A changing politics? The violence narrative and case for prominent persons� security provision

Lawrence Ookeditse | Friday September 19, 2014 15:00

Botswana needs to act on this. Whether true or not, it calls for all in politics to be very careful how they respond to and perpetuate this violence narrative. It is perhaps time we considered security provision for prominent figures in our politics.

First though, we need to address the thick air on there being political violence. We can choose to play ostrich yes, and history is full of republics that did just that with disastrous consequences. The main reason for my call for fears of violence to be addressed is that we are slowly but surely introducing violence into our politics through all the media reports on violence in the run up to this election- it matters not whether these are imagined or real. With the widespread coverage of allegations of violence in politics, we eventually will switch off and these allegations become normal.

The danger is in that if these allegations are accepted as ‘part of politics’, then we run the risk of politicians across political parties viewing violence or the threat of use violence as a legitimate way to advance political interests. These allegations of violence, and for purposes of this article my interest is not into the accuracy or inaccuracy of such, easily could become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Let us for now assume these allegations are not true. See, the more such allegations are made, the more they appear true. Out of being in the media and being spoken about, parties to the election develop perceptions of being in danger. The natural thing a human being does, in classical Hobbes thinking, is to want to preserve one’s life.  If the state is not present to defend you when you wish for it to do so, then laws of nature demands that you defend your life through whatever means you must.

If political opponents perceive their lives are in danger due to their political activism, the natural thing to resort to is for one to form a little militia of their, a shield of sorts. This is where problems begin: various sects then tend to clash. Reprisals become a common occurrence and before long you do not know who the good guys are and who the bad boys are.

I know that for many years Batswana has laboured under some sense of ‘exceptionalism’. Innately, Batswana believe they are a special breed of Africans- they are not like those in Zimbabwe and they are not like those in South Africa or anywhere else in the continent for that matter. Bits of arrogance yes, but that is how it is. Because of this sense of being exceptional, we tend to believe violence and civil unrest cannot happen here, it cannot happen to us, and therefore we are not alert to the creeping in of violence into our otherwise peaceful politics.  

Well, keep daring fate. Keep having all these allegations all over the media and soon we will all be wondering how it is that we got to be as violent as any other people can be in politics. That is my worry. The next generation of Batswana are likely to inherit a radicalized society in which violence is part of the norm.

And that would be quite a shame right? Yes. Our forefathers in opposition and in the ruling party have entrusted us with preserving a democratic republic in which they prided in “ntwa kgolo keya molomo”. But we just might be the generation that breaks the chain if we are not careful. One of the first steps to reversing all these allegations may be to provide security for prominent political figures.

This need not be anything heavy and gun totting but some security detail that is not excessive- surveillance, with the knowledge of the recipient of course, if you want to call it that. But we need to do something to reverse this developing narrative, for the sake of this fine republic.