Towards a progressive UDC

| Friday August 2, 2013 00:00

It was to dedicate itself to the cause of the oppressed and exploited. The UDC came at a time when the public service had an outburst in the form of the longest strike in the history of Botswana. Workers demanded high wages and improvement in the workplace, in 2010. The initiation of UDC was also influenced by the fact that the ruling Botswana Democratic Party in 2010, found itself in irreconcilable hurting divisions within its membership ranking, which eventually led into the formation of a new party, Botswana Movement for Democracy. These developments and others played an imperative function in obligating opposition parties to harness and coordinate people`s struggles through a single body i.e. the Umbrella for Democratic Change.  Desirably the project was supposed to include all the opposition parties, but it ended up having only three of them because of the different opinions on political models, which were presented for selection and adoption. The other would-be partners found it better to take a dangerous but nonetheless honest alleyway of going it alone.      

The Umbrella for Democratic Change is a party that is being projected as revolutionary by its leadership. We often time hear statements such as; 'Regime Change is now' in their political rallies. Calls for a 'Revolution' are echoed by the UDC leadership whenever they are addressing the public. However, in the turn of events, activists in the respective parties who have united to face the ruling BDP in the 2014 general elections are raising concerns relating to the Umbrella for Democratic Change project. Comrades argue that the UDC leadership ignores their concerns, despite using proper structures of channelling grievances. It looks like the UDC leadership has adopted an avoidance strategy as a way of silencing, undermining the opinions of comrades despite their support to the UDC project. All this is said to be done for the sake of peace and stability in opposition unity by the leadership of UDC. But a deeper insight of the situation reveals more of the UDC concrete situation. Through this article I wish to contribute to such analysis, and I do not wish to claim clairvoyance, as there are no prophets in politics.

A party`s self-portrait remains an important aspect of its ideological and policy profile. The revolutionary party exists so as to make it possible to engage in scientific discussion as a prelude to concerted and cohesive action. Parties exist in order to propagate a particular world view and the practical activity corresponding to it.Parties attempt to unite together into a collectivity all those who share a particular world view and to spread this.They exist to give homogeneity to the mass of individuals influenced by a variety of ideologies and interests.This requires clarity and precision in argument combined with organisational decisiveness. Without an organisational centralisation aimed at giving clarity and decisiveness to political differences, UDC has emerged as the massive apparatus holding together a mass of only half - politicised members, leading down to a tone of political debate and a lack of political seriousness. This has in turn reduced the ability of the members` independent political evaluations. But clearly the political demagogues of UDC have no time for such quibbles.  Refusal to relate organisational ties to political evaluations, even if done under the noble intention of maintaining a mass party, necessarily leads to organisational loyalties replacing political ones. This in turn entails confusion of member and sympathiser.

The major problem in UDC is politics and members participation in UDC policy debate. UDC can be cast as having a policy without politics. The UDC policies are conservative and neo-liberal and are not subject to public debate.One of the negative features in the UDC development is fixed determination of the project i.e. the purity of the UDC is seen as one of the main tasks of the selected few. That there may be new problems which require new solutions, that it is necessary to learn from one`s fellow members as well as to teach are unwelcome ideas.UDC is ever more shamelessly exploited by its leadership. Omniscience is no more granted to the organisation than to individuals. Comrades who challenge BMD seriously and scientifically appraise their political view i.e. liberalism, are cast as political delinquents/ outcasts. UDC project has fallen into the hands of plutocrats who cynically override the vital interests of their members. They believe that what is good for them is good for everyone and they become hurt and baffled when other   members disagree over party issues. 

On account of the decisions of the leadership, the UDC project appears ready to shrivel into a politically barren, antisocial, neoliberal construct. And neo-liberal schemes by their universal design always breed increasing inequality, misery and hopelessness. The parties (BPP and BNF) which were once considered as having a Revolutionary political position are sinking to the level of Revolutionary demagogy. The BNF leadership`s retreat from National Democratic Revolution positions and their present endorsement of parties like BMD and DA, which are frankly neo-liberal right from the start indicates that a profound concordance of interest has developed. By entertaining neo - classical economics, the objective social interests of the UDC have become practically identical to those of the pro-imperialist BDP ruling class. This is their objective social basis for what can only be called the present -day bankruptcy of opposition politics in Botswana.

