Why is the executive picking up quarrels and selling dummies to Batswana?

Michael Dingake | Tuesday February 9, 2016 12:52

50 years under multiparty democracy and after swaying the initially, single-party African democracies, how many Batswana can sincerely say their country is a true multiparty democracy? If the answer is none, why has the country not lived up to its design? Why is Botswana a single-party democracy in practice?

Did we mean it when we said we were a multiparty democracy? Did we only wish it or did we change our (collective) mind as the years went by? What happened? Did the party that won the first general elections, the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) alias Domkrag, after tasting the tastiness of power, revise its creed and decide that single party democracy was a delicacy not to be shared with others? Or was it the BDP rivals, the opposition who decided, that fulfilling the promise of government of the people by the people for the people, was beyond their capacity and therefore they had to be steady and content instead of vigorously striving for power? Could it be that the opposition were never able to learn the art of wrestling power from pretenders? 

Questions and questions. It’s good to ask questions in search of answers to the mystery of a single-party government system in a multi-party democracy! I know, in desperation, recently some compatriots have conveniently struck on the notion that Domkrag is too formidable to be defeated by one party and have resorted to combining their fragmented existing parties to defeat the monolith. However what appears to have transpired so far, is that Domkrag in power for these many years, has learnt how to stay in power through subterfuge and guile, thus consistently beating the opposition into enduring submission!

Apparently the cooperation plan currently brewed by the opposition has put the fear of the Lord in BDP hearts. Now the scared and tremulous Domkrag is beginning to pick random quarrels to fight back the menace of the oncoming onslaught, reflected in opposition cooperation plots. To stay ahead by means foul and fair, remains the unchanging Domkrag strategy and tactics. Domkrag attack dogs are barking and baring their fangs, snapping at and driving back the intruders trying to disturb the prevailing peace in the hitherto relaxed ruling clique campus. Thus, we witness audacious administrative minions in the Ministry of Defence, Justice and Security talking tough and acting like valid policymakers and ultimate lawgivers, when they hear the chairman of the Law Society (LSB) is criticising the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for making injudicious appointments that are insensitive and in disregard to expected norms of conduct between the two bodies, JSC and LSB. The chairman of LSB ‘must apologise’ for xenophobic statement he made about appointment of one Court of Appeal Judge, otherwise interaction between the Ministry or is it the JSC, will be in jeopardy. Wow! I had read the LSB chairperson’s statement and thought it was cautious and dignified, though firm. There was nothing xenophobic or racist I detected in the statement except the principles expected to guide JSC appointments. The LSB chairperson stated:

 “…..Since the JSC has proceeded with appointments the LSB has resolved to join in the various litigation affecting the judiciary and further file to the appointment of His Lordship Brand JA to the Court of Appeal (CoA). An accepted principle in the dispensation of justice is that the Presiding Officers of Courts must reflect the demographics of the society that those courts serve. The Society (LSB) however notes that this is not the case. In the High Court, especially the CoA where gender, race and age are disproportionate to the demographic position of the country….”

Nowhere does the statement say His Lordship Brand JA is a foreigner, a white or a pink!

Can the reader perhaps spot xenophobia or racism in the statement? Perhaps I am blind and prejudiced. I was disappointed above all by the remarks attributed to Judge President Ian Kirby, whose judgements I’ve always admired and marvelled at the professionalism that underlined them. His statement shocked me to the core. Where am I? Am I in Botswana where freedom of speech is paramount? Long before the current constitution, freedom of speech was sacrosanct (Mmualebe…...) Why are Batswana suddenly subjected to the mea culpa confessional contrition mode before the high priests of the state, when they exercise their right of freedom of speech.State agents, obviously licensed and instigated by the executive, aren’t only picking petty quarrels with Batswana. The state sings rehearsed lullabies to Batswana. The latest one is Economic Stimulus Package (ESP). The lullaby went viral shortly after announcement by HE President Ian Khama at the BDP General Council. Batswana were urged to form companies to take advantage of the ‘bonanza.’ ‘Hurry, hurry, don’t tarry, ESP is around the corner, register new companies!’ What ESP was, was cunningly and deliberately kept a mystery, confined to conjecture. A brochure was promised. It never came. BDP members alone appeared to know what ESP looked like.