Gomolemo often epitomizes the very friendly country boy who greets all he sees with a grin and thorough rubbing together of his hands, and perhaps courtesy to 'some because of height', a bow at the knees as if coming down to size. Dumelang, espouses a self confidence of some sort and a personality that says 'I am comfortable' in my skin and in the city lights. Duma, a champion of the downtrodden, oftentimes appears a little more complicated, with a heart that melts at the misery of other people and a demeanor that says 'I am the best and I can take you on at any given moment'. In large measure, these are the men on whose will, demeanor, tact and intelligence opposition unity rests.

On Facebook, Thursday 13th January, on the verge of a BMD press conference and the eve of the sheriffs' possible auction, he posted this as his status update: "There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in all of us. And when we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

In a way it is an irony; maybe he does not try to self depreciate but when interacting with him Gomolemo appears way too humble. On the other end, the statement 'there is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won't feel insecure around you' is one he may terribly regret in a few months-or maybe not regret but just ponder and probe a little more.

Why? In comes Duma Boko with his exuberance and confidence. Then walks in Dumelang Saleshando with his self assured confident self and many may feel a little out of place. With the impending negotiations, one then sees why Gomolemo may wish to add a proviso to the effect that "there is enlightenment in mellowing down and shrinking down to size in the presence of your partners". Well, am just saying.

Motswaledi is the ultimate man of the people; maybe not in the sense of Chinua Achebe's fiction 'Man of the People', but more in a literal sense. His lyrical abilities easily drive many to chants of 'yes we can' the Obama way.

He also comes out as the 'village guy' who trusts and who will give you his word. Yet, within this element lies what could possibly be his greatest undoing-often times, the 'nice guy' is easy to prey upon. After all, a little naivety appears a natural partner to one who trusts easily. For purposes of Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali 's 1997 blockbuster read 'One hell of gamble: Kennedy, Khrushchev, Castro, keep the name and demeanor of John Fitzgerald Kennedy close.

Duma appears the metropolitan guy, shades perched just above the forehead, suave and never one to shy away from self expression; a fight if you like. Unbowed, unashamed - not that he has reason to be ashamed - eager to engage, and not willing to come second - even in opinion matters.

The outer core gives you the picture of the guy who either gets his way or presses ahead to get his way. He is the adventurer in this trio. In a sense therefore, also keep Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali's 1997 blockbuster read 'One hell of  gamble: Kennedy, Khrushchev, Castro in your mind.

Dumelang is at times difficult to figure out. Smart at public relations - again, not to say he is hiding anything - or is he? Tell me if you know what. He is comfortable in his own skin and his life trajectory so far has given him reason to be self assured. 

Forever mindful of 'PR', he is the intelligent type who closely watches what they say or would rather keep quiet. Yes, he loves to speak but is often the type that listens while others speak and in the end sums up all that has been said with the wisdom of the guy who listened all the while then comes out as the most intelligent while not necessarily so. Still, his is not the country boy humility of Motswaledi. For purposes similar to the above and for Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali 's 1997 blockbuster read 'One hell of gamble: Kennedy, Khrushchev, Castro', keep Nikita Khrushchev in mind.

Now, Some gutsy blogger in a narration titled 'In the Palm of Some Fool's Hands: How Kennedy, Khrushchev, Castro decided the fate of the world' wrote: "Kennedy genuinely wished for America to adhere to high-minded ideals, but he was determined to oppose America's ideological enemies - a problem which confounds American policy makers to this day. If Kennedy was not always a paragon of virtue it was because he had to swim in the same waters as Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro".

The upcoming opposition unity talks Motswaledi is a JFK. But Kennedy had his weaknesses: writing for the New York Times, Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins noted that "Kennedy Talked, while Khrushchev Triumphed".

In their article, Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense back then, said the meeting was "just a disaster."

Also, a Khrushchev's aide, after the first day said, the American president seemed "very inexperienced, even immature." Khrushchev also agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was "too intelligent and too weak."

Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, is said to have told James Reston of the New York Times that the summit meeting had been the "roughest thing in my life." Kennedy went on: "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts.

Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."  This 2008 article was a response to Barack Obama, a Motswaledi like liberal who believes in the power of speech, when he had argued that "If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that's what he did with Khrushchev."

