The Ordeals of Farmworkers
Opinions
MPHO MARUPING
After the dark clouds had fallen, solemn hearts have probably healed, it is crucial to rekindle the debate on farm workers and farmers. Unfortunately the previous debates were clouded by cultural and political connotations, hence the debates were soiled.
A year never passes without incidences of deaths in farms. In most instances, particularly in Botswana, farmers appear to be at the receiving end of these brutal crimes. It is easy for farmers get killed as they leave behind hunting guns with their workers to protect livestock against predators. Instead of using fire guns on predators, those loaded weaponries are used by farm workers as revenge for being abused by their employers. There are cases were farmers have butchered their farm workers. In other cases, farm workers kill each other from a range of reasons emanating from love affairs, alcohol consumption and petty theft. It appears love affairs fights amongst farm workers take the lead.
My submission intends to focus on losses of lives instigated by farm workers on their masters. A year never passes without experiencing painful incidences of farm deaths. Every time they occur the blame is apportioned to the farm workers mainly because of their social status. Unfortunately trade unions in the country have also dismally failed to organize farm workers, due to two main reasons. Even when barrage of attacks are levelled against poor farm workers, they are never protected with resolute voices from labour circles. Dismally, they are often bashed by the same people they are supposed to shield, being trade union activists.
Batswana largely engage in a traditional livestock economic activity, where the cultural-economic activity is livestock rearing and habitually trade union leaders and activists are cattle barons. Instead of protecting farm workers, the downtrodden, they dismally protect their economic zones by unfairly ridiculing the behavior of farm workers. Surprisingly, perpetrators of abuse are left scot-free. The precariat in most cases never receive protection from the law, from the employer and even from the people presumed to safeguard them, as is the case with farm workers.
Firstly, farm workers do not have stable income to fulfill trade union membership check-offs. Farm workers are not organized, because trade unions concentrate on workers with reliable check-offs. Botswana trade unions sustenance mainly borders on monthly membership subscriptions. Unions prefer workers with central salary deduction points. It is therefore cumbersome to collect farm workers monthly levies. Ironically, trade unions value members’ monthly dues than ideologies, values and socialistic principles.
Trade union members would not either allow their pooled monetary resource to help non-members. Members’ stance would not be strange given that they have not been oriented to recognize that trade unions exist for the larger society. Opening up to the broader society solidifies trade unions strategies on organizing and forming a collective block to defeat the oppressor.
It is crucial for trade unions to afford free membership to precarious workforce, such as farm workers. Trade unions should strive for a ‘free’ and ‘liberated’ workforce from shackles of servitude, as an injury to farm worker should be an injury to the working force. Countries Federations should organize the working class, the precariat and the jobless.
Secondly, farm workers as a ‘precariat’ class live in far-flung places, where communication is burdensome for trade unions to easily access their territory. On that vein, the willingness and vigour to extend solidarity to farm workers has been far-fetched. Trade unions have deliberately ignored their core value, which is ‘solidarity.’ Progressive, altruistic and more nationalistic trade unions embrace workers of different spheres of lives notwithstanding economic ruin of that grouping.
Precariat workers such as farm workers and domestic workers could be given free membership by trade unions. The essence of trade unionism is collective force which is geared towards social changes, and that should not be determined by capital rather by the spirit of selflessness portrayed in collectivism.
There is very minimal or no monitoring on compliance to minimum wage of farm workers. As for the government, while there is no attack on minimum wage collective bargaining, however the minimum wage bargaining council structure makes it difficult for trade union influence decisions due to asymmetrical representation. The most populous trade union federation is also not represented in the Board. The greatest unfortunate development is that the Minister has absolute powers on minimum wage decisions. The MW Board acts on ceremonial basis since it makes recommendations to the Minister who is not obliged to accept the Board’s recommendations.
As a recommendation strategies to address the problem, trade unions could collaborate with the Department of Labour Inspectorate and make joint visitations to farms. Hold joint capacity building workshops for farmers and farm workers sensitizing them on implementation mechanisms of minimum wage. Trade unions should also translate documents and minimum wage regulations, minimum wage schedule and penalties/fines levelled against those not abiding by the legal expectations.
