There is no doubt that the formation of the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) has changed the conduct of party politics in Botswana. It also has to be acknowledged that the UDC has, in no small measure, contributed to the renewal of hope amongst opposition party fanatics and sympathizers that change was possible and inevitable.
It must be remembered that the UDC was formed a time when voters were disillusioned with fragmented opposition parties that seemed more eager to mock and tear each other apart rather than fight the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) and credit goes to Advocate Duma Boko who made sacrifices in efforts to unite the opposition parties for purposes of unseating the BDP.
Back in the day, the coalition appeared to demonstrate some seriousness and commitment to offer Batswana a meaningful alternative government. The UDC was fairly organized and operated as a modern institution managed by dedicated twenty-first century leaders.
However, it did not take long before the coalition experienced organizational and leadership challenges and it seemed just a matter of time before the bubble burst as is always the case with transitory and/or fraudulent schemes.
While the UDC has always weathered the storm in the sense of avoiding a violent breakdown that characterized the collapse of the Botswana Movement for Democracy (BMD), its image has been ruined and it will never be the same again.
Understanding the early days in the life of the UDC will help us have a better perspective of what contaminated the people’s project and that is the purpose of this discussion.
As has already been mentioned, the UDC was conceived at a time when voters were desperate for a united opposition. At the time, a majority of voters who were fed up with the BDP (mis)rule were convinced that the only way to unseat the ruling BDP was through a united opposition purposed to pool meagre resources together and most importantly to avoid vote-splitting that gives astronomical advantages to the ruling BDP.
And so when the project was eventually birthed, it was met with wild infantile jubilation – the kind of excitement that usually lead to over confidence, unrealistic expectations, rushed and inattentive decision making.
Thus, the UDC was formed out of fear of loss of hope and henceforth rode on the back of unprecedented public support, sympathy and a craving for regime change. Notwithstanding, it has to be noted that desperation typically causes lapses in judgment.
The desperation to unite opposition parties meant that decisions were rushed and rarely interrogated for fear of stalling the project and/or being accused of being BDP mole. For the most part, the current problematic arrangements of the UDC are a product of desperation for regime change and by extension, are the major causes of UDC troubles.
Upon formation of the UDC, it was expressly agreed that the BNF would assume the presidency of the UDC while the Botswana Movement for Democracy assumed the vice-presidency. This transitional arrangement served the UDC well mainly due to euphoria of anticipation of regime change.
When the BCP joined the UDC, a similar gentlemen’s arrangement saw the BNF retaining the UDC presidency while the BCP settled for vice presidency.
As was the case with the first UDC, a lot of contentious issues were swept under the carpet to hurriedly welcome the BCP under the umbrella and unsurprisingly, history is about to repeat itself with BCP seemingly facing expulsion by the use of the same template that sealed the fate of the BMD.
Essentially, there were no deliberate attempts to do due diligence and subject this marriage of convenience to careful examination in order to circumvent a repeat of the first episode that spat the BMD like people do with a wet cough, mainly because of desperation for state power.
The totality of this cocktail of hurried arrangements was that, unbeknownst to them, the BMD as a founding member of the UDC and the BCP as one of the largest opposition parties in the country gave away the ownership of the UDC to the BNF, in particular, Duma Boko who would later expel the BMD from the UDC.
Relationships, whether inter-personal or institutional, go through some basic stages through which we build up a common vision, develop the skills we will need to sustain the relationship and consolidate plans for the future.
Part of the problems besieging the UDC emanate from the failure of the member parties to wake up from the trance of infatuation that has allowed the BNF or Boko to have his way when it comes to managing the coalition. In a new relationship, there comes a time for partners to slow down with making big decisions in order to introspect before committing themselves to a long-term relationship.
Like teenagers fascinated by their first relationship, UDC minority member parties elected not to pause to seek concessions and/or push for scrutiny of the salience of explicit factors such as those that give the UDC president the wherewithal to admit and expel member parties willy-nilly will haunt the people’s project more than it is being acknowledged.
Instead, they continued to defend and dance to the centralization of power in the presidency with the long term effect of turning the coalition’s incumbent president Duma Boko into a Godfather, a Rambo before finally creating a domineering leader with a belligerent mood.
Whereas the coalition continues to provide sound policy alternatives, it has nevertheless squandered the goodwill of many voters by pinning all its hopes on its leader, in the process more than exaggerating his worth, while diminishing the value of the project.
For some rash reasoning, the coalition member parties sought to build UDC support around its president perhaps to rely on his charisma, superficial charm and grandiosity. This was a dangerous gamble that is not helping the UDC to grow and consolidates its electoral gains.
Rather, the approach has served to create the politics’ equivalent of the fictional Superman, an infallible leader who has come to administer the UDC according to his own rules and agenda.
As a matter of fact, the UDC has ceded its image rights to a valiant, vacillating, pompous and self-opinionated leader whose exercise of authority in its management is unbounded, controversial and regressive.
While the UDC member parties were understandably gripped by a frenzy of excitement and seduced by charisma of the special kid to arrive at the awkward decision of giving the coalition to the BNF president, there was no justification to turn a blind eye to offensive conducts that came to characterize the management of the coalition.
Unlike in the world of movies where Superman landed on earth to save humanity, in the real life of politics a superman takes the character of an elitist, self-important icon who cares more about himself and his lapdogs with inflated egos.
In the world of party politics, the superman status often transforms otherwise great leaders into arrogant and self-conceited, attention-seeking braggarts with a penchant for deception, manipulation and an obsession with personal brilliance.
It applies charismatic flavor to exercise authority, often in the interest of the individual leader and a few of his deadbeat cronies. The superman status generates unlimited confidence that usually demonstrates a disposition of excessive self-pride deriving from the public hero-worshipping and idolization of the leader.
Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu highlights that the superman kind of political leaders are often driven by a short term desire to promote their personal images rather than creating political parties than can endure in their absence.
Looking back at the UDC, its formative years were characterized by leaders who based their power on the collective efforts of its members and its institutional design was anchored on a model that mixed selflessness and partnership in the discharge of the coalition’s daily business.
However, the UDC gradually allowed the cult of self-importance to take shape in a way that disfigured how the leaders connected with each other and those around them. Once the fantasy of self-importance was firmly established, the UDC lost the plot as the leaders started aiming at attracting admiring audiences and nurturing cheerleaders ready to die for the leader
As a result, the desire to mastermind regime change got overshadowed by a desire to publicly flaunt association with moneyed people and celebrate personal image over substance in a way that threw the future of the UDC to the gutters. When all is said and done, the UDC can do without the self-importance of those who feel entitled to it because of the sacrifices they made to unite the opposition parties otherwise we will continue to witness UDC member parties bolting out of the stable because they feel betrayed and deceived.
