Khama's agenda is questionable
Editor | Friday June 6, 2008 00:00
It appears President Ian Khama will brook no views divergent from positions adopted by the party or, to put it bluntly, imposed by him, and will purge anyone who dares to hold otherwise. MP Botsalo Ntuane has always been a critic of the new Liquor Act, like many other MPs across the political spectrum. He is one of a few young representatives in Parliament and, being young, it is reasonable to expect him to hold strong views on matters that concern the youth. Further, Ntuane's views reflect a particular constituency within our national electorate. As a politician who intends standing for an urban seat, Ntuane must represent the views of that particular constituency. It is not a secret that the urban and the young constituency has experienced problems since the enforcement of the new liquor law. The informal sector, restaurant owners, nightclub owners and artists have opposed this controversial piece of law because of the impact it is having on their means of livelihood.
This is the context within which responsive and alert representatives like Ntuane speak. But Khama, contrary to his pronouncements that he is a veritable democrat, appears to believe in beating everyone into homogeneity, which is the antithesis of democracy.
Democracy, as anyone claiming it to be his native milieu should know, does not work top-down, but the other way round. The BDP must understand that it is both the depository and repository of the views - rich in their diversity - of those it purports to represent.Should Khama proceed along this path of intolerance, the nation can only fear for those - both in Domkrag and outside it, who will dare to differ from the monolith he is threatening to become.We say this because dictators are not famous for restraint. The opposition differs with Khama at almost every turn, and we fear that when he is done with all good thinkers who have committed the cardinal sin of encouraging debate and holding and expressing differently at Domkrag, he may see no reason why he should not carry the purge to greater heights!Of course, we can expect Khama to try and have us to believe that his actions were all well meant, and that his spin doctors will go to work to say only malcontents see and hear evil in this. But no matter what subterfuge, when he was done with The Party and proceeded to smaller members of the Warsaw Pact, especially Czechoslovakia in 1968, Stalin never saw himself as a threat to democracy.
No matter what ruse is used to explain Khama's actions, the intolerance can only be explained in and by one word: Purge. And true democrats are averse to that.
Today's Thought
First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Martin Niemoeller