secret donor. It is this kind of secret funding of the ruling BDP that the opposition has consistently queried, arguing that there was every likelihood that the BDP was awash with dirty money that has enabled it to establish a slush fund.
While opposition parties are poorly resourced and always struggle to raise campaign funds during general elections and even localised by-elections, the ruling BDP has never struggled to avail a vehicle to each of the 57 constituencies. Essentially, the BDP is always able to spend generously on its campaigns to the envy of competitors.
Bearing in mind that there is no law requiring that parties disclose their sources of funds, opposition parties expressed fears that secret money was a formula for corruption and nepotism and these fears were not far off the mark.
Thus, public financing of political parties has remained one of the key demands pushed by the opposition and the realities of the growing influence of special interest money in national politics meant that the opposition had a convincing case and cannot be accused of masterminding a witch-hunt.
With a mix of frustration, anger and petty jealousy that the ruling BDP was using dark money to have an edge over its competitors, the opposition’s stance against dark money in politics and their fears about the real intentions of these moneyed friends of the BDP were not baseless.
Accordingly, the opposition successfully rallied voters to the terrifying realities of dark money warning that these wealthy friends of the BDP may be trying to curry favour with the ruling party.
The opposition further warned that it was most likely that the ruling BDP will in the long term exist primarily to serve the interests of its secret financiers instead of serving the electorate.
Their argument was not that campaign financing was undesirable and generally detrimental. Political campaigns need generous resources but when money, especially dark money, reigns supreme and becomes the surest way to winning elections, then the purpose of money in politics is twisted and politics is then transmogrified into an underworld.
It is said that money makes the world go round and in a country where income inequalities are well documented and where a huge percentage of voters are ruralists who live in extreme poverty, it is not difficult to understand why money has become an indispensable ingredient for electoral success.
.
Thus, the opposition annoyance at the corrupting and undue influence of money whose sources were faceless, dodgy characters was and remains valid, weighty and warranted.
Above all else, the opposition’s indignation at the undue influence of dark money in national politics has always been a defining feature of a credible alternative government and the most identifiable birthmark distinguishing the opposition from the predatory ruling BDP.
Basically, dark money became a popular refrain when the opposition intensified its crusade against the threats of corruption by faceless financiers of the BDP and we the people appreciated, adored and venerated their commitment to clean campaigns founded on the merits of political messages rather than a hefty pocket
Then things changed and the erstwhile credible, respected and venerated opposition, in particular the UDC, began to embrace dark money with extraordinary zeal that surpassed the BDP.
The UDC’s rush to harness dark money and acquire whatever resources they could and from whosoever means that they were now doing what they had always criticized the BDP for.
It also means that the opposition, in particular the UDC, were never really sincere and genuine in disparaging the ruling party for its obsession with dodgy financiers but were simply irritated that they had no spooks willing to dole out sacks of dirty cash for their campaigns and personal life styles.
Now that the UDC has assembled a network of moneyed dodgy friends, and now that they are essentially the purveyors of dirty money and that ruling BDP’s dirty money pales in comparison to the newly found riches, the lines between the opposition coalition and the sticky-fingered, callous and plunderous BDP has become blurred.
Regrettably, by making the sudden u-turn on this very sensitive aspect of national politics, the opposition in particular the UDC’s criticism of the BDP was just hogwash, political garbage and lousy rhetoric meant to trick voters.
Fundamentally, by somersaulting on this important matter of international interest, it means that the opposition and the UDC in particular cannot be trusted on any issue and may not be taken seriously as an alternative government for they have shown to be unprincipled and opportunistic.
Reports that some senior UDC officials were seen giving out cash to voters to influence them to cast their votes for the coalition’s candidate strongly suggest that they are now using the dark money playbook and have become as dirtier, corrupt and risky as the ruling BDP or even more.