At times you negotiate and you being the idealist who speaks and believes in words comes out undone by a more hawkish realist who approaches politics as a zero sum game. This is a red light for Motswaledi going forward into these negotiations.  As for Fidel Castro, the blogger also wrote, "Fidel Castro was a man who loved his people... but he loved Fidel Castro more.  Whether it was liquidating rivals like the true believer, Escalante, instituting a neighborhood surveillance program, or playing the Chinese off of the Soviets before finally getting in bed with the latter, every one of Castro's actions was guided by a desire to consolidate his grip on power.  The end result is that he has more power than a good man should want or a bad man should have". Castro during the Cuban missile crisis, the case in point here, though was said to have been relegated into child's play revolutionary chic wise compared to his brother Raul and Ernesto Che Guevara (so, yes other people matter and each of these men have to reign over the radicals within their camp).

One would add, Fidel was a man too intelligent to figure out. Now, ponder this close to Duma. This guy is more like Mohammed Ali, full accomplishments and not shy to put them before you all; "'I'm not [throws a punch] scared [another punch] at you, you f... faggot [punch, punch]. You f... punk. I'm f... God, and worship me. I'm the greatest [punch, punch]'." Ivan Solotaroff, an American journalist and author, was giving a description of what Mike Tyson said and did imitating Ali in his wide raging interview 'The iron man melts'.

Nikita Khrushchev. As per the authors, "At sixty-five years of age, Nikita Sergeyvich Khrushchev was not much of a revolutionary, but he admired those who could make a revolution". Much more thoughtful and not as combative as Castro nor idealistic as Kennedy, Khrushchev was nevertheless very difficult to understand and frustrating for Kennedy at times.

According to Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, back in the twenty degrees below zero cold of Moscow, at the same time when Castro was in Washington giving pep talks and assuring the American public that he was not a communist and not being aligned to any communist country, Nikita Khrushchev and Raul Castro were at it. As American journalists, officials, and students elicited repeated assurances from Fidel Castro of Cuba's independence from international communism, Raul Castro was hard at work setting in motion a revolution in the relationship between Moscow and Havana. The result was a covert operation to assist the Cuban army at the explicit request of the Cuban leader's brother Raul. Not that Dumelang is hatching any such covert operation, but just that his thoughtfulness and demeanor suggests a man who would never blindly walk into any union.

So, true, opposition unity talks are not the cold war politics of the Cuban missile crisis. In a way though; given the unpredictable nature of humans and politicians in particular, the actors involved would have started posturing and positioning. After all, there are only 53 constituencies thus far. Yes, they all cry that they are out to save the country from whatever it is that they see as impending; beneath all that, in many ways lies questions such as who gets what on what condition. The personalities of the leaders therefore needs to be closely watched.

Yet what they achieve or fail to achieve will have implications for generations. And they do not have much time.

Two of our trio would have read Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto over and over again at the BNF political schools. However, there will be little comfort from that bible of socialists because, they do not have the time to see society evolve with each system giving way to the other as things would inevitably happen according to Marx.

Rather, they are perhaps going against the very same doctrines in that they are hatching and possibly hurrying a revolution through a possibly amorphous arrangement and marriage of convenience.  They, being young and restless in ways, neither have the patience of Marx nor the backing of a nation patient and waiting for a gradual revolution born out of a long process of consciousness. Such is the unfairness of history; those in football club management will tell you about it.

The changes expected of you are profound and many, the time within which to do it all profoundly short and congested with other things. In any case, none of the three is Marxist in the sense of Karl Marx. Right?

Now, Castro, Kennedy and Khrushchev averted a full blown nuclear war-thus in part their claim to fame. Different characters, hating each other's guts and even mannerisms many a times but still they moved on. Opposition unity, will it transcend the differences in the demeanor of the three presidents? For now though, whether it yields results or not, it appears we are in a gamble. Am sure the parties involved would also agree, at least in private.

Do I hear that they are recruiting members from each other as of now? There is no certainty that other presidents would have handled history's only nuclear confrontation between superpowers with such coolness and skill. We wait to see if the three presidents will handle their talks with as much given that the characters of the three cold war presidents are both prevalent in this 2011 trio.

Tweet