The UDC dilemma
As BNF and BCP fight for UDC hegemony, Boko’s role comes under the spotlight An undemocratic UDC can’t deliver a democratic government
There is no overstating the fact that open election of the party leadership by its members represents a crucial moment in the life of any political organisation.
Opinion in the Umbrella for Democratic Change ( UDC) is currently divided between those calling for the democratisation of the opposition coalition and those who want a further deference of the process for the sake of unity in the organisation.
The calls for an elective congress are generated by a concern by the voting public particularly members of the UDC who argue that, the democratisation of the UDC, by way of direct election of party leaders by its members, is long overdue.
What exacerbates a sense of anxiety on the part of the UDC members demanding an elective congress are the rumours that, the current UDC president, Duma Boko and his supporters, are less than eager for an election.
Boko is the leader of the Botswana National Front ( BNF), an affiliate of the UDC alongside the BCP and the Botswana Peoples Party ( BPP).
Their fear, it is alleged, is that, should a congress be called, Boko’s deputy, Dumelang Saleshando, who is the president of Botswana Congress Party ( BCP), would defeat Boko hands down. The two political partners are fighting for the hegemony of the UDC.
The current UDC leadership was selected by the leadership of the contracting parties on an ad hoc basis pending an elective congress. Boko’s insecurity, it is believed, emanates from the fact that, many blame him for the dismal performance of the UDC at the 2019 general election.
The UDC leader is increasingly being accused of arrogance, divisiveness and dereliction of duty. Meanwhile,
Saleshando’s popularity has grown exponentially on account of his “sterling performance” in parliament upon his return last year after a five year hiatus when he lost his seat in 2014.
Over and above that, many in the UDC believe that the technicalities on the basis of which the UDC lost its election petitions were the result of negligence on the part of Boko and the UDC legal team. There are fears though that, there will be no UDC without Boko. “Despite his many weaknesses, Boko is the UDC and the UDC is Boko. He possesses both the charisma and connections that nobody else in the UDC has. This is the UDC dilemma,” a UDC member speaking on condition of anonymity, said. His take is that the UDC should carefully navigate the dilemma by maintaining the status quo but work towards a complete merger of the parties post 2024 general election.
The other reason for the demand of an elective congress is the fact that the mandate of the current UDC has long expired. “We are now here illegally because our mandate was never indefinite. In fact, an indefinite mandate is no mandate,” said a UDC member of the central committee who wants an elective congress to be called to allow the people to vote a new leadership.
At its non- elective congress last year, it was agreed that, an elective congress would be called after the 2019 general election. “Our concern is that nobody is talking about the congress anymore,” said the UDC official who posited that, an undemocratic party can never deliver a democratic government.
Many in the UDC fear that should the UDC not democratise, it will not only lose the moral high ground to attack the BDP for any undemocratic practices, but will also lose the opportunity to habituate its membership to democratic norms, practices and processes. Besides, should the leadership continue to stall on the pledge to call a congress for the voters to democratically install a leadership of their own the coalition will experience an image crisis in the public eye.
According to Marco Lisi of the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Lisbon, instead of party elites engaging in self- coronation and making themselves irreplaceable, they should not only compete for positions but do so at regular intervals.
This empowers the ordinary party membership to hold their leadership accountable while gaining the confidence of even the most sophisticated voter. According to Lisi, the democratisation of leadership is not only a means of strengthening internal distribution of power. It stimulates membership participation hence increasing the participatory and deliberative dimensions of democracy.
“Thus, every- member voting is a necessary instrument to strengthen the linkage between parties and civil society especially when political organisations are considered increasingly elitist and distant from citizens’ life,” observes Lisi. Because elective congresses give members the opportunity to elect or remove leaders, it engenders transparency and accountability to the masses especially with mass- based political organisations. Regular and open leadership selection processes such as primary elections and elective congresses tend to constrain the authority of the leaders and guard against them dominating party life and making themselves irreplaceable. It enhances mobilisation of the masses, as competitors, canvas for support. This way, selection of leaders by the members in politics creates strong links between the people and the party leadership.