Lessons from the Moatlhodi fiasco

GIDEON NKALA
Staff Writer | Friday November 14, 2008 00:00

 

In his endorsement, Powell said Obama had the ability to inspire people not just in the US but around the world and in him he saw a transformational figure who can lead America forward other than his party's presidential choice - John McCain. His party did not think much about the divergent expressions of Powell other than that he was expressing his own views which happened to run contrary to that of his party.

McCain who like Powell was a military veteran did not think much of what Powell said. After the endorsement, McCain was quoted in the media saying he had always admired and respected Powell. 'We are long time friends,' he said.

When he endorsed Obama, Powell knew that it would not make some of his colleagues in the Republican Party happy. But he still went ahead and made the endorsement knowing that the party was mature enough to live with his choice. The Republican National Council did not throw Powell under the bus.

Even with this major difference of opinion, he said he remained a Republican though he thought his party was moving too far to the right and thus limiting space for many people of other persuasions.

In the Democratic Party, veteran Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman did not just disagree with his party's choice of Obama as presidential nominee. He went a step further and campaigned for McCain. He travelled with McCain on the campaign trail until the final day.

Some Democrats feel that Lieberman betrayed the party and he should put through the political sword because he even had the audacity to speak at the Republican convention where both McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin were officially nominated. There were chants of political treason among the rank and file. Some Democrats felt that the party should punish Lieberman and take away the responsibilities that he has as chairperson of various committees including the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Despite all these disaffection in the party, the National Democratic Convention refused to be retributive and chose to see Lieberman's action as an exercise in democracy.

In November last year after then President Festus Mogae delivered his State of the Nation Address, Tonota South MP Pono Moatlhodi took the stage and hauled cabinet ministers over live coals because of what he termed as their negative predisposition to be intolerant to divergent views. 'Today I am going to rock the boat. Cabinet ministers verbally abuse and intimidate us purely because we pose plausible and exposing questions inside Parliament. I am in Parliament to present the problems of Batswana and should they feel aggrieved by some government policies, I am here for them,' Moatlhodi was quoted by the media then.

Like in the above instances, the BDP Central Committee then led by Mogae did not take action against Moatlhodi. It would appear that they understood that as an MP, the man was entitled to hold certain views even if they did not coincide with those of other party members.

Today, the landscape has changed dramatically. The BDP Central Committee under Lt General Khama has decided to recall Moatlhodi, as the party's candidate in the 2009 general elections. It would appear that the MPs main undoing was criticising a practice in government that he found undemocratic - that civil institutions such as prisons are being militarilised by appointment of soldiers to head them at the expense of trained officials at these departments.

It might just suffice to point out that he made these criticisms in Parliament. The website Parliament.UK.com says parliament is a forum where MPs raise issues affecting their constituents, attend debates and vote on new laws. While exercising these roles, MPs examine and challenge the work of government and by so doing, perform the scrutiny and oversight that the public has through their votes entrusted on them. It was the Chief Justice of Australia Sir Gerard Brennan who observed that the immunity of Parliament is sacrosanct.

'Parliament remains the organ of government which is constitutionally central to our form of government. The constitution made the Houses of Parliament the masters of their own powers, privileges and immunities and of the mode in which those powers, privileges and immunities might be exercised and upheld... The powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament are the constitutional underpinning of the system of responsible government for they ensure that the manner in which the people's forum exercises its constitutional functions is immune from interference,' Brennan said.

It would follow from the above that Moatlhodi as an MP is entitled to point out the warts that he sees in the conduct of government even if the culprit is his own party. The MP spoke in Parliament where he enjoys the protection to speak freely.

When he spoke, the Speaker did not find anything wrong with his contributions. The Hansard transcript indicates that Moatlhodi was cheered by fellow MPs when he spoke.

When the Speaker and other MPs, a majority of whom are members of the BDP, did not see anything untoward about his contribution, it would appear absurd for any other body outside Parliament to punish the legislator for what he said in Parliament. The reality however is that, a voluntary organisation, in the form of his party has found fault with what he said in Parliament and meted out severe punishment.

Parliamentarians enjoy immunity from what they say in Parliament. They enjoy immunity even from claims of defamation but it seems this protection fizzles out under the militaristic orders of the BDP Central Committee. Does the BDP disrespect the independence of Parliament and the wisdom of its own MPs and the Speaker? Or is it just the committee is out of sync with these institutions?.

Brennan argues that democracy and freedom will survive if the people demand it.

The recall path is seen in other places as an avenue that empowers political parties to hold members to account when they are perceived to be a liability to the political formations that they represent. Recently, the South African ruling African National Congress toppled President Thabo Mbeki through a recall. The recall has since backfired as more senior members have resigned from the party in protest. In places like Guyana, parties across the political spectrum sponsored a bill that empowered political parties to recall errant MPs. This was done to stop floor crossings and defections that seemed to destabilise parties. This was a purely self-serving mechanism meant to protect the parties and not the electorate. In a bid to reform this controversial provision, some parties consult before a recall.

In the case of Moatlhodi, the facts as they are known are that he was not consulted or at least given a hearing before such a drastic step could be taken. In its defence, the BDP Central Committee claims that there is no democracy without discipline. Natural justice which should underpin the process by which a disciplinary action is taken requires that all the parties should be given a hearing to defend themselves.

Court-martials are generally believed to be unfair. But they have been reformed to the extent that a fair hearing is now a fait accompoli in the court martial process.

The decision of the Central Committee seems to be cast in stone leaving no chance for Moatlhodi to appeal. After recalling his candidature, the committee has moved swiftly to set in motion the process to replace him.

What are Moatlhodi's options?

On paper he can seek redress through the courts and attempt to make the party to reverse its decision. But this is an expensive route that usually does not deliver the desired result. Kgotla Autlwetse tried to contest an unfavourable decision of the party but he lost and he has since been marginalised. Possibilities of fighting from within have almost diminished with open factionalism receding as factional leaders are now thinking more of what they will lose than defending a principle.

President Ian Khama has the BDP MPs eating out of his hand as he holds the honey-pot and no one knows what he will dole out next and in which direction. In this instance, sycophancy reigns supreme and it is possible that Moatlhodi could be delivered to the abattoir by some of the people in his faction. It is highly probable that in the delegation that will deliver the bad news to Tonota constituents, there will be some of the MP's allies. Crossing to the opposition is not an attractive prospect because of the opposition's comatose state. The opposition is moribund and Moatlhodi might find it difficult to spite his own party and join hands with a directionless and a hopelessly divided lot.

As a popular politician, the MP might fancy his chances and run as an independent candidate. Or he can accept the calamity that has befallen him, like many other spineless politicians before him who resigned to a cowardly life of sycophancy in the party and hope that one day Khama will undergo a change of heart and smile in their direction.

Possibilities in the constituency

With Moatlhodi out of the red BDP radar, it is possible there will be new people coming up to take the baton from him albeit unceremoniously. Word is gaining currency that the BDP might approach Kenneth Matambo who just retired as BDC managing director to be the flag bearer in the general elections. Matambo is an experienced civil servant who has name recognition. He is a resident of Tonota.

Thapelo Olopeng, a former military officer and a known trustee of Khama, might fancy his chances. MacDonald Peloetletse, another ex-soldier and a BDP functionary who is in cahoots with the dominant faction could be in the picture too.

BDP executive secretary, Dr Batlang Serema is another resident of Tonota who has in the past tried his luck against Moatlhodi. Obusitswe Ntsima who challenged the MP in the last primaries could also be in the frame.