The split and the BDP dilemma

LAWRENCE OOKEDITSE | Friday April 30, 2010 00:00

Things at Botswana's own Grand Old Party will never be the same and the split could yet prove to be the catalyst for change. The biggest dilemma in the near aftermath of the split will center on responding to the split and moving on as a united party. Thus the question is, will the formation of the Botswana Movement for Democracy (BMD) (makes you think MDC?) lead to peace and stability withiin the BDP?

First, a political faction is a group of individuals within a political organisation with some kind of political purpose. This power bloc is united in one common goal or a set of common goals for the broader organization, not shared by all its members.

Members with similar ideas thus bandwagon to achieve their goals. Upon their achievement a faction may dissolve or if the conflict is particularly severe, it may cause ruptures within the organisation that seriously impede its effectiveness, leading to a break-up or collapse of the broader organisation.

Compromise and give-and-take between factions allows the organisation to operate without having to satisfy the whims of many different, uncompromising individuals who might otherwise cause a split. Within the BDP such a compromise failed.

'During my boyhood years, I joined a party marked by a legendary commitment to its constitution, with a culture for sober-minded dispute resolution and with a recognition of the broad national principles of democracy, unity, self-reliance, development and botho, as the fountain of inspiration for government policies as well as being the basis of Botswana's political culture and social disposition', Gomolemo Motswaledi bidding farewell to his BDP membership, thus giving a clear insight into the constenation that has engulfed the BDP.

'It is with the most profound regret that I must mention that the past two or so years have seen a dramatic reversal of these (party) virtues.  In the same period, the BDP has become a plodding parody of what it used to be when I joined it', Motswaledi added. His speech gave even more clarity to the polarization of the BDP.  This was to be closely followed and mirrored by a letter authored by one of the BMD leaders, Sidney Pilane who, with no punches held back argued; 'And yet he considers himself democratic! And yet the A-Team (members of the Khama Fan Club {KFC}) meet at pleasure, to his knowledge, and we know when and where they have recently met.

And it shames him not to bare to the nation through the medium of national television and national radio the nakedness of his despotism!' He further argued that 'this country has a president who thinks nothing of telling the nation blatant untruths. Whatever happened to some attempt, however little, at honour befitting a president?' This laid bare the polarities.

The aims of a political faction are as diverse as the different types of bodies within which they appear. Thus factions aim at pushing some policy agenda within the broader organisation; preventing the adoption of alternative policies; and supporting given individuals to positions of power within the broader organisation. This is the problem for the BDP. With Barata-Phathi breaking away one would think the party will have peace. However, the party will inevitably have to contend with what to do since some Barata-Phathi membership may not leave for the new movement.

Thus, the party is weakened yet the factions are not over. What the leadership must be pondering is what to do with the remnants of Barata-Phathi. Do you flush them all out or do you continue to have a divided party despite some having left? This question is pertinent because if some Barata-Phathi choose to stay they will surely not transform into A team members overnight. If their struggle was on the basis of some principles then logic follows that such principles have to be satisfied before their 'lobby group' disbands.

Moderate Barata-Phathi who have so far not made public any intentions to quit the BDP will as such have to decide either to stay and conform or to leave. After all, it is hard to believe that the party leadership would be too willing to have them stay and continue polarizing the party. What is clear though is that a faction is primarily based around supporting a given person or group, or a single major aim or it can have a comprehensive and definitive set of policies. Either way, factional politics typically revolve around personality, with a few individuals playing key roles.

These people act as magnets for like-minded people, leading the activities of the faction, and acting as a prominent voice for the shared objectives of the faction. Such individuals can be referred to by a variety of names, such as 'powerbrokers' or 'factional chiefs'.

If Daniel Kwelagobe and others were to stay, part of the nucleus of Barata-Phathi would persist, and so far there is not much to indicate that they have changed their principles and diverse motivations that led to the coalescing into a faction. The assumption here is obviously that they share either wholly or in part the sentiments of Gomolemo Motswaledi, Sydney Pilane and others.

Thus, the magnets have to either lose their polarity or exit in order for the attraction leading to factionalism to end. Will they lose polarity? Well, magnets rarely if ever do and one is led to believe Barata-Phathi figureheads will not either, until perhaps at the end of President Khama's tenure-2019.

Thus, while for the BNF the split in 1998 brought a semblance of unity however short lived, for the BDP a split serves as just a weakening of its grip but not riddence of extreme polarities. That is if Barata-Phathi choose not to join the BMD en masse. Will President Khama and the Central Committee be willing to continue working with the remnants of 'renegades' who led to the historic weakening of the BDP power base? Time will tell.

In 1912 incumbent Republican US President William Howard Taft was renominated with the support of the conservative wing of the party. After former President Theodore Roosevelt failed to receive the Republican nomination, he called his own convention and created the Progressive Party. They both were defeated by Woodrow in the general election. This testified the debilitating effects of splits.

The African National Congress (ANC) also split but retained power. Thus this provides a counter thesis to the Woodrow Wilson win. Well, that makes sense. However, the perculiar environment within which the party split, is important. In Botswana, if Political Scientists and historians conclusions are anything to go by, the political culture shuns unrest. In explaining the failure of the BNF to win power they overwhelmingly cite the crisis prone nature of the party. The BDP now fits that bill without question. Will they be shunned? A number of theories are about to either be confirmed or debunked as myths. So will a number of personalities. So shall it be for it is the very essence of politics anyway.

One thing appears clear: The specter of electoral defeat, in line with Dr Ng'ombe's prediction, beckons ever more seriously for the BDP than ever before.  How they fiddle with fate and the dictates of the supernatural powers will also have a lot to say about deity and traditional doctors. Can the BDP survive this one, one specter backed by a famous prediction?

And one may also ask; so after weeks of angst and political infighting, will party members simply have a good time and forget the turmoil of the past few months? Wrong. Some will still say to the Barata-Phathi who choose to stay- 'le re thubetse pathi'. And what stops party members from wondering if the Barata-Phathi remnants are but spies feeding their BMD counterparts with valuable inside information? So much is at stake. So much is to be lost while so much needs to be salvaged. Who is ready to pounce? Observers will love this spectacle as it unfolds.