BNF woes

One only hopes that common sense can still prevail among Botswana National Front (BNF) “activists”. You see, BNF president Duma Boko was right not to want to contest for Parliamentary Elections. His argument was very sound – he wanted to concentrate on growing the BNF. He wanted to shape BNF National election strategy and channel his energies into making the BNF a household name again, like it was during the time of KK. As President of the BNF, Boko is the man to do that. But he cannot accomplish such a demanding task if his attention is divided between party leadership and Parliamentary candidate.

The arguments used to “persuade” Boko to abandon his stance were not convincing at all. But he had to yield, partly because of the never easing threat from “activists” to destroy the BNF. It was claimed that if BMD president Gomolemo Motswaledi won the Gaborone Central seat, then he would most likely be the leader of opposition (LOO) in Parliament, and would thus tend to eclipse Duma Boko who would not be in Parliament. This argument flies in the face of common sense. So what if Motswaledi was LOO? After all, unless a party is in power, Parliamentarians constitute a miniscule proportion of any opposition party. Correspondingly, people (the Party) attach a miniscule credibility to what the Parliamentarians say, especially if such Parliamentarians are the kind that hops from one party to another like grass hoppers invading a field of lush green crops.

THE PARTY is supposed to be out there among the people, in Manxothai, Xanaxas, Groote Lagte etc. In these places, Duma Boko would have had the time to be seen, to be heard, to listen to the people and learn what constitute peoples’ greatest needs and concerns. In other words, the BNF would have had a face among the people.

You see, there is something quite elegant about the way the British conduct their party political life. The party gives its leader full support while he/she is still leader. This ensures that the leader’s ideas are given full leeway to be implemented without internal party bickering and all sorts of hindrance. If the party loses elections the leader does not have to be reminded that it’s time to quit. He/she announces his/her resignation even before the official announcement of loss is made. The leader resigns, not because he did anything “wrong”, but because his best was not good enough. It is immaterial whether the elections were rigged or not, it happened under the leader’s watch; therefore the leader must go. He/she must pass the baton to others whose ideas were put on hold while his/hers ruled the roost. But you cannot demand such stringent adherence to political principle where the leader’s ideas were constantly rebutted by “party activists” and where the leader was wholly immersed in a constituency political campaign, at the expense of the party’s national footprint.

The BNF should avoid a situation similar to a certain political party in Zimbabwe where the leader was forced by circumstances beyond his control to declare his party ready for the elections, against the best advice of regional bodies, only to run around like a headless chicken when the party was booted out of government at the elections. Had the leader been under no pressure to declare his party ready for elections, he would most probably have gracefully bowed out after the electoral “loss” and not sought to prolong his leadership by cursing the very people whose advice he had been forced to ignore.