Reverting to the almighty 18: BDP’s dilemma
Mompati Tlhankane | Friday September 1, 2023 10:11
Before the inception of Bulela Ditswe in 2003, the BDP had an all-powerful Committee of 18 that decided the fate of anyone seeking political office on the party ticket. The Committee of 18 was the king-maker and enjoyed limitless powers. Its word was final. The committee screened prospective candidates and eventually handpicked a name which, in its perception would serve best the interests of the party.
The Committee of 18’s choosing process consisted of the meeting of the voters where they vote for a candidate they felt was good enough to represent the party at the general election. The committee basically ignored the will of individual members in their selection of candidates. The Almighty and party bosses as a result were sometimes accused of trading votes for power, benefaction, or even money.
In their 2006 paper titled, ‘Enhancing intra-party democracy, the case of the BDP’, Zein Kebonang and Wankie Rodrick Wankie wrote that although the BDP’s current selection process of Bulela Ditswe is characterised by detailed, explicit and standardised rules. This was not always the case in its formative years, particularly in the 1960s and early 1970s where the selection process was more informal.
“Prospective candidates were identified and appointed by the party’s central committee without being subjected to an internal competitive process. A number of candidates were selected in this ad hoc manner. They include amongst others, Daniel Kwelagobe, Chapson Butale and Lesedi Mothibamele. As one informant told us, although the input of members was ignored, the party was able to get its members to support its choice of candidates because there were very few people willing to stand as candidates and a majority buckled at the thought of being Members of Parliament. In any case, with 90% of the population being illiterate at independence, the party had to shop for the best candidates if it was to succeed in driving its policies in government,” Kebonang and Wankie further indicated in their paper.
Kebonang and Wankie also said although the imposition of candidates by the party leadership was initially convenient because the party could identify and recruit candidates quickly, the process contrasted with the BDP’s liberal democratic vows. “However, as the party began to draw a more enlightened and educated membership, it had to become more inclusive. This required it, amongst other things, to allow its members the autonomy to select their own representatives through electoral colleges. These electoral colleges were a form of guided democracy in that their decisions or actions were subject to confirmation by the central committee.”
This is how the Committee of 18 was birthed. Kebonang and Wankie added that because only a few members (normally fewer than 18) or delegates were responsible for electing party candidates under the Electoral College system, these were prone to bias and were susceptible to manipulation by the candidates through gifts and other promises. This is said to have nurtured discontent amongst the less wealthy and influential party members, who felt that party elections were tradeable and manipulatable. “Election outcomes, therefore, did not always represent the wishes of the community. In 1994, for instance, Esther Mosinyi, who was then the sitting Member of Parliament for Shoshong, lost the party’s constituency elections to Modibedi Robi. The party’s central committee, as the final arbiter, rejected Robi’s selection. It was not until litigation was threatened that the party relented and endorsed Robi’s nomination. Similarly, following the nomination of Kabo Morwaeng to replace the late Peter Mmusi in the Thamaga constituency, the central committee stepped in to impose Gladys Kokorwe, who had lost the primary election to Morwaeng, as the party’s preferred candidate. The above incidents, which largely resulted from the over centralisation of power in the central committee, led to discontent among party members. Some, such as Morwaeng, left to join the opposition in protest against what they perceived as undemocratic tendencies in their own party,” Kebonang and Wankie further recalled.
With the Committee of 18, the corruption of party politics was limited to these few big party players. The introduction of primary elections mitigated the corrupt control of party kingmakers. Bulela Ditswe was hailed for stripping power from party elites. It loosened the grip of the committee of 18 and placed candidate selection more firmly in the hands of ordinary BDP members. Sometimes during the era of the mighty 18, most candidates did not represent their home village, and as time went, party members raised concern that they were not represented by their own people.
In 2001 Bulela Ditswe came about and was trialled during the Selebi-Phikwe council by-election and parliamentary by-election in Lentsweletau. The party then abandoned the electoral college system after coming to the conclusion that the Committee of 18 was an old-fashioned and complicated system that sometimes yielded results contrary to the choice of the BDP members. Bulela Ditswe was first implemented in 2003, and was seen as the best component to elevating the BDP by broadening its democratic process to include just everyone who holds the BDP card. Many within the ruling party hailed the advent of Bulela Ditswe as a step in the right direction, preordained to encourage and embed inner party democracy and generally, to augment democratic development in the party. The BDP leadership also felt Bulela Ditswe was a democratic process that shifted power from the all too powerful Committee of 18 to Madomi as BDP members are called.
But Bulela Ditswe was not the Promised Land flowing with milk and honey as they had thought when they revoked the Committee of 18. Bulela Ditswe did not have the abundant fertility and sweet luxuries as it was envisioned.
Over the years, the primary elections have brought more harm than good and bred a lot of unhappiness within the party structures. There are always allegations of cheating, flawed voters rolls and voter trafficking.
After every Bulela Ditswe, the BDP has found itself fire-fighting a wave of grievances from disgruntled members who felt hard done by the system. There is always belligerent conflagration of protests, threats of sabotage in the upcoming general election and dissatisfaction over what most party members describe as deliberately blemishing primary election procedures. For example, during the 2013 Bulela Ditswe season, a record 108 complaints were lodged with the party about the primary election process.
Independent candidates stem from these Bulela Ditswe to contest against party candidates in the general election. The 2013 Bulela Ditswe season also led to record 38 and 254 independent candidates (mekoko) for council and Parliament respectively. Bulela Ditswe was meant to achieve a more democratic status by embracing inner party democracy of primary elections. Although Bulela Ditswe is the most democratic one can think of, it is in no way perfect no wonder the BDP in the past appointed a temporary commission led by former Cabinet minister Peter Siele to review their primary elections.
What party members insisted should be looked into, Siele said, was the registration and voting aspects of Bulela Ditswe that had overtime proved to be defect of an otherwise gracious process. The commission said it was bad that some voters were listed as deceased in the voters’ roll and were denied to vote even when they presented themselves at the polling stations.
With Siele’s report and various methods presented on how the party election could be conducted, the BDP national council has always maintained that Bulela Ditswe should nonetheless be continued. Siele said when Bulela Ditswe was implemented full scale in 2008 that was when several teething problems started to be identified. But in the end the commission stated that democrats still believe that the system is still relevant and more democratic. “However, they lament the way in which the human element has corrupted it, leading to some of the undesirable outcomes that were observed in 2013”.
But, years after the report was released, the BDP goes into the weekend national council still divided over the Bulela Ditswe method. Although BDP president Mokgweetsi Masisi would want to keep his lieutenants in the Cabinet in case they win next year’s general election, he has also hinted that no one will not be favoured and ruled out the possibility of reverting to the old college system under which only a select few were eligible to vote. During the Tsabong elective congress last year, Masisi hinted that BDP members who hold positions in the central committee should not be eligible to participate in the primary elections. Nothing has materialised since and some members in the various BDP committees are eyeing some wards and constituencies at the primary elections. There are even allegations that some are using their positions to gain favour ahead of Bulela Ditswe.
With the general election months away, the BDP now stands at the risk of spending valuable time dealing with protests instead of preparing for the 2024 General Election, proper. There is no doubt that whatever the outcome, Bulela Ditswe will always breed discontent among democrats who feel cheated out of a chance to represent the masses.
By reviewing its primary elections in the Siele-led commission, the BDP has overcome the first obstacle but Bulela Ditswe is still a major debate after various BDP regions made their final recommendations ahead of the national council. It is now up to the national council to decide whether to continue with Bulela Ditswe or bring back the old electoral system.