Poverty of ideological clarity by some BOPEU leaders

It is absurd to lead a labour movement when you have poverty of ideological clarity. This is so because ideology is the tool that we use to analyze circumstances that confront us when we traverse the path of the working class struggle. It is also a tool that distinguishes us. It assists a leader to know how to handle contradictions when they emerge in a movement.

It teaches you as a leader that there are many forms of contradictions in our daily lives and to handle them or resolve them is also different from one another. This in referenced to some people who happened to find themselves in BOPEU leadership positions without the attributes that I have mentioned above and those who champion that since there are some artificial differences with other unions on the question of political relationship with political parties they better defect from BOFEPUSU.

What a shame! This is a clear sign of poverty of ideological clarity. These are the shortcomings of those union's leaders who survive only on common sense. First of all it is my duty to refer the said leaders to the “correct handling of contradictions” by comrade Mao Tsetung. This is not academic masturbation, as the said leaders sometimes would reason. It is a teaching that we must go by if we want to unify our unions or movements.
Mao said “there are two forms of social contradictions. Those between the enemy and ourselves. The two are different in nature” let us hasten to point that this is a class analysis. I am clarifying this so that those leaders on the other side can comprehend what we are talking about.

The said thinker (Mao) went on demonstrating that contradictions between ourselves (workers) and the enemy are antagonistic, and contradictions between ourselves are non antagonistic. So if our differences are not antagonisti, as it is, why would some BOPEU defect from BOFEPUSU?
The reason is simple. The leaders suffer a malnutrition of poverty of ideology because if it was not so, they would be able to resolve the current differences correctly without defecting from BOFEPUSU. We also suspect that the current regime uses some among themselves to divide the working class.

This is so because these guys always gallivant from one position to another. My comrades need to learn from history because failure to do so will further ridicule their intelligence and judgment of issues. A few years ago when contradictions emerged in BFTU the same guys in BOPEU opted to defect and form BOFEPUSU. We advised them, telling them that polarization of the working class is not healthy for the working class since our strength lies in our unity. The same defectors hurled insults at us like they are doing today. What kind of leaders are they? Their way of reasoning does not differ with those of the riffraff’s.

Unions on Party politics
It is preposterous to suggest that the role of the unions is only to negotiate on economic issues and not to engage in party politics. Before I explain why it is so, let me state that during the last few years the trade union movement has experienced changes in nature that affected vitally its whole structure and altered its outlook in many important respects.  Its objective position in relation to other social forces within present day in capitalist society has been strengthened immensely by those recent changes. It is safe to say that these last few years represent a special and a very significant chapter in Botswana labor history.

Of course the trade union movement is conditioned in its development by the economic and political framework within which it exists. Its own internal dynamics do not operate independently of these conditions. Proceeding from this point it is important to note that in the first instance that unions are much larger and more decisive section of the working class, therefore they can no longer confine themselves purely on simple economic struggle. The material conditions more specifically the conduct of the ruling class dictate that the working class cannot just sit and watch the maladies meted on us the workers and the society at large. Unions, by virtue of their strengthened position, have become a much potent political factor.

This is the position unless one believes in the status quo. Historically unions differ in nature and form and to opine that unions should only dwell on economic issues wholesale is too remote and pedestrian. There are many types of unions. We have the Craft unions, The General unions, The Enterprise unions, The Trade unionism born out of the labor movement and the ‘Social’ dimension of trade unionism.

I subscribe to Trade unionism born out of the labor movement. Maybe a certain Mr Oats D Patle will tell us to which category of unionism he subscribes if he knows because he seems to agree too much into bourgeoisie trade unionism. This kind of a union is in fact the trade union movement fighting to improve the position of workers, for the recognition of workers as citizens in full sense of the word (fighting for the right to vote for all, regardless of income), and for a fairer and more egalitarian society. In short, trade unionism was created, in almost all cases, within the framework of broader social movement for the reform of society.

For the most committed Trade unionists political and social dimensions are inseparable. The workers still have to fight for some of their basic rights; the right to individual and collective expression, notably by forming the organization of their choice. The defence of workers’ rights and interests is part of the fight against an oppressive political regime. The fight to improve the position of workers has become inextricably linked to the fight for democracy, that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the social aspects from the political aspects of the workers movement.This is the form of organization that has proved the most effective in uniting all workers and even in establishing links between workers and non-workers, in the formulation of general demands put forward by everybody.

As a parting short, I am left perplexed to learn that BOPEU, in their next congregation to take place sometimes this week will embrace General Ian Khama. If it is true, that speaks volumes of the advocates of the status quo. I foresee Andrew Motsamai having crossed the floor to the BDP if his plans to stand for Gaborone Central Constituency were not thwarted, ke raya hela. It is up to BOPEU members to cleanse their union by removing these malcontents and sellout of leaders.