DID ZANU PF LOST A FRIEND OR ALLY: BOTSWANA ELECTION OUTCOME AND REGIONAL IMPLICATION

Historically, dating back from the period of struggle for independence, Botswana has never been either an ally or regional friend to Zimbabwe, both on party level and national level. Besides its proximity and sharing a border with Zimbabwe, Botswana contributed nothing during Zimbabwe's struggle for independence. It took an observer position, and even went an extra mile of being a hostile neighbour to appease its British handlers. Zimbabwe won independence through the barrel of a gun. Botswana gained its independence in 1966, but their independence came in an exceptional way. The country was handed over to Sir Seretse Khama who was the leader and founder of Botswana Democratic Party at that time. This automatically disqualifies the BDP from a Liberation Movement levels of ZANU PF, ANC, FRELIMO, SWAPO et al, and reduces it to a mere political organisation.This handing-over process was made possible because Botswana was established as a British Protectorate meaning the country was not fully colonised but acted as British foothold and vehicle into the region for the purposes of protecting British interests, hence Botswana foreign policies has always been aimed at appeasing Britain and maintaining the given privileges at the expense of regional ties. This trend continued from Sir Seretse Khama period to the Ian Khama era.The policies of BDP towards Zimbabwe did not change, Botswana remained unfriendly country till Mokgweetsi Masisi took over leadership of BDP. During the period of Ian Khama and Robert Mugabe, the relations of the two countries, were tense to the extent of uttering war threats against each other due to the presence of US military bases in Botswana. Ian Khama publicly condemned Mugabe leadership style as undemocratic and ZANU PF policies especially the Land Reform program as counterproductive and barbaric. Criticism of ZANU PF failures was never balanced, it focused only on the persona of ZANU PF, rather than all contributory factors to the decline of the economy in their varying proportions. After initiating the land-reform program, Zimbabwe suffered inflicted heavy sudden economic collapse, and produced too many economic immigrants into neighbouring countries and that factor has been used as xenophobic political tool in internal regional election contestations, not only that, but as measure of failure for Zimbabwe leadership and its radical policies without looking at the bigger picture of it through objective analytic prognosis of the root cause. ZANU PF blamed SANCTIONS imposed on the country with intent to effect regime change on the governing party, for re-distribution of land from minority settlers to indigenous black people, while outsiders point to mis-manangement and corruption as the root cause. Over twenty years later, Zimbabwe is healing, its economy though still in turmoil is now on a recovery path. This is happening with participation of indigenous Zimbabweans both abroad and locally whilst the region is being swept by cries of economic exclusion and calls for radical economic change. Thorny to the calls is expropriation of land. Such calls had happened in South Africa as well as in Namibia, where the land is still concentrated in the hands of few white minorities. Africa's leadership though they have come to the realisation that political power without economic power means nothing, in SADC there is yet no integrated regional plan to collectively approach and address the problem and ZANU PF approach, DESTROY AND RESTART, through executive order carries too much economic risk, objectively looking not feasible in other jurisdictions, judging by what transpired in Zimbabwe. If blindly implemented it carries huge potential to destroy livelihoods due to the dependence structure of the economies and ably threatens the political future of an ruling party/governing party at that time, especially in a populace where the masses lack patriotism and ideological inclination, and can easily be swayed into the direction of political winds created by propaganda machinations. This is what caused the downfall of Masisi and BDP in Botswana, though corruption allegations and Zuma-Style Khama factor can not be ignored. Before Masisi attempted to introduce radical changes, he sort to assert some form of economic and political independence by building economic bridges and political friendships in the region. That seemed to threaten the elephant in the room, the Western European Capital that controls most economies in the region. This was worsened by Masisi's benevolence with Zimbabwe and mending of friendship ties with ZANU PF. This association cement ZANU PF' heroism against Western imperialism, in sharp contradiction with Western sponsored narrative, and objectively reflected the seriousness of radical mentality on the person of Masisi. 

Masisi central and unpopular idea of all his policies, was to change Botswana Diamond policy to benefit his people. Diamond in Botswana contribute 80% of its GDP, meaning the economy is dependent on Diamond revenue and any slight changes on market-pricing of the diamond, those market-changes can wreck havoc to the Botswana economy. The emerging radical policies in the region are entrusted to be a result of ZANU PF ideological influences and some policy successes. Completely untrue. Realistically, these are consequentials, of unaddressed colonial economic set-up that continue to impoverish the people. Because of that, the region, though it condemned ZANU PF at initial stages, it is beginning to appreciate some of its policies.That is why there is unbridled campaign to vilify anything that is associated with ZANU PF, through media brainwash. China is now the second largest economy globally if not the first, but is still portrayed as a bad guy in the ring. So, that regional realisation, of the need to change economic structures pose a threat to the already declining influence of Western hegemonic dominance in the region, worsened by the emergence of BRICS, competition from China and worldwide geopolitical changes. In short, a global re-alignment. This is the reason, the Western political narrative about ZANU PF is that of a failure and a symbol of destruction through corruption, seeking to politically export its destruction throughout the region. If that was true, brings questions around the purpose of imposing unilateral sanctions if not to destroy an economy, the purpose some public figures openly admit. Umbrella for Democratic parties' win in Botswana is now portrayed in the mainstream media as means to economic recovery and a show of resistance against ZANU PF rotten contamination of the region, without any substantive evidence proving such politically damaging and determinative claims, especially in a society where the majority voters are politically illiterate and not well versed with geopolitics at that given time. 

Masisi's economic radical approach of nationalising Botswana Diamonds costed him his job. Those who control the economic levers used the same economy to change the political thought of the electorate into electing a candidate whom they deemed suitable to politically safeguard their interest while scapegoating ZANU PF to emotionally manipulate regionally, the electorate base. BDP was never a Liberation ally of ZANU PF and the two parties' ideological conceptual orientation is completely different. In Masisi, ZANU PF had found a new friend not an ally. The West is deceptively trying by all means to deny the region economic change, seeks to protect its regional dominance when the rest of the world is transitioning to an equal multipolar system. SADC region needs change, but not overnight political changes. Most of these Western schemed, impractical ideas, of moving from one political party to another has no bearing on the welfare needs of an ordinary person. We saw it in Malawi and Zambia. Chakwera and Hichilema, hyped leadership with zero clue of the problems on the ground. Up to now have not met a single expectation of those who called for  change and voted them into power. None tangible evidence to prove change was made. Change is visible. Its like jumping from a boiling pot of water into a pan of burning oil. The problem is not in politics but in economy and economic emancipation has to happen now or else the region is destined for doom. However economic empowerment is a gradual complex process that needs matured and experienced leadership. In Zimbabwe it took over three decades for Mugabe to lay the groundwork because the Blackman was completely excluded from the economy and it costed him his reputation. With the BRICS+ formation, the world is at a deciding moment, and SADC must take this as an opportunity to initiate balanced economic changes rather focusing much on politics. Our problem is not politics, our problem is the colonial economies that are hegemonic and exclusive. The forms of democracy in existence only needs internal transformation to be inclusive and developmental in nature.

A democracy of interests, is never a democracy for the people, and it remains to be seen how pro-poor is the newly elected UDC party. Botswana has lived all its life as a British Protectorate, and with Umbrella for Democratic Change that status is back. It may be good for Botswana, but not looking  good for the Region, in the context of a united regional push for indigenous black empowerment. Anyhow, Democracy won.

Democracy of Interests Is Never a Democracy for the People.

.............................................................................................................................................P Dekeya

Lawyer & Legal Consultant