It is getting clearer that, the grouping of the three parties into a single body i.e. Umbrella for Democratic Change, is primarily the result of awareness amongst the leadership of these parties of their need for a reactionary class alliance. It should be established that for all the noise and vociferations, the UDC launch by the three opposition parties is nothing but a political demagogy. The combination of demagogy and collaboration with neo-liberals is to strive to appear progressive to the outside world while becoming increasingly reactionary domestically. The problem for UDC is to find new markets and customers. The watchword of opposition unity is used purely and simply for the sake of misguiding Botswana workers and peasants. They deceive them by pretending that the opposition unity desired by the workers is precisely what is now being built, under the 'revolutionary' leadership of the three political parties, grouped under the auspices of Umbrella for Democratic Change. In other words, the much vaunted opposition unity is of its very nature becoming a sham.

The plain fact is that the Universalist Social Democracy in UDC is merely vociferous verbiage. The political demagogues of UDC use it as a slogan to mystify the working and peasant masses, in a deceitful effort to convince them that their problems will be solved. The UDC project has very little to do with Universalist Social Democracy. Neo - liberalism is fast entrenching itself within the body of opposition politics today through the consortia of political opportunists. They view liberalism as the only viable and universally acceptable doctrine of political legitimation of modern times. By embracing liberalism, the political leaders of UDC are convinced that 'nothing can be done against capitalism; it is too strong, too well organised'. Consequently by embracing liberalism they are only seeking a better position on the chessboard of world capitalism. Their struggle for 'second independence' is thus little more than a second piece of trickery. They are trying to draw the voters into a fool`s crusade which use the strength of the masses to obtain concessions from their imperialist allies which would only benefit the UDC leadership, and would in fact, lead to even fiercer exploitation of Batswana, both by imperialist capital and by the UDC leadership. It doesn't make sense to describe UDC as an anti -BDP, whatever its political leaders may say on the subject, because their anti imperialist content is extremely limited. Alternative politics of opposition parties are collapsing into demagogic putrefaction. As long as both the opposition and ruling parties make sure that Botswana remains yoked to capitalism and its allies, it is quite illusory to expect any real political and economic changes. In fact it renders a two party system in Botswana to be fakery.

Many of these problems result from a lack of leadership, or to be more precise, the wrong leadership which has taken a politically conservative approach to addressing opposition unity.  What UDC needs most is better leadership, one that returns the UDC to fully democratic consultation, reducing lip service, ensuring wider definition of solidarity focusing on problems of poverty, income disparity, unemployment, and other crucial issues that could serve to build citizens trust in the UDC. Social democracy must be used to mean a vision for a different Botswana.The term social democracy should not just be a mere jargon, leaving social democrats without a distinctive mission. UDC needs visionary leadership and not story telling charlatans. Up to now, UDC itself remains remote from people`s everyday knowledge and preoccupation. Regime change is not a matter of proclamations, however sincere!

In place of this tactical maneuvering for solidarity advantage, there is need to introduce a politics of balancing or equalisation among the parties in opposition unity, than to merely take delight in the spontaneous transformation and to accept uncritically whatever transitory products this throws up. A certain amount of modesty, flexibility, of awareness of limitations is necessary than to assume that the UDC project is definitive and final. Politicisation would help spur debate, inform and orient the members, as well as bring alternative ideas into the public arena.This has been missing for much of the past three years, of initiating the UDC project. Contrary views of the members should not struggle to be heard. The party organ must be open to the opinions of those it considers inconsistent. Political clarity and hardness in the UDC is required so as to ensure that all its members are brought into its debate and understand the relevance of their own activity. An open debate may give members, sympathisers and voters a sense of identification and political participation. It also offers the opportunity to clarify the party`s attitudes towards political challenges and show what a distinctively progressive agenda for UDC would look like. Otherwise, the present attitude of UDC leadership would certainly not go very far in bringing about the genuine democratic change so devoutly wished for by the masses of our country. This will simply mean that the UDC leadership deceives itself, and they shut their eyes to the immensity of their tasks.

In short, If Umbrella for Democratic Change is not won over to a socialist worldview by the intervention of its conscious revolutionaries; its leadership will continue to accept the bourgeois ideology of existing society. The very nature of capitalist society continues to ensure a vast unevenness within the working class and society in general.This is all the more likely because it is an ideology that flavours all aspects of life at present and is perpetuated by all media. The struggle against BDP must be indisociably linked to the struggle against neo- liberalism in all its aspects and specific manifestations, otherwise it will be mere lies and hollow words. 

Gaontebale Mokgosi