Is violence the only option left for Khama?
Once again, permit me to emphatically repeat this; Ian Khama is a man of many epithets. A man so accustomed to theatrics. And so, are his so- called, ‘ uncles.’
But kill me not for my thoughts. I have been smoking a lot of things lately.
Some of the things Khama put out there are tell- tales of someone in a very sorry state of mind - soliloquy of a sociopath, if not lamentations of a narcissist.
How can one in his right state of mind say Kgotla Autlwetse acting in his attested capacity as Minister of Local Government, should not perform his duties because he is his ‘ subject,’ it is bull something, to say the least. Does this exception apply only to him, or it even extends to his ‘ uncles?’
The last time I checked, the law was the law, because it is the law. And the law does not wear a coat of many colours. Needless to say, Autlwetse’s vehicle was burned to ashes, and as expected, Serowe village leadership went eerily quiet, not even a word condemning the heinous crime.
In fact, at the subsequent kgotla meeting, they continued their calls for ‘ war’ and hurled insults at Autlwetse. They seem to consider violence, as a means to an end - whatever that end is? Particularly disappointing is the absence of condemnation from opposition circles, not even from our highly- acclaimed ‘ moral deity,’ Ndaba Gaolathe.
May I remind our ‘ leaders’ that, condemning violence, is not in any way an endorsement of President Masisi it is a moral derivative?
But as I’ve opined before, the pathology in the opposition’s thought is to think that every antiBDP or anti- Masisi sentiment or course of action, is inherently true, intelligent, rational, justifiable and therefore, likeable.
Without prejudice, I am of the view that our opposition lacks organic political thought and innovation. They have over time demonstrated neither definitive political shape nor form. Needless to mention lack of defined political agenda!
Our opposition has reduced its political relevance to shameless opportunism, scavengery and predatory antics. And unfortunately, this is not helped by infighting and potential split in the UDC.
At the centre of the opposition’s warring is Khama’s Botswana Patriotic Front ( BPF). It seems this cultic hate club is part of the disease than the cure. With neither ideological nor doctrinal premise, the BPF seems to be a function of the most extreme manifestations of human zealotry.
Besides their ever- concerted efforts to render destructive falsehoods and absolute ownership of twisted reality, two things stand out about BPF.
Firstly, is it their cultic veneration of ‘ Kgosikgolo’ Ian Khama and secondly, their pathological admonishing of President Mokgweetsi Masisi? As far as I am concerned, they have never endeavoured to define their existence beyond this ‘ sacred’ duty to love Khama and hate Masisi.
The point is if BPF needs to be taken seriously as a political association they need to define themselves beyond the parameters of Bangwato royalty.
But why has fate been so unkind to Khama? I mean, he tried with the 5Ds, but it did not work out. He tried with Mma Moitoi and the New Jerusalem crew, but it did not work out. He tried with Bridgette Motsepe and her millions; it did not work out. Now, he is experimenting with tribalism and identity politics, and I doubt if Bangwato will swallow the bait.
The sooner Khama realises he is skating on thin ice, the better he invests in an escape plan. In the absence of efforts to build genuine political discourse that competes on the basis of ideas, Khama has resorted to tribal identity as the foundation for his political competition.
The undertones of his course of action are loud and clear. They are supremacist in outlook and hegemonic in intent. Concisely put, it is a delusional quest for power by stoking tribal sentiments.
Khama is just trying to exploit tribal loyalty to advance personal gain, parochial interests, patronage, and cronyism.
He is trying to lobby political support on a narrative premised on ethnically based patronage networks for access to state resources and power.
At this juncture, it is entirely up to his tribesmen to decide if they find identity and tribalism as legitimate political tools for contesting power and resources.
That is, do they subscribe to the view that identity is a legitimate variable to delineate between those who are included and those excluded from state power.