If ever a man has cost his followers dearly it is Karl Marx. He is supposed to have said that religion is the opium of the masses. By this statement good old Marx blinded his followers to one of the most powerful tools for social mobilization; a historical figure. The two most prominent religions, Christianity and Islam owe their success more to the historical Jesus and Mohammed than to the ideas that they put forth. Both Jesus and Mohammed provide a reference point for these religions.
I bet if there had been no Jesus, Christianity would have died like other religions so too would Islam if there had been no Mohammed. It is interesting to note that adherents of these religions more often than not talk about these historical figures first and then articulate the principles that they taught.
One hardly ever hears articulation of principles on their own without reference to these historical figures.
I have heard it said that there are great similarities between these major religions and what came before them. The Bible also makes mention of the fact that the law is already written in our hearts. This suggests that the historical Jesus did not bring the law into this world. It was already there. I have also heard that Mohammed studied religious principles under a black man. This historical fact is for some reason suppressed.
No adherent of these two major religions can with all honesty suggest that our people had no moral values before these religions reached our shores. No missionary or sheik taught us that it was wrong to steal. No missionary taught us that it was wrong to kill a fellow human being. We knew and upheld these principles since time immemorial. The concept of botho was not introduced to us by any of the major religions. The word “ modimo” predates the introduction of these religions to our people. The dominance of these religions is not founded on the values they propound but on the promotion of their historical figures.
It is said that Khama III once remarked that he was not confused as to the governance of his people. Rre K. Morake is reported to have remarked that the difference between the BDP and BPP at independence was that the BPP wanted to get rid of the whites whilst the BDP wanted the whites to teach them how to run a country. When one looks at the relative youth of the whites who worked for the new government, especially in the area of finance and development planning, and the fact that most of them had not run a newly independent country before one sees the source of our inferiority complex.
It is amazing that an organization led by Khama III’s great grandson could shift positions in such a radical fashion. The movement from a position of confidence to one of inferiority founded on the colour of the skin is incredible. We are still struggling to be as assertive as Khama III was about our governance, and it is mind boggling that one of his descendants is at the head of a government that continues to propagate the position of inferiority. One may ask: is it really worth it for the descendants of Khama III to take a position that is contrary to his?
It is also said that Khama III held the view that the lands of GaMmangwato were not for sale. It would be strange if he were to be deemed to have held that the economic power of GaMmangwato was for sale. Today one of his descendants leads a government that finds nothing wrong with the economic power of this country being in the hands of foreigners. Rre Ian Khama is not to blame for what happened in the past when commoners occupied the position of president. But in the nearly three years that he has been president, his government has resisted calls for formulation of a citizen economic empowerment policy and law.
Within the opposition ranks, we have at least three people who believe, like Khama III, that they are not confused as to the governance of this country. The sad thing about this position is that none of them is willing to concede that it is not necessary for one to be president in order to assert that one is not confused about the governance of this country.
We, therefore, have a situation where the descendants of Khama III have abandoned his self-assuredness, and where three competing personalities make it impossible for our people to assume the position previously held by Khama III.
The only two ways we can revive the self confidence of Khama III is to either convince Rre Ian Khama to change course or for the opposition to have a Jesus like figure as shown above. As things stand the opposition is presenting us with three historical figures. This takes away one option.
What is the point of denying your people an option and then pretending to support them in their efforts to reassert themselves? With due respect to our young opposition leaders, that is exactly what they are doing.
On the surface, they seem to be giving us a lot of options but in reality they are taking away an option, and make our live a little bit more difficult, for we lose a bargaining tool.
For so long as our young leaders play their role of denying our people a bargaining tool they have no right to claim that they are opposed to the ruling party.
Our young leaders must also learn to govern now. It is my understanding that within a government there are competing interests. The purpose of government is to balance these interests and to chart the most beneficial route.
If our young leaders were to place someone above them, then they would get an opportunity to learn to motivate their varied positions, and to let this person decide the best way forward, within whatever discretionary space that this person is allowed. Their failure to concede ground suggests that they are actually fighting for the discretionary space that a president has. This has very little to do with service to the people.
If the greater part of whatever decisions a president makes are to be accounted for, why does it matter who is president? Accountability suggests that where a decision is contrary to my view I would still be given justification that I can accept.
I have noticed that in Botswana a lot of people tend to claim that they have not been consulted if a position contrary to their own is taken. A leadership that understands accountability, consultation and discretion cannot really worry that much if it does not control the discretionary space.
Our young leaders must work at reducing discretionary space, for where that space is too wide then there is no real justification for choosing one leader over the other.
In my view they cannot ask us to give them power on the understanding that they will reduce the discretionary space that obtains under the current constitution. They have to use this period before 2014 to demonstrate that they are able to operate under a regime of limited discretionary space.
They can only do this by conceding ground to someone else and limiting his discretionary space. They would then decide whether they are sill keen on leadership.
Now that I see things in this manner the decisions of the various party congresses that gave the party leaders a blank cheque, to do as they please, in the opposition cooperation negotiations, represents the ultimate discretionary space. Can our leaders use this discretionary space to negotiate themselves downwards? In my view if they cannot do this then we expect too much from them.
By climbing down our young leaders also help the opposition to preserve talent. It results in a spear formation. The three young leaders behind someone who will take the full brunt of Rre Khama in 2014. After this person absorbs whatever blows Rre Khama can deliver one of the young leaders can emerge to challenge who ever comes after Rre Khama.
I also have a strong suspicion that Rre Khama will not be able to choose a successor under such circumstances.
By preserving talent the opposition will influence the choice of Rre Khama’s successor. The BDP will not allow him to choose someone who will be easily defeated by the opposition. It will also ensure that merit is given a chance within the BDP. By any measure this will be in the best interests of Botswana.
Ultimately it does not really matter who rules this country if at the end of the day merit reigns supreme. I have no real interest in democracy for its own sake. I want democracy to serve merit.
If democracy is a numbers game that does not serve merit then it is useless to me.
Too many leaders who are not confused about the governance of this country and who then ensure that democracy does not serve merit are useless to me.