Political defection, not illegal, but is wrong?

Michael Dingake | Tuesday August 2, 2016 16:58

Do defectors deserve vilification and the opprobrium that accompany them to their newfound political homes?

Generally what isn’t illegal shouldn’t be wrong, at least under a secular state, we live in. In a non-secular state something may not be illegal but wrong, because right is also based on morality or culture for that matter. Law, morality and culture of course overlap, are interrelated and they are not easy to separate. However, the defection issue is still topical like it was in the late 1990s. Back then 11 MPs defected from the BNF to form a new party, the BCP.

The agitation against the mass defection of the 11 was taken to the village kgotlas where the defectors were lambasted, named names and recommended for whipping. The current Speaker of Parliament led the frontal assault through a parliamentary motion and a cavalry of red-hot parliamentary committee members who carried the matter to the kgotlas. It was a campaign the class of the succeeding Parliaments has missed.

Such a massive defection though an internecine affair, not a direct threat to the ruling party was seen as  an indirect one assuming it were to happen to the ruling party in future. Tactically it was an opportunity for the rulers to make the new party to be loathed by the public, to varnish the new party in particular and the opposition in general, with the brush of unsuitability for government office.

Domkrag succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. The debate in parliament was deadlocked. In terms of Kokorwe’s motion the law needed to be changed: For every MP who defected, a bye-election had to follow to see whether constituency still approved the defecting member scum. The defecting 11 had nothing against by-elections to re-approve defecting MP, but argued, the defecting 11, the more convenient and preferable solution would be to drop the First-Past-the-Post electoral system for the Proportional Representation (PR) system. Under the PR system voters vote for the party and not an individual, so a defector loses his/her seat. No expenses incurred and no precious time squandered with by-elections.

Change to an appropriate system argument is still valid, in spite of a perception created that voters vote for an individual, the truth is, they vote for a party represented by an individual. A candidate is elected  on basis of party platform which never implies the MP would implement the platform whether the party wins/loses or MP wins!

The problem with party politics is that voters don’t always appreciate internal political party democracy. When leader(s) deviates from party ideology or policy, members are perfectly entitled to differ or leave the party, since the party would be deviant and not the original party, one joined.

This was the case in 1998 when the Botswana National Front (BNF) president declared himself to be the party and the party to be him, which was preposterous. BMD’s motivation was similar. Under the circumstances, defectors are right to break with the leadership/party which no longer identified with the founding principles and policies of the party.

Defectors who defect because they have been promised cash, office, redemption of personal debt or political status by the recruiters, are a different kettle of fish; they demand apposite treatment.

Actually, they need to be punished and made to pay an inflated price, higher than that offered by their recruiters. Always bearing in mind of course, that nobody can stop people defecting for whatever reason. What right/duty can one claim to deny a comrade to defect who is in need for cash, status or alleviation of a debt burden? We may judge such defection as unprincipled, immoral or scandalous, but we have no business to interfere with another man’s/woman’s personal choice however outlandish.

History is replete with footloose political migrants alright , but have we any right to embargo them or interfere with their choices however vile they appear? History tells us that defectors we shall always have among us. In the Holy bible, we read of Judas Iscariot selling Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus didn’t stop him even though he knew in advance the disciple was about to sell him for 30 lousy pieces of silver.

In WWII we had Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian who sold his patriotism by defecting to Nazism, convinced that it was the correct ideology and Hitler was winning the war. Judas and Quisling have paid and will continue paying the price by having their names bracketed with perfidy, high treason, shame and lack of principle. Judas Iscariot and Vidkun Quisling are words associated with villainous defection.

The SA liberation struggle produced Mtolo, Mthembu, Hlapane and Makiwane who sold their erstwhile comrades like Easter hot cross buns. They were eliminated to halt the damage they were inflicting on  the freedom struggle.

These turncoats were eliminated not for their treasonable acts per se, but because if not eliminated they could create havoc and frustrate the struggle. There were other petty turncoats who weren’t eliminated, because they were regarded ineffectual. Some of them were double agents; others were pardoned by the new democracy and serve with downcast eyes pricked by their consciences.

Botswana’s Mickey-mouse sell-outs don’t deserve severe judgement to express disgust at their notorious acts. Let’s allow history to punish them; let’s allow their descendants to disown them; let’s allow future generations to turn their graves into spittoons, the moment we shall have declared Botswana a no-go area for the lousy turncoats unwelcome except in hell!