The ruling BDP recently released a vetted list of its candidates who it says are fit to contest the party primaries and book candidacy for the 2024 General Election. The list features surprise omissions and inclusions. There are still queries surrounding the vetting process with some questioning the consistency of the process and its intended purpose. They argue that teams were mandated to vet or scrutinise aspiring primary election candidates to uncover any instance of inappropriate behaviour, that could embarrass or negatively affect the BDP, overlooked several key elements essential for one to contest the elections, when choosing candidates. Some have even labelled the BDP vetting process a free ammunition to boot out those who are perceived not to be backing the party leadership. Their position is backed by the fact that some of those who are widely thought to have committed the most flagrant transgressions have been vetted in.
For example, others who have had brushes with the law have also been allowed to contest the primaries. Several others who have previously defied the party caucus have been allowed to stand. Defying a BDP caucus is one of the worst forms of wrong doings in the BDP. In the past, those who defied the party caucus have even been expelled by the party. In an interview recently, Kentse said their central committee has received several complaints about vetted candidates with questionable records and is now acting on the information. “The party is not favouring any of the candidates as perceived. Such information (on questionable records) was not previously presented or available to the central committee when the vetting process was under way. The central committee is currently reassessing its stance on the matter and it will take appropriate decisions,” he said adding that it is inevitable that those found with questionable records will inevitably be barred from contesting the primaries. It remains to be seen as to whether the BDP will bar those with dubious records from contesting the primaries.
Last week, Thursday the party issued a declaration through its chairperson and Vice President Slumber Tsogwane, calling on aspiring primary election candidates to issue verifications that they do not have any debt and/or criminal record, or are not subject to any criminal investigation. This has been widely calculated as an initial move by the central committee towards vetting out those with questionable records. Kentse also ruled out the possibility that the party will reverse its decision in relation to some candidates who were on the original list of those who were barred from contesting the primaries. “I trust that the central committee satisfied itself before reaching its decision that they should be vetted out. “Some of those who were on the initial list of those barred from contesting the primaries recently wrote to the central committee asking to be pardoned but were not successful,” he said. The BDP spokesperson also maintained that the party will not offer any form of counselling to those who have been vetted out or provide any explanation. “The reasons for vetting in or vetting out candidates is solely taken by the central committee and are confidential. Democrats have an obligation of respecting and abiding with the decisions of the central committee at all times.”
Meanwhile, Political analyst Professor Zibani Maundeni opined that the ruling party could not have implemented a vetting process. He is steadfast that outrightly, organising the primaries would have been a near thorough process to select candidates for the 2024 General Election. “Emphasis should not be on vetting. When the party implements a vetting process, it can create a narrative that some of the candidates are being favoured by those in leadership, especially from those who are vetted out,” he said. “It also creates a narrative that there is interference from the leadership. In a nutshell, the vetting process can be divisive which is why I think the best approach is to let members decide their preferred candidates through primaries (skipping the vetting process).” Maundeni added that not providing counselling to members is an ill-advised move. “Counselling would have offered those who have been vetted out an outlet to vent. Without counselling, there is likely to be animosity between those who have been barred from contesting and those that have been vetted in,” he said.
