TO: ALL MEDIA HOUSES FOUR REASONS WHY DUMELANG SALESHANDO IS PETTY On the 20th October 2014, President Boko and Saleshando honoured the Gabz FM invite to a presidential debate. On several occasions Saleshando accused Boko of having abandoned the BNF policies and market BDP policies due to the influence of the BDP splinter organisation—the BMD. Comrade Saleshando chose to ignore the fact that President Boko was not representing the BNF but the UDC. Comrade Boko was not invited to the debate to put across the policies of the BNF. He was invited to speak to the policies of the UDC as contained in the UDC manifesto. The UDC manifesto is a minimum programme agreed to by three contracting political parties. Each political party has got its own separate policy documents or programmes which may differ from the other members of the UDC. Therefore, President Boko did not attend the debate to defend the BNF but UDC. It would be weird for Boko to have put emphasis on the differences between BCP and MELS policy positions. Neither did Pono Moatlhodi of the BNF point out to Themba Joina (during RB1 and GabzFM debates) how he promised Batswana free lunch in Communist government of MELS, because he understood that Themba Joina is a representative of the BCP. I will outline four reasons whySaleshando stooped low as to become petty in the debate and went for the personal attack on President Boko. 1. “Saleshando says UDC promotes BDP policies not BNF ones”. When President Boko said the UDC would create a conducive environment to enable business to flourish and create employment, comrade Saleshando retorted and accused Boko for abandoning the BNF policies due to the influence of BDP splinter party, the BMD. It is petty and untrue that Boko has abandoned the BNF policies. Koma himself absolves President Boko in Pamphlet No.1 of 1966 at page 28 in the following words: “Our answer is that there is a world of difference between making concessions here and concession there, compromise here and compromise there, turns here and shifts there, all in the interests of the main objectives on the one hand and making concessions here and concessions there, compromise here and compromise there, shifts here and turns there, all for their own sake. All tactics must serve strategy. Our main task is to overthrow neo-colonialism and its agents. Making alliances with some elements from the corrupt section of the petty bourgeoisie or from the traditional feudal, at a specific period for a specific purpose does not change the fact that we mean to paralyze, if not oppose, resolutely all agents of neo-colonialism. What we mean here is that politics should not make us personal enemies with this person or that. We mean that we are not against persons as such. We are against the policies. We shall not refrain from contacts with anybody because he belongs to a different political party. What we will do is not only to refrain from sharing his views but also to oppose his views and to explain the basis of our opposition”. President Boko is carrying out the mandate of the BNF congress to work with the ‘BDP splinter party’. The BNF congress saw it fit to make turns here and shifts there, concessions here and compromises there, in order to take Botswana to greater new heights. When comrade Boko acknowledged the good policies of the BDP he was not abandoning the BNF policies. Again, Kenneth Komabailout Boko for making such statements. Dr Koma in Pamphlet No.1 at page 42 says: “The BNF stands for the real independence of Botswana and as such it shall of necessity oppose all the neo-colonialist policies of the BDP which are not in the national interest of the country and the people. The BNF shall not oppose everything that the BDP does just for the sake of opposing. The BNF shall support and encourage the BDP in all such things and measures which are the interests of the people and the country.” President Boko gave a clear case where the BNF supports the BDP policies in relation to the Kedikilwe’s Commission on National Revised Policy on Education of 1993, in particular the aspect which deals with students/teacher ratio (Class size), re-alignment of skills with the job markets and pre-primary education. Surprisingly the BCP also approves the National Revised Policy on Education by the BDP. Is thisnot a classic case of pettiness by Saleshando to accuse Boko of supporting BDP policies when the BCP supports the BDP policy? Is this not what Koma tell us to support BDP when it does something in the interest of the people and the country? Is Boko not implementing the BNF policy positions? He is. Saleshando was petty. 2. “BCP wants coalition with UDC but BNF cooperating with BDP in Mochudi” It is correct that the UDC currently holds the chairmanship of Kgatleng District Council whilst the BDP deputizes the UDC. Is that an omen? It might be wrong to be deputised by the BDP where the opposition (BCP inclusive) are in majority. But who should be blamed for that anomaly? In 2004, the BNF had nine (9) councillors in Kgatleng District Council and the BCP had six (6). Comrade Jerry Rasetshwane of the BNF was elected the Chairman of the Council and Mr Stephen Makhura of the BCP was elected the Vice-Chairman on the basis of numerical numbers (or proportionality). In 2007, the BCP’s Makhura bolted out and supported MphoMaruakgomo of the BDP to oust the BNF. Mr Makhura of BCP deputised the BDP whilst the BNF supported BCP in Ramotswa (in 2007). When the then BCP Secretary General, Taolo Lucas, was interviewed by Mmegi newspaper, he retorted that “the BCPhas done away with politics of hatred and if the BDP has something to offer they would support it”. Post 2009 elections, the BCP councillors in Selibe-Phikwe voted with the BDP closing out the BMD. The BMD retaliated in Francistown. The BCP started the horrible practice and it was petty for Saleshando to seek to score cheap political points on his gamesmanship/brainchild. 