Privatisation,an instrument possessed by the few economic elites, is bound to bring untold sorrow and abject poverty to the lives of the ordinary masses of this country. A case has not been satisfactorily made as to the benefits of privatisation in Botswana, but already thousands of job losses are imminent. The country's political leadership, as well as independent analysts have been playing hypocrisy, riding high on a populist anti-privatisation wave whilst on the other hand they remain the main beneficiaries. Apart from the Botswana National Front, all the other political parties have adopted and endorsed privatisation. The BCP, especially,has been extremely hypocritrical in the handling of the privatisation issue. In its philosophical confusion to distinguish itself from the socialism leaned BNF and the capitalist BDP, it has sought to march the middle ground, adopting privatisation partly.
As things stand, the status quo has been that the BDP government has so far been persuing a capitalist oriented philosophy of free market, firstly promoting other forms of state non-intervention in the economy such as out-sourcing. It is therefore not clear what the BCP is preaching. It either wholeheartedly adopts privatisation or rejects it, period. The party's policy on privatisation is very unclear. The current noise and the anticipated legal suit that the BCP seeks to undertake is merely a populistic move that seeks to portray the party as being anti-privatisation when in fact it is not. The desperation towards usurping political power from the BDP will not be realised when opposition parties adopt strategies that are likely to backfire,such as taking the matter of privatisation of Air Botswana to court. This, I maintain,will only serve to give the government legitimacy on the on-going negotiations of the Air Botswana privatisation. I fail to understand which order would the BCP be seeking from the court, to stop the executive from the discharge of its constitutional mandate? And does the BCP possess the necessary locus standi to bring the suit? Don't tell me of the Ditshwanelo vs The State case, as the case is materially different from what the BCP is thinking of doing. Ditshwanelo was held to possess the locus standi on the basis of its specific mandate to promote human rights, and the circumstances of the case allowed it to be so recognised. In the case of the BCP, it is debatable on whether the party's philosophy or objectives are truely democracy oriented. This is politics and every political party sees itself as having a substantial interest in the democracy of the country, notwithstanding their adoption of policies which other people may deem undemocratic.
