I find this argument almost trivial and certainly flimsy. While the core business of the UB is teaching and research, this does not imply that all other human activities outside the immediate core areas are virtually undesirable.
In my view, the amount and level of political activity at the UB reflects the significance of politics in human life and to some extent the role of UB in the development of the country. That some party activists at the UB hate each other to death is certainly normal, since hatred is part of any human society. Even people of the same political denomination may still hate each other
Let it be noted that the UB looks for and hires people of some depth and a certain level of intelligence and such people generally tend to be visibly active in many aspects of social life. Departments want people who can analyse and discuss some complex matters, who are not afraid to challenge wisdom and who have a sense of responsibility beyond the precincts of the university. Such people are perhaps a rare commodity and once available in ample quantities we can expect such activism as observed by Tshabang. I recall the words of Plato - the great philosopher - when he said that, “the price good men pay for their indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”. Certainly most do not want to be ruled by evil men and UB staff have taken this as a challenge by considering themselves to have additional responsibilities that transcend the narrow confines of teaching and research.
It is my fervent view that it will be impossible to have a big institution like UB with employees sharing a single political ideology unless they are in a single party state. What rather comforts me is the diversity of political affiliation at both academic and management level. Instead of treating this diversity as an obstacle to efficiency, we must regard it as an opportunity to be harnessed - a watchdog. I am certain these politicians are inadvertently policing each other, hence this diversity provides some checks and balances against possible corrupt tendencies and laxity. The university cannot shy away from employing citizens of a certain level of political activism and I want to believe that politics is not the preserve for the unemployed.
At all times the academic staff, Tshabang included, seek to provide an environment that encourages robust and honest debate where learners feel and consider themselves free to express their views without fear of being dubbed political activists. This often requires staff to expose students to a varying range of conflicting views on subjects for which that is appropriate, especially subjects that do not constitute themselves as facts and in most cases staff may not remain oblivious of what is happening outside the classroom. In political science for instance, a discussion of key political ideologies may pit followers of the various political parties against each other and this may lead to a richer and fuller comprehension of the subject matter and should not be viewed as simple political activism in class or indoctrination of other students. Discussions are free and liberal and are conducted within the bounds of civility. I am sure staff are also not narrowing their intellect to simple politicisation of students and fellow colleagues.
Since I joined the UB - both as a student and a member of staff - I have never come across any single complaint about a staff member being harassed or discriminated against by management on the basis of political affiliation or a student being penalised for holding a different political view. I have never known of a student who failed at UB because of active involvement in party politics. Of course, I do admit that often times fierce contestation in student politics goes well beyond the rules of the game but this activism generates more knowledge and extended interests in the public sphere. From my experience, student activists tend to graduate into great future leaders. In a nutshell, UB produces graduates of immense knowledge and administrative skills who are then rightly considered by various organisations as good material to effectively manage these organisations. This then represents the necessity for activism - political or religious.
What then is clear to me, is that there is no political interference both in teaching and administration resulting from the level of political activism at UB. Staff understand their responsibilities and their duty of maintaining an open environment for learning. Partisan politics do not play a particular role in teaching, scholarship and administration. University core business takes precedence. An attempt to de-politicise the UB would be tantamount to throttling academic freedom. An administration composed of members of a single political grouping is simply superficial. A passive workforce and student community will be judged harshly by their silence about things that matter and I sincerely hold the view that UB does not hire party activists, but rather hires people who are already political animals in their own right and UB cannot discriminate against them on the basis of their desire to contribute to politics. Their competences on their immediate jobs are what matter most.
As a matter of coincidence, the National Assembly recently took a swipe at UB staff for engaging in political activities. This negative view of the university’s political activism dates far back to the years just before the 1979 general elections. At that time, educationist Patrick Van Rensburg delivered a Martin Luther King Jnr’s the “I Have a Dream” proto-type speech at the then University College of Botswana. He was then openly attacked in Parliament for what the BDP Parliament classified as perverting university students. In the view of the then (and present) Parliament, university students are not supposed to be exposed to (opposition) politics and since Van Rensburg was seen as a BNF spokesperson he was forced to flee the country for politicising the students against the ruling BDP.
In a related incident during the same period, in his inauguration speech as the Chancellor of the University, the then President Seretse Khama made a scathing attack on the university students for using the institution to study “destructive revolutionary dogma”. Khama went on to vilify the university in general for being a hot bed for subversive political activities (synonymous with opposition politics). Following this open attack on the university, the ruling BDP forced the deportation of two South African lecturers for their perceived role in opposition politics. So that in historical perspective the idea of restricting political activities at the UB has always been in the agenda of the ruling BDP, however unfounded and undemocratic. At the core of these petty accusations is that the BDP does not get the biggest share of votes from the UB community during general elections. If the present arrangement worked in their favour, surely they wouldn’t complain.
Kenneth Dipholo
Johannesburg
SOUTH AFRICA
