The politics of fisticuffs
Mmegi Editor | Wednesday April 20, 2016 15:15
Both incidents point to a disturbing trend within local politics where intolerance has been rising on the back of increasingly acidic rhetoric and vitriol.
In the aftermath of the 2014 general elections – statistically the most fiercely contested poll in the country’s history – the political atmosphere has become more competitive and its prevailing dialogue, more intense. Whether in the battles for by-elections or inner-party polls, the race for political office has become a cut-throat affair with gibes and taunts filling the headlines and in turn creating further fodder for antagonists on social media.
Thus far, the hostilities have been restricted to freedom squares and party meetings, but in the last fortnight a scenario we warned about in an editorial in 2014, has come to frightening reality.
In that editorial, we warned that the laissez-faire manner in which political parties and their activities were increasingly abusive in their discourse, could lead the country to becoming yet another African state with a violent political landscape.
The physical violence that occurred in Francistown and Gaborone must be condemned as a matter of course. But beyond that, it must also trigger discourse about the trends within our politics.
With the emergence of two dominant political groups in the aftermath of the 2014 general elections, it is healthy that we have robust debate and competition within and between parties, in pursuit of broader political options and outcomes.
Where in the past, the dominance of one party created a type of indifference towards political process among the electorate, accompanied by equally humdrum rhetoric, the terrain today is far more energised.
However, within that energy is room for matters to take ugly turns, particularly when the only thing governing political conduct happens to be law enforcement and not inner-party codes of conduct or enforceable codes of integrity.
Conduct codes where they exist in political parties, are often “after-the-fact” systems, which are activated only after an incident has taken place. They are not pre-emptive and do not seek to inculcate the party’s values at the various structures.
As a result, the country’s political landscape is filled with card-carrying activists and commentators who essentially have been given “licences to kill” and are willing to do so, whether in freedom squares, inner-party meetings or on social media.
As the competition for political office intensifies, these activists will resort to physical violence in the absence of pre-emptive education, guidelines and visionary enforcement protocol from the various political parties. Parties must continually drum into aspirants heads that the race for political office, as lucrative and influential as the office might be, is all about public service and not self-service.
Today’s thought
“Public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the nation.”
- Margaret Chase Smith