Politics and trade unionism

| Friday March 19, 2010 00:00

Politicians that we all are, do not live only by the ideas of how we govern ourselves but how we sustain ourselves daily; politics and economics are, therefore, two sides of the same coin. That is why the Bible states: ' Man shall live by the sweat of his brow' while Marxism declares:  'He who does not work, neither shall he eat.' In our modern day the preamble of the constitution of the Industrial and Commercial Workers of Africa (ICU), a union led by Clement Kadalie an immigrant Malawian in South Africa in the early '20s, calls for scrutiny by  trade unionists and opposition politicians in Botswana:

'Whereas the interest of the workers and those of the employers are opposed to each other, the former living by selling their labour, receiving for it only part of the wealth they produce; and the latter living by exploiting the labour of the workers; depriving the workers of a part of their labour in the form of profit, no peace can be between the two classes, a struggle must always obtain about the division of the products of human labour, until the workers through their industrial organisations take from the capitalist class the means of production, to be owned and controlled by the workers for the benefit of all, instead of a few....'     (Revised Constitution of the ICU, 1925)

The ICU was formed in 1919 in Cape Town by one A F Barty, leader of a Labour Democratic Party to reinforce his party's ambitions. The LDP had found itself faced with the formidable power of the United Party and other establishment parties, which were well-resourced and supported by captains of industry.

Workers' unions and political parties to the left of conservative parties have always been natural allies. Policies of parties to the left of the conservatives invariably reflect support of the interests of the poor. The rich, on the other hand have always been represented by the conservative, reactionary parties for example in the US, the Republican Party is the party of the moneyed class and the Democratic party is closer to unions, in Britain the Tories represent the big business interests while the Labour Party is the traditional party of the workers.

If we did not know or believe who represented the rich employer companies in Botswana, we now know from the revelations about the relations between the BDP and De Beers/Debswana companies. It is contemptuous and condescending for the President of our republic to go to Orapa to tell the diamond mineworkers there, to stay away  from political parties while he does not promise Batswana that the BDP is about to sue for divorce with De Beers/Debswana.

Trade unionism originated in the US. The militancy of American trade unions has largely subsided due to the concessions made to unions by Federal laws: Fair Labor Standards Act, the Age and Discrimination and Employment Act, Social Security Act etc, which among other things set minimum wages, entrench welfare and job security, worker protection against foreign competition, pension rights, maternity and paternity leave, medical and other benefits, which Botswana workers can only dream of, were achieved after a long history of struggle for better working conditions by the American worker.

In our own sub-region, we have testimony of the symbiotic relations between political parties and workers' unions in the ANC and SACTU/COSATU in South Africa, MDC and the trade unions in Zimbabwe and in Zambia where Frederick Chiluba ascended to power on the back of a trade union he led.

It is hypocritical, absurd and inconsistent for a ruling party representative in this day and age to think of breaking relations of workers' organisations with rival parties without renouncing ruling party relations with employer organisations. We have still to hear the President condemn the De Beers-BDP complicity in impoverishing the working population, in particular those who like the Orapa workers fell directly under Debswana employment.     

Recent reports in the media of Botswana trade unions thinking of aligning themselves with opposition parties are encouraging. The alignment is long overdue; opposition parties coincide with trade unions interests because they both stand for the poor, the unemployed and the deprived.

For a long time Botswana working class was under the delusion that the BDP was everything good to everybody who lived under the Botswana sky. Scales are beginning to fall from Batswana eyes. The shine of our democracy is fast fading. We are beginning to realise that ours is not a government of Batswana by Batswana for Batswana but a government of BDP and Debswana by BDP and Debswana for BDP and Debswana. That is why the BDP will not concede political party funding because Batswana will begin to know the truth about their country; that is why the BDP arrogantly rejects Dumelang Saleshando's private members bill for declaration of assets and liabilities

The working class, generally poor, illiterate, poor in health, on its own will never easily improve its lot. Substitute 'opposition party(ies)' for 'man who voluntarily shares the life of the poor' and see whether it does not make sense!