We cannot gloss over fundamental flaws in Rre Gaolathe’s reasoning by focusing on organizational protocols only. An interrogation of what he says allows us to get a truer picture of his calibre as a leader. The fundamental flaws in reasoning and attempts at emotional manipulation reflect negatively on his calibre. Being held to be honourable, humble or whatever is irrelevant. What matters is the quality of ones thoughts and reasoning processes.
Rre Gaolathe tries to create space for his views by suggesting that BMD has ushered in a form of democracy where members can propagate views that are at odds with those of the leadership. The error with this attempt is that it creates the impression that the participation of the BMD in the coalition is a process of the leaders and not that of BMD. All along we have been led to believe that the negotiators were mandated by the BMD. It also puts into question the role of organizational discipline within BMD.
Rre Gaolathe claims that a distinction in perspective exists between the rural and urban members of BMD as regards opposition coalition. In regard to the claimed rural perspective he does not tender any evidence but rather posits a value proposition; that the rural members liken the BMD to a bride or groom who should not engage in marriage before acquiring a deeper knowledge about himself or herself. This value proposition is not peculiar to the rural people. Even the urban people subscribe to this value proposition. Rre Gaolathe does not attempt to demonstrate why the urban members of BMD can support coalition politics whilst subscribing to this rule and why the rural members of BMD cannot.
Rre Gaolathe suggests that BMD has a culture but in the same breath states that it is a new entity in all respects. One wonders how a new entity that is still to grow organically, in the form of new membership and establishment of branches and cells, can lay claim to any culture. His position is also odd when one considers that at national level we claim that various cultures can co-exist in a symbiotic fashion within the confines of our borders. Substitute national borders for coalition and tell me the difference.
A newly born baby does not know whether it is a Mongwato or a Mosarwa. It is socialized to become either one of these. As a newly formed entity it is the leadership’s culture which is likely to dominate in the interim. There is an error though in a leadership assuming that its culture is that of the organization. In my view Rre Gaolathe mistakes his culture, even if shared by the rural members, to be the culture of BMD. That is a fundamental flaw on the part of someone who holds the position of Policy Director.
Rre Gaolathe suggests that the idea that the ruling party will only fall if all the major parties formed a coalition is an artificial standard and that it works against the very people who are promoting it. What is wrong with an artificial standard? BMD like a tribe is itself not a natural formation. BMD is an artificial entity that can only act through its leadership and structures. The idea of a national government run by a party is an artificial standard.
He also posits a philosophical proposition; faith. Relying on this he then suggests that people should not be led to believe that their hope rests on the outcome of the talks. At the heart of this faith proposition is an attempt to tell the members of BMD that they have nothing to fear by the collapse of the talks. It is a basis for an attack on a position taken lawfully by BMD. It is an attempt at emotional manipulation.
The idea of a leading partner exposes serious deficiencies in our understanding of what our people are really looking for. I believe our people are looking for alternative ideas, policies and modes of implementation that will better their lives. They are also looking for vehicles that will deliver those ideas and policies. I do not believe that only a coalition of one party with a leading partner is suited to deliver the ideas and policies that can better our people’s lives.
Ideas do not have a home. BMD and whatever its proposed partner would be, cannot claim to have a monopoly on ideas and policies that can better our people’s lives. Experience has shown that BDP has adopted ideas put forth by other parties. What our people need are political parties to put forth leaders who are self confident and mature enough to move on with ideas and policies that will benefit our people without regard to the source or the identity of the political formation.
The claim that a coalition will be slow moving is questionable. The inability of a vehicle to move on ideas and policies depends on the calibre of leadership and the quality of processes. If you have leaders who are constantly looking to take credit then you are likely to be slow as they first seek to establish credit before moving. In fact the reluctance to give up political party identity is informed by this desire for credit on the part of our opposition politicians. It is therefore not the structure that is to blame but the leadership.
In my view Rre Gaolathe should rather concern himself with promoting merit and reducing the discretionary space enjoyed by leaders such as himself. He puts forth what he says are agenda items for BMD. Is he placing these in the public domain because he is agreeable to them or because he feels duty bound to uphold them, as they were arrived at through due process within BMD? I cannot detect anything new or radical about the agenda. It is what both the ruling party and the opposition have been promising Batswana since independence.
Rre Gaolathe suggests that natural admiration will guide the choice of the opposition partners. We are not told what the basis of this natural admiration is. Given that BMD does not seem to be suggesting anything radical in its agenda items, one fails to see why it was never natural for them to align themselves with one of the existing parties. Why did it have to take the start of opposition coalition talks for the Rre Gaolathe to put forth this idea. One is left wondering whether because his idea did not carry the day internally prior to establishment of their negotiating team he now has to create an external reference in order to put it across. This is another attempt at emotional manipulation.
There is talk about the nation being given time to learn the policies and agenda of BMD before the party engages in coalition talks. This reinforces the argument that our politicians are really about credit. If BMD does not posit anything radically different and innovative from existing parties why must it first seek to entrench a particular culture? The only feasible explanation is a desire on the part of the leadership to get credit. Once again one is left wondering whether we are seeing a situation of a leader unable to carry the day internally electing to go public with his views to win favour and sympathy outside his party. Why does Rre Gaolathe not resign from his position rather than demonstrate a lack of cohesiveness within the leadership of BMD?
A leading figure of a political party cannot hide behind freedom of expression and democracy to articulate a position fundamentally at odds with that of his organization. The purpose of an organization is to pursue common objectives following internal debate and processes for decision making. It is not proper for a key leader to claim that a section of the party is at odds with the majority position and to seek public exposure of such a position after a collective decision is taken.
One even wonders how a leading partner can add value if leading members can on the basis of claimed freedom of expression and democracy articulate views contrary to those taken by the partners. One is suggesting that the notion of a leading partner is misleading. What is required is a leading ideology, policy and mode of implementation. The example of the ANC and its partners is misplaced, for the ANC has a leading ideology, policy and mode of implementation that are subscribed to by the various elements. Focus on the label of the structure is misleading.
Our politicians behave as if labels define and set limits for ideas. They have learnt nothing from the recent economic turmoil. We saw capitalists indulge nationalistic or socialistic economic practices as public funds were used to prop up private institutions. The tragedy of our politics is that our politicians are prisoners of identity and lovers of credit.
I believe what I set out above applies equally to the position taken by Kagiso Ntime of the BNF on the opposition cooperation talks. I have in the past argued that we owe it to our young and country to interrogate what they say, for it is only through rigorous interrogation of what they say that we may nurture a merit orientated leadership. I still subscribe to that position.
