This is a very unfamiliar feat in Botswana politics. Of the three leading parties, the BCP is the only party that appears to be nurturing frequent free and fair contests and elections for the top positions in the party. Each transition of leadership has confronted the hiccups that normally engulf any new administration but they have effectively managed to strengthen, reinvigorate and improve the BCP’s standing and electoral fortunes as exemplified by its growth rate.
Regular contests for party presidency in Botswana politics are not a familiar sight. It is almost a taboo for incumbent leaders to be challenged. It’s in our political culture that the open season for presidential contests is when the incumbent president retires from politics. Some political observers generally argue that change and contests for leadership often bring about uncertainty and chaos during the period of transition and campaigning for leadership, which may jeopardise the success of an organisation.
It is no coincidence that the ruling party has never had an open contest for the party presidency since formation. The Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) favours automatic succession. To paraphrase the words of Kenneth Good, the BDP presidency is an affair that does not have any reference to the wishes of the people. The first BDP president Seretse Khama was automatically succeeded by Ketumile Masire, who was later succeeded by Festus Mogae without any election. The BDP even has the audacity to change the country’s constitution to protect this undemocratic process as they did before Mogae assumed the presidency.
In the Botswana Gazette of July 27, one key BDP activist writing under the pseudonym Joseph Ringtones Nteletsa reveals that contest for top party positions yields “a tense situation”. To manage this scenario the party “elders” must “prevail” by subverting the people’s right to choose a leader and hatch a compromise to defuse factionalism, and such an act will lead to “the realignment of the forces”. The charitable word for this flagrant abuse of democratic ideals is “compromise”.
Medieval as it my sound when deployed to the discourse of modern liberal democracy, the BDP finds this model to be a reflection of “political maturity, dynamism, strong leadership and foresight”. Such misguided analogies extremely blow out of proportion and excessively exaggerate the significance and role of top leaders in the BDP. Party structures at regional, constituency, ward and cell level wield more authority than a few status-seeking power mongers feuding for central committee positions. Contests for leadership and the subsequent change do not hamper or deform these pillars that the party rests on. Political leaders in the BDP have the tendency to create a storm in a tea cup whenever elections are due and use the resulting confusion to impose their will on the people. In fact, there is no logical and rational reason why leaders should not be changed just because party factions are at each other’s throat. Sometimes it helps. Would it not make sense to change leadership if a better leader came along?
Many nations have changed leaders during periods of upheavals and turmoil and emerged stronger because the new leadership offered better leadership. The Americans fruitfully switched from Truman to Eisenhower during the Korean War, totally disregarding the emotional appeal to stability. For leadership to be viewed as legitimate and democratic, it must derive its legitimacy from the people, and the people should have fully participated in the selection of such leaders through free and fair elections.
Despotic and dictatorial political leadership throughout the world have proved that when leaders flaunt and abuse democratic practises, the societies they lead develop a culture of rebe1liousness and apprehensiveness, thereby causing irreparable damage to the social fabric. The damage caused by Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe is a relevant example. Under no circumstances should the people be denied the right of participation and choice in a supposedly democratic setup. Our political parties must unapologetically uphold the principles that foster democratic tendencies. Such acts will enhance public confidence in our political parties and advance the standards of democracy in Botswana and Our vision 2016 goals.
The BCP must be commended for allowing frequent free and fair elections for the party presidency. This will engender the notion, in the political psyche of a BCP supporter, that political positions are not hereditary and they are not a preserve of a few select individuals. They will also learn that political contests are a healthy practice in a democracy and they don’t obliterate the pillars, values and norms on which political parties are founded on. Rather, contests for leadership present members with choice of leadership and bolster the party. The BCP has so far retained stability, inner party harmony and remarkable growth amidst frequent leadership changes.
Sechaba Habana
Gaborone