3. “BCP advocates government intervention and UDC supports BDP policy not BNF”. Saleshando accused Boko for saying the UDC will create a conducive environment for the economy to grow. Saleshando says the BDP splinter party influenced the BNF to abandon its State intervention policy. Saleshando was referring to the policy of BNF contained in the 1995 Social Democratic Programme (SDP) at page 2, paragraph 1.4 where it says: “The political programme of the BNF is called social democratic programme. It seeks to maintain a balance between free market economy, planned economy characterised by State intervention, and parliamentary democracy”. But, is it true that the UDC has deviated from the policy of the BNF? It is not true. The UDC manifesto speaks of state intervention in the economy more than once. I point out portions of the UDC manifesto where the word state intervention is used or implied: • The UDC manifesto reads thus: “Government interventions will now be a menu of training, planning assistance, technology transfer assistance, investor matching services, loans equity and grants.” [See page 22, paragraph 4.3.3.6.3]. Instances where the word intervention is not used but implied: • As part of developing indigenous business and broadening the participation of citizens in the economic mainstream, we (UDC) will repeal laws that we believe discriminate against struggling local entrepreneurs [see page 16 paragraph 4.3.3.2 of UDC manifesto]. • Create employment opportunities in the immediate term, and sustainable employment in the intermediate and long term. Example of creating immediate employment opportunities was given by Boko as agricultural infrastructure for sellers to access the market (buyers) with fresh produce. The infrastructure here refers to tarred roads, electrified farms, irrigation schemes [see page 19, paragraph 4.3.3.5.4 bullet two]. • The new education system will encourage, facilitate and ensure the missing skills across the entire diamond chain are vigorously imparted to citizens; these processes will extend to other type of mining, across the value chains [see page 24, paragraph 4.3.3.9.1 of UDC manifesto]. The UDC makes a distinction from State intervention and state micro-management of the economy as suggested by the BCP. State intervention includes formulation of laws, policies and curriculum programmes that seek to empower Batswana with skills that are relevant to the job market. As Boko pointed out, Batswana, we are told do not have relevant skills in running big projects. The construction of Letsibogo, Thune, Dikgatlhong and lotsane dams were done in Botswana by foreigners. The construction of Morupule B power station was done by foreigners not Batswana and Mr Kedikilwe said the skills needed is not for “Motswana o onosetsang(wielding)poto(pot)yagankuku”. Much as I do not agree with Mr Kedikilwe, but the emphasis is that, the skills we have do not match what the job market requires. The stadia were built by Chinese and no Batswana built a single stadium. Can’t the BCP see that our skills do not match the job market requirements? This is where the UDC says it will intervene by formulating a new education system which inculcates skills that are required by the job market.Hundai project was set-up and collapsed and many other projects. The solution to citizens’ economic empowerment is education, education and education with relevant skills matching the job market. Of course where laws are necessary we will develop them 4. BNF influenced by BDP splinter party There is no denying that the BMD is a BDP splinter party. Much as there is no denying that Bosele Action Party of LepetuSetshwaelo (now called BAM) was a BDP splinter party. There is no denying that Chilly Boy Rakgare and KentseRammidi have BDP political DNA like the BMD. But it will be naïve that the BCP policies are influenced by BAM which has BDP DNA. Saleshando was petty in the debate. Saleshando failed to rise to the Statesmanship displayed by President Boko during the debate. Boko is a unifier. He did not debate to impress the BNF cadres but looked at all Batswana, be they BDP, BCP, BMD, BPP and apolitical and say I am at your disposal. In conclusion, the BCP must be punished for bolting out of the UDC. The BCP in 1999 gave the BDP a long lease of life when Batswana were ready to vote the BNF in power. The same was repeated in 2006 before 2009 General Election. In 2014, Batswana are ready to vote out the BDP and once more the BCP bolted out to give the BDP another new lease of life. Enough is enough, let’s punish the BCP and avoid vote splitting. ……………….. Khumoekae Richard BNF/UDC member Contact: 74436784
Posted on: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:33:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015