Anti-Kalanga liars

To paraphrase some observer, there are three kinds of liars - liars, damn liars and professors. Tribalism apologists, masquerading as academic linguists, continue to subject us to antiquated lies about Kalangas being a "tribe". They continue with their scaremongering tactics which are designed to convince the semi-literate majority that Ikalanga language needs "development", meaning expenditure by Government of the latter's hard-earned tax payments.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The very alphabet that the liars are using to write is a Kalanga alphabet. It is not a "Greek" alphabet as other liars have opined before. Unfortunately the decorated liars only write about Kalanga language when they don't know a thing about Kalanga language. I consider myself better qualified to write about how Setswana language is a threat to my language, Kalanga, because I also speak Setswana language.

They also feed us with the big lie about Kalanga "ethnicity", or Kalanga "tribal identity", which is supposed to be on a par with Ngwato, Ngwaketse or Kwena tribal identities. The liars don't bother to tell us why there are Kalanga speaking people in Shoshong, Serowe, Kanye and Molepolole. If Kalangas are a tribe, just as the Bakwena of Molepolole are, then what are the Kalanga-speaking (Kwena) people of Marobela, (Kwena) people of Kalakamati, to name but a few?  Are all the Kalanga-speaking Kwena people not part of the Kwena tribe just because they speak Kalanga ? Are the "Bokalaka ward" people of Kanye not Bangwaketse ? Are the "Bokalaka ward" people of Molepolole not Bakwena ?

Those who have read Adolph Hitler's Mien Kampf often quote a passage where Hitler wrote that if you tell people a big lie and repeat it often enough, they end up accepting it as a God-given truth. That is what has been happening since 1966. A big, big lie on the demographics of this region has been churned out by all sorts of liars in a desperate attempt to retain their tribal superiority over other tribes in this vast Kalanga nation, of which they themselves, are an integral part.

Kalanga language does not need "development" by Government. All it needs is for government to remove its prohibition which was introduced specifically to target Ikalanga language and kill it, thereby rendering our people strangers in their own land! Kalanga language was here, written in its alphabet, long before that alphabet was stolen and used for Setswana language after its (Tswana's) introduction by the Anunnaki god Ra! Will the professors please stop feeding us lies, and perhaps even go and learn some Kalanga which their ancestors used to speak.

Boko, Saleshando and Joina should resign their party presidencies.

I start off with a self-evident truth - In an election to choose a government, any party that is presented with a noticeable opportunity to cheat WILL cheat! If you do not agree with this assertion, Dear Reader, please read no further.

Now that we are on the same wavelength, so to speak, let me refer you to Sameosi Mokgethiwa's collumn "Opposite Poles" in the WeekEndPost newspaper of 01 - 07 November 2014. In it he writes:

"...once upon a time there was a party called the BNF which, finding itself at wits end on how to overcome the perennial election loss, successfully argued and convinced authorities that its election disk be perforated in the centre..."

And so in deciding how elections are to be conducted, someone plays the role of an authority. Two questions arise:

1. Where does this someone derive his/her authority from?

2. Assuming that this "authority" had the power to reject BNF's proposal, what prevented  this "authority" from using that power to rig the election in favour of one or another party?

The answer to the first question, in my view is - the electorate; while the answer to the second is - nothing! But let's look again at the first answer.

In matters pertaining to the conduct of an election, the electorate is split right in the middle, and rightly so. An election should be considered a discontinuity. All aspirants to political office, including those "in government" should have exactly THE SAME POWER over the conduct of an election, otherwise whoever has greater power WILL cheat. He/She need not necessarily cheat only in his own favour, but cheat he certainly will - Murphy's Law.

And now to the second answer - nothing. Elections are not a guarantor of democracy. Free, fair and credible elections are. To achieve free, fair and credible elections, the electorate must RENDER IT IMPOSSIBLE for participating parties to cheat. It is very much in the interest of the electorate that the election be free, fair and credible; that is the meaning of democracy; that is the meaning of PEACE.

To my recollection, no outside authority has so far declared our recent elections to have been fair and credible. Maybe the African Union Election Observer Mission (AUEOM) will yet do so. Their preliminary report said our elections were "free and transparent". You can spin what you want from that statement. In my view all they are saying is that no one was coerced to vote for anyone, and that observers could see what was taking place. It says nothing about what was taking place being "beyond reproach" as some people would have us believe.

Crucially, the mission observed that the practice of transporting ballot boxes BEFORE COUNTING the ballots, presented logistical problems. This blogger goes further - the practice presents not only logistical problems, but an excellent opportunity for rigging elections because such boxes can be switched in transit! It is precisely to prevent such things from being possible that this blogger threatenned NOT to vote unless counting of ballots was done on site.

The threat was not picked up either by Duma Boko or Dumelang Saleshando or Themba Joina. Instead we continue to be fed with the usual "opium of the masses" - opposition cooperation!  It is for this reason that I call upon Duma Boko, Dumelang Saleshando and Themba Joina to resign their party leaderships, and hand over to people who can provide the necessary leadership to PLUG all election rigging holes. For the three leaders to have failed to notice the flaws that were noticed by this blogger long before the elections, and by the AUEOM in just a month of election observation, is utterly inexcusable!

Khama has nothing to resign for, because he achieved his goal - to win Government, albeit with a reduced majority. Only those leaders to whom the electorate gave their votes on the understanding that those votes would NOT be subject to rigging, and that those leaders would win Government, but did not in fact win Government, need to resign. They need to resign because a glaring opportunity for rigging was allowed to go unchecked all the way to the election. Whether anybody did notice, and therefore take advantage of that opportunity this time around, is immaterial. He/She could have.

It feels like an injury to the nation's intelligence to speak of us having world-class intellectual resources, and yet to claim that we cannot correctly count the contents of 57 parliamentary-constituency ballot boxes in situ. To add insult to this injury, we are now being told that the Independent Electoral Commision (IEC) is looking at the possibilty of introducing electronic voting for the 2019 elections.

 "If we cannot correctly count contents of 57 constituency ballot boxes, how do we conduct electronic voting?" one may ask.

SADC intergration need not be "negotiated".

Many commenters on the subject of Southern African Development Community (SADC) intergration  suggest that SADC pursue its intergration the same way that the European Community (EC) was intergrated - through long drawn out negotiations. I disagree.

Most of the European nations are "natural" entities. They evolved from distinct tribal formations with distinct economic functionalities. It was to be expected that intergration on their part would require serious economic and cultural interventions.

Most if not all, of the "countries" that comprise SADC are colonial contraptions that seldom found acceptance among the "natural" SADC national entities. Many "borders" of those countries cut right accross "natural" nations in the SADC. Indeed the economic needs of the colonial powers often compelled them to overlook the artificial "boundaries" that they themselves had imposed. A "native" mine labourer from Mozambique was never compelled to relocate from the Witwatersrand back to Mozambique. Consequently the struggle by African labour, against exploitation by capital, initially did not follow colonial boundaries; it was only so directed when the colonialists started "granting" independence to some of the artificial SADC "countries". The African National Congress (ANC) was formed by political activists from many, if not all, SADC countries!

In my view, SADC "intergration" can best be achieved by a new SADC-wide political movement, with a united SADC-wide leadership. To survive censure and persecution by SADC countries, the movement will have to be pragmatic and acknowledge the presence, if not the legality of the colonial boundaries. It will have to take part in the elections in each SADC country, while openly campaigning for an unconditional union of all the coutries where it wins elections.
Let the best (wo)man win!