Short in ideas, short in intellect, short in depth!

Michael Dingake | Tuesday June 24, 2014 17:51

One expected to read the explicit resemblances between  BDP and ANC which made the two parties to share political fortunes, making one to win just because the other had won, paralleling their winning streak of elections. There was nothing in the piece remotely comparing the two parties backgrounds:  history, ideology, challenges or reliable statistics of any nature!  I think the columnist words should be tossed back at him!

Granted both the ANC and the BDP have been embroiled in allegations of corruption that implicated the heads of state, comparison of the two political parties to the extent that what one can do the other can do as well, is rather farfetched.

The insinuation that what one corruption-prone party can do the other can do is illogical. The argument stripped of frills says, corruption or no corruption these two parties are destined to continue winning elections. What does it say about the electorates? Are the electorates in both countries similarly mere rubber stamps of those in power? Are we subjects at the mercy of a retributive deus ex machine? All like sheep led to the slaughter house?

Corruption is the biggest enemy of man-kind, democracy, sustained human development, good governance and taxpayers? Will people resign themselves to their misery and the ineptitude of those who acceded to power probably through corrupt practices?

Shall intelligent humans that we are, surrender to the fate of the corruption menace invading all government institutions and impoverishing  humanity, committing it to stagnation and incipient helplessness?

What may the writer be implying when he presumes that willy-nilly we are predestined to live with corrupt governments however they mess with our lives? Is the author trying to sell us expired stuff in the market place of ideas? I refuse to imagine that Batswana and South Africans will continue to elect one party whatever the party does to them . It is a viewpoint of intellectuals short in many things!

It is suggested the South Africans played the man (President Jacob Zuma) and not the ball (issues) hence  apparently their failure;  The insinuation being that the Botswana opposition parties are doing precisely the same here, playing Khama and not the ball! How true, these allegations?

The allegations made by Domkrag routinely are the height of disingenuousness. Collect all the previous manifestos of opposition parties,  compare them with BDP manifestoes over the same period, check whether opposition’s manifestoes haven’t been diametrically opposed to the BDP policies, programmes and rhetoric of a party ‘short in ideas, short in intellect and short in depth.’

The BDP has been pathetic in substantial ideas to move Botswana forward. Think of the perennial exhortation by the opposition for BDP government to stop exporting jobs  to foreign  countries by selling raw materials unprocessed instead of adding value to these to create industries and needed employment for Batswana; think of the skills that could have long been developed  for Batswana; think of the trade surpluses Botswana could have realised in the process; think of importation of skilled labour instead of exporting employment opportunities  to other lands due to the fact that we export raw materials unprocessed which these countries process and export back as finished goods at quadrupled prices; think of the attraction of foreign direct investment for the reason that business is attracted to countries with natural resources and skilled manpower!

The argument that those who criticise government have no alternative policies is hogwash resorted to by bankrupt spin doctors trying to bamboozle the untutored voters!

Now the argument that Batswana are playing the president probably instead of idolising him and embracing his haphazard trial-and- error programmes designed to hypnotise Batswana to become blind to their true potential as a nation is unworthy of intellectuals to be entrusted with the custodianship of Batswana; anyway it is ever so difficult, almost impossible to separate the football juggler from the ball -the dribbling player of the ball from the kicked ball!

The kicking player and the kicked ball often merge in the field of play. The dribbling wizard attempting to possess the ball forever and score easy goals must be dispossessed by robust tackling. The analogy may be difficult to appreciate to some who may have no depth of the political game, but for those with intellect and depth it should be easy.

Political leaders in a true democracy don’t make policies alone as they only contribute to collective decisions. But we deceive ourselves if we think their contribution to decision-making is zero or below average.

Leaders of political parties have a lion’s share in policies, programmes, strategy and tactics adopted by their parties. Members of the Executive committees are all equal but some are more equal than others.

In some countries who may profess democracy in theory, but practice the contrary, whatever decision is taken accrues to the leader! Top executives in politics are inseparable from political party policies!

In Botswana where the president’s colleagues speak only of Mananeo a ga rraetsho (programmes of our father ) when they are expected to talk of BDP programmes, and where President Ian Khama himself, speaks of government programmes as his(I, this, I that and never BDP this or BDP that), the president cannot be distinguished from issues implicating party, government and himself; he deserves to  be mixed and tackled with everything that makes Botswana a mediocracy!