Dan Moabi
20 March 2008
column
"They will spend most of the time arguing over policy formulation. We do not want that kind of a situation where people are going to spend time negotiating. You should not always be negotiating when you are supposed to be running the country."
So said minister Mompati Merafhe in a press interview following the defeat of MP Akanyang Magama's parliamentary motion advocating the direct election future presidents (Monitor, 10 March 2008). According to the Monitor, the minister also wondered "how the president would operate if the majority of parliamentarians are not from his party". He had earlier explained to the newspaper that the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) would not accept change just for the sake of it. During the parliamentary debate, he used the expression "if it ain't broken don't fix it" to convey the same sentiment.
Merafhe continued: "We want a system which is predictable. Batswana must know where we are going. What is important is running the country and not fighting for positions." He added that the BDP would reject such a motion even if it were introduced by a BDP backbencher. This illustrates the strong opposition of the party's leadership to electing the country's president directly.
I have no doubt that even former president Sir Ketumile Masire, the architect of the system that Magama was trying to change, would use very similar words in defending his version of automatic succession. I am confident, however, that this is not a universal view within the BDP or even among the party's MPs. I have heard strong views against the current system from several members of the party, and I hope they will not forever remain quiet about this iniquitous system.
Regarding Merafhe' views concerning this subject, I hope they did not mislead anyone into thinking that they adequately justify this country's practice of having its future presidents hand-picked by retiring presidents. The claim that electing presidents directly could result in a parliament dominated by the opposition, thus giving rise to numerous problems between the executive and the legislature is completely baseless because such systems of government have mechanisms for dealing with such problems. The United States is an excellent example of this. Currently, a Republican president has to deal with a legislature dominated by the Democrats, yet the system has not suddenly collapsed.
Besides, and contrary to minister Merafhe's views, it is extremely healthy for any democracy to have the executive and the legislature negotiate over policy. That way, neither can ride roughshod over the other, and the two arms of government are therefore forced to compromise for the good of the nation, which is the essence of democracy. In Botswana, on the other hand, a party that dominates the legislature also automatically controls the executive. Such a party can, therefore, literally do whatever it wants, however bad that might be for the nation. Botswana's version of automatic succession is a good example of this; and such a system of government is tantamount to oppression by a majority party, which is just as detestable as oppression of any majority by a minority.
Merafhe was right, of course, regarding "if it ain't broken don't fix it", but only regarding the selfish interests of the BDP. After all, as opponents of automatic succession have repeatedly argued, the relevant constitutional amendment was made exclusively to serve BDP and not any national interests. So, if it continues to do so, why would the party want to remove it? The rest of us should, however, never tire of exposing the undemocratic nature of this bad practice. To do so would be a huge disservice to the nation.
********
Another general election is approaching in Zimbabwe and, once again, it is very doubtful whether it will produce any surprises. The only newcomer to the election scene there is the former executive secretary of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Simba Makoni. Although it is good to see him and one or two other (hopefully there will be more) former senior members of President Robert Mugabe's ZANU/PF party openly challenge his disastrous record, it is doubtful whether they will achieve much. They started their election campaign too late, and will also split the opposition vote significantly. Nevertheless, I wish the entire opposition well.
As usual, the election observers only arrived in the country very recently. It is difficult to imagine what useful purpose they will serve under the circumstances. Even worse, they only come from the AU, SADC, China, Iran and Russia! The last three countries, of course, know absolutely nothing about democratic elections, while we can only expect the usual ridiculous findings from the first two. In other words, the five groups of observers were clearly invited solely for their known support for the dictatorial president of Zimbabwe. Of the four, however, SADC is the most shameful. I wonder how many people in this region, let alone elsewhere, still have any respect for it.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Mmegi/The Reporter. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
