Opposition coalitions unsuccessful in Botswana

 

The opposition in Botswana has a long history of unsuccessful attempts at removing from power the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP). The party has been in government since 1966 when Botswana, formerly Bechuanaland Protectorate, gained independence from the British government. Botswana, which gained independence from the British in 1966, has yet to change government. This is despite the fact that Botswana has gone to the polls at regular intervals since the first ones in 1965. Elections have since been held after every five years without fail since then. There ever been victimisation of opposition party leaders or activists since independence.

Significantly, the elections have always been adjudged as free and fair by international observers as they always stress the fact that, voters have always been free to decide how they voted. Indeed, the fact that, nobody has ever been arrested for his or her voting convictions and habits has won accolades for the ruling party. This was because, while opposition parties were either banned or have their leaders arrested or even killed in some countries, elections in Botswana knew no violence hence highly acceptable by African standards where election have never been free nor fair.

Ironically, independence in most African countries meant the banning of political activities in those countries by the incoming African leaders at independence. However, Botswana became an exception because, unlike in other countries, political parties did not engage in fighting as happened elsewhere. In 1965, the Botswana Peoples Party (BPP) lost the first elections to the BDP. To this day, the long history of opposition cooperation intended for the removal of the BDP from power has not borne fruit for the opposition. Botswana has a rather long history of unsuccessful political collaborations by the opposition.

Since the 1999 general elections, the opposition, Botswana National Front (BNF), BPP and Botswana Independence Party (BIP) opposition parties or at least some of them, have contested the elections as a collective. Needless to say, the BDP won effortlessly. In almost all the cases, the opposition collective has tended to fight for positions in the leadership or wards and constituencies leading to internal divisions which benefitted the ruling party.

Thus far there are two coalition entities, namely the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) consisting the BNF, the BPP, the Alliance for Progressives (AP) and the Botswana Patriotic Front (BPF). On one end there is the Botswana Congress Party (BCP) and the Botswana Labour Party (BLP) looking to dislodge the seemingly invincible Domkrag.

This is despite the fact that if any ideological differences exist within the opposition, they are very minimal, suggesting ideological proximity among the parties. This has led to suggestions that the difference with the opposition, which have denied them success in coming together is about positions and personal dislikes. Because of the fact that coalition governments tend to debate policies more than unitary governments, usually due to their ideological differences among other things, they are, theoretically able to reduce negativity and adversarial politics within the coalition.

Opponents of coalition governments cannot live with the fact that, in a coalition arrangement, small parties may be given more power than they deserve which engender disputes within the collective.

According to Professor Nick Cheeseman, an academic at Birmingham University, because they are inclusive, coalitions, are critical because, “They bring more parties into power which, ethnically and racially divided societies often means that they give a wider range of communities a taste of government. In a dominant party system like South Africa where the ANC has constantly won a large majority of the vote, this can bring into government parties that would otherwise be permanently locked out of power,” said Prof Cheeseman. It has also been said that, coalitions can give more people sufficient exposure to show case their expertise.

Coalition governments are not without challenges. The problem with coalitions is that, smaller parties sometimes become too demanding to the extent of them holding their bigger partners hostage by making demands such as heading a cabinet post as well as even threaten to pull out if their demands are not met. Coalitions may be weaponised by either the weaker or stronger party to unfairly benefit from the unsuspecting partner by ‘stealing’ members.

According to Joshua Engel, an academic, “A coalition is like a marriage with one of the partners constantly threatening to leave. Sure it can stay together independently but you are always going to feel a little uncomfortable if you go over their house for dinner. A fight can break out anytime and one or the other may go storming off.”