by Thusego Mmolawa (Artist, Activist and independent essayist based in Edinburgh, Scotland)
The master plan orchestrated by the Botswana Democratic Party leadership in ensuring undisputed votes has backfired. With the recent political situation in Botswana-we look at how the leadership underestimated the current president Ian Khama and how his type of leadership has caused a rift amongst the party leadership and its members.
President Ian Khama does not have a strong political background. His ascendance to parliament was a pleasant surprise to Botswana. He was recruited from the army where he was the Commander in Chief. His father Sir Seretse Khama was the first president of Botswana, the paramount chief of the Bangwato tribe. The popularity and love for the Khama name is strong from the central part of Botswana to the upper northern regions of the country. The ruling Botswana Democratic party has reigned since independence of 1966 under Sir Seretse Khama’s leadership.
The recruitment of Ian Khama into parliament was a decision undertaken by the BDP leadership to ensure that the regions where the Bangwato chieftaincy rules remains supportive to the party. Most of these regions are rural areas where the locals have been indoctrinated to support the ruling party because their elders support it. These are regions where political education is minimal.
The urbanization of the youth means that the educated and political conscious are located in the capital cities or the more developed towns. This makes Botswana’s democracy peculiar, in the sense that the rural people vote for the party their village elders and families have voted and supported for years. Party related policies and manifestos are not a priority amongst the local rural traditional people.
The customary law and culture in Botswana has played a significant role in what is happening in Botswana’s sense of democracy. Ian Khama is chief by birth right. In Setswana culture it is an abomination to disagree with a chief.
When the Member of Parliament for Tonota (my home village) disagreed with the president over MPs salaries and benefits, he was called to order by the village elders and told to make an official apology to the president; he was told that he has upset the gods by disagreeing with the chief. This does not aid a good democratic movement in any environment including Botswana. A democratic leader should be criticized by both his followers and the opposition-that is the democratic culture.
This makes Botswana’s politics interesting, we have the Hon Ian Khama, the president of Botswana, and on the other hand we have Ian Khama the paramount Chief of the Bangwato, with all these powers the Botswana Democratic Party leadership was assured of the majority of votes for a long time. This has proven not to be practical because with his chieftaincy he cannot be criticized. As a president his leadership skills are that of a military lord, which has led to political unrest amongst the ruling party leaders, who are now divided into two factions; those who are Pro Ian Khama and those who are Pro BDP and what it has always stood for.
The present dilemma is that Hon Ian Khama is the rightfully elected president of Botswana. His policy reviews, bill amendments have been viewed as that of a dictator by the pro party members and their supporters. Criticizing his leadership has led to allegations of public servants facing disciplinary actions. Botswana is a democratic nation, but with the president in office as a Chief, he cannot be criticized in public due to Setswana custom.
Ian Khama should denounce one of his powers so that democracy can have its course. If this is impossible Botswana should consider becoming a monarchy. Let’s have Ian Khama as the Paramount Chief of Botswana and call for fresh elections in which a prime minister will be selected, preferably someone with a strong political background
It is quite alarming that with the recent developments the president has not given a public press conference or an official public announcement regarding the political unrest. President Ian Khama does not give a lot of public interviews. I contend that this behaviour is not good for politics, a leader should be transparent before his followers; they should engage the general public in any political developments.
The present political dynamics are fascinating, and long overdue. The reshuffling, the confusion and the political unrest are good for Botswana, all eyes are on the BDP leadership to see how they solve this predicament. The public will follow the developments that have caused local news headlines and will ask important questions such as: What are the strategies they are going to adopt if the Pro Party members start a new party? How different is their manifesto going to be from the original BDP? Other issues they have towards the president will also be highlighted.
As an activist for transparency in Botswana politics, the political situation in my home country Botswana will teach young people to be more active in local politics. Thus educating others with the hope that knowledge will reach the rural communities, which are always left out when it comes to political and developmental issues. The political dynamics will ensure that people will go out and look for parties to support based on what they stand for. People will start to scrutinize their leaders, which will aid a culture of transparency and democracy.
2 comments:
To date I as a South African admire the leadership skills and tools employed by the Botswana gov. strict nd no none sense. this is mainly due to you keeping your culture closely knit with your politics. if you westenise your democracy you will find yourselves sooner o later in a state such as ours. look at the news, there is no respect nor order and limited selfish leadership thats mainly due to wanting to copy systems that worked elsewhere. what i believe Botswana Needs is to modinise its economy but not your culture, thus far your country's people are the most respectable south of the equator.
I do not think it is just a matter of westernizing or that we do not respect or want the traditional systems; I for one agree that it is important that we have them. Nonetheless, this 'inheritance right' is and should be exclusive to our traditional systems. I think the very idea of elections (which are brought about by political parties) speaks to that. There is no copy system,we have a house of chiefs and a parliament running parallel to one another; and their distance from each other needs to be maintained. This way, we get to expect demand of each depending on their roles and responsibilities.
Post a Comment