We have heard a lot from Robert Masitara and Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) executive secretary, Batlang Serema over the past week. The more the two former University of Botswana lecturers try to explain the decision to allow an alleged rapist to contest the party’s primary elections for the vacant Gaborone West North seat, the less sense they make than Johnny Bravo, the cartoon character known more for brawn than brains.
There is bad, bad spin coming out of Tsholetsa House. Listen to Serema’s assertion that the BDP sanctioned Masitara’s entrance into the race because the party is guided by the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Nothing wrong with the principle per se, except that there is inconsistency in the way the party chooses to deal with its members who have problems with the law.
In April 2001, the same party saw it fit to suspend two councillors because they faced criminal charges. No niceties like presumption of innocence until pronounced guilty by the courts. Maano Molomo, then a councillor for Sebina South, and Lingani Motshosi, a nominated one, were suspended after being charged with stock theft.
A news release from the BDP at the time stated: “Apart from the fact that their acts would attract needful retribution from the party, they have certainly gone a long way to injure and adversely affect the image of the party......As the ruling party, the BDP is committed to setting an example of a dedicated, honest and dependable leadership. So acts such as those of the two councillors cannot be allowed to mar the good image that the party has, and wishes to maintain.”
The two men were advised to seek withdrawal of their suspension should they be acquitted.
Quite queer that four years later, a man who a magistrate’s court has said has a case to answer for rape allegations is pampered, and anyone who raises a voice about this is met with a strong countenance on the leadership’s face. In the eyes of the BDP, an allegation of stock theft warrants suspension, while an allegation of rape attracts a hug and a kiss on the cheek of the accused.
A case is made somewhat, especially by Masitara himself, that people who suggest that he should step aside from the contest and clear his name first are waging a vendetta against him. On Radio Botswana’s morning show, he even accused Mmegi of campaigning for some unnamed party. Well, in a way he is right. You would say we have a campaign of sorts here. But it is not on behalf of any party. It is not even about Masitara. The matter is bigger than him. It is about principle. It is a drive to save the dignity of the country’s Parliament. Masitara is not before the courts for a small traffic offence like driving through a red light. He is facing a count of rape. After murder, there is no other crime that the people of this country find so repulsive as rape. Given the nature of the count that hangs on the man’s head, it is only fair to him that he should step aside for now and - like the two former councillors - revive his political ambition only if the court rules in his favour.
Unreasonable? Perhaps, but it comes with the terrain. Parliament is a sacred place. Those who are elected to serve as its members are assigned the title “honourable”, thus implying that they are men and women of honour - beyond reproach. It would be to debase Parliament if Masitara were to win both the BDP primary elections tomorrow and the subsequent by-election. An alleged lawbreaker would be serving as a lawmaker.
In any democracy, there are certain moral standards that the voters expect, as of right, from their leaders. One such expectation is that leaders should be men and women of unquestionable moral standing.
The BDP is setting a dangerous precedent; that it is not principle that guides actions meted on its members, but rather one’s social standing. A case can be made that those who were suspended on allegations of stock theft were poor nonentities, while the man at the centre of the current controversy is a person of means. Not only that. He is known to have been an ardent fundraiser for you-know-which-trust.
A question has been asked based on the following scenario. Suppose Masitara withdraws his candidature. And suppose that he is acquitted at the end of his trial. Wouldn’t he have been disadvantaged? Of course, he would have been.
Unfortunately, this question attracts a natural counter-poser: what if he isn’t? The nature of human existence is that there is a time when circumstances demand that certain ambitions be temporarily halted. Masitara finds himself in such a circumstance today. The need to show deference to an important national institution requires him to put personal ambition on hold until he has satisfied the nation that he is worthy of the title “honourable”. It is not too much to ask.
Talk of Masitara being disadvantaged is made as if electoral contests in the country are coming to end. Are people who advance this line of reasoning privy to some information that we are unaware of. God forbid that Oliphant Mfa’s apocalypse, about the end of democracy in the post-Mogae presidency, could be coming true.
If indeed, the BDP government is committed to continue to uphold the country’s constitution, Botswana will be going for another election in 2009. Masitara might find that there is virtue in waiting for the right moment to advance a cause - including a personal political career. Bishop-Emeritus of the Anglican Church, Desmond Tutu, puts the issue of timing nicely. He takes it from Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. Paul’s wording is, “in the fullness of time”. Other versions have it as “at the right moment”.
In light of the current circumstances in his life, Masitara must own up that this is not “the right moment” to offer himself for public office. Such a moment could be in the future.