Industries and employers not fulfilling the obligations should be named and shamed. Trade Unions should borrow a leaf from other progressive countries like United Kingdom, where MW Board are independent and clean from political influence. Trade Unions need to know the basket that makes up consumables for minimum wage. The enlisted items in the basket end up having a decent living wage capable to sustain MW beneficiaries.
Another important policy, there should be a fixed adjustment of minimum wage, which makes increment automatic, therefore avoiding other cumbersome and protracted MW negotiations. Lastly trade unions need to arm themselves with better knowledge and skills on MW, which will make them strive fight for a national minimum wage that covers all workers in the sector of the economy, rather than industry based.
Though cases of farmers refusing workers get trade union membership are remote, the problem lies with the government, especially the Ministry of Labour. The inspectors responsible for checking farm workers working conditions are understaffed, operate with limited resources to cover farms. For instance the whole South East region has a single vehicle for usage by inspectors.
Since the country is a livestock rearing activity most farm workers are abused by farmers. Most farms are in the peripheral locations, where roads are inaccessible, therefore makes it cumbersome for labour inspectors visit farms. Government is not committed to help in this regard by empowering labour inspectors visit farms.
Labour inspectors are either failing to reach farms because of inaccessibility of farms, due to poor roads and communication to make appointments with farmers. Most farm workers are illiterate so they cannot easily express their dissatisfaction, or form trade unions hence the need for trade unions to help them organise. Out of desperation, coupled with living hopeless lives farm workers may end up committing crimes.
Due to farm workers vengeance, they end up reacting violently by murdering farmers out of depression, revenge or hatred. Alcohol indulgence though is rife in farms, may not be the main factor for committing such crimes, there could be other underlining factors such as abuses, beatings, underpayments, belittlements, bullying, denial of leave days, lack of vacations, lack of identity, isolation and depressions.
The minimum wage is insignificant, farmers take advantage of the slavery wages to abuse workers. Some farmers pay much higher wages more than the stipulated minimum wage, therefore making it very difficult for trade unions organize workers. Farm workers are mostly paid in-kind, such as provision of free clothing, shelter and food. In good times farmers buy their workers drinks to imbibe, or even slaughter a beast or goat for a feast. Farmers cover funeral expenses in case of bereavements for farm workers and their immediate family dependents like spouses, parents, siblings and children.
Payment of wages are inconsistent. Herr posits that, “wage dispersion in cases is the most important factor for inequality.” Since farmers are paid wages far below the equilibrium levels, the society becomes unequal due to wage dispersion. The wage pittance received by farm workers cannot afford them a decent living. It thus defies the government obligation of eradicating poverty, the minimum wage works against the government poverty eradication initiatives.
Customarily, the way farmers treat farm workers is often inhumane, discriminative and abusive. There is a strong perception amongst farmers that farm workers are difficult characters to deal with. Farm workers live in squalor, live dejected lives, in abject poverty and eat unbalanced meal. This kind of situation is okayed by most farmers and the general public given how Batswana ordinarily view farm workers.
Generally farm workers are treated as sub-humans, amazingly by social activists claiming to represent the societal grassroots. In other places, farmers frequent their farms to whip farm workers just for leisure. Derogatory remarks are thrown metaphorically to equate a stubborn or uncivilized character to a farm worker. Farm workers globally are abused because of their precarious state. This is a remote area particularly in Botswana, were trade union researchers and academia need to seriously ponder on.
News
The case for Botswana to ratify the ACDEG
The Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) is the most comprehensive dataset measuring African governance performance through a wide range of 81 indicators under the categories of Security & Rule of law, Participation, Rights & Inclusion, Foundations of Economic Opportunity, and Human Development. It employs scores, expressed out of 100, which quantify a country’s performance for each governance measure and ranks, out of 54, in relation to the 54 African countries.
The 2022 IIAG Overall Governance score is 68.1 and ranks Botswana at number 5 in Africa. In 2019 Botswana was ranked 2nd with an overall score of 73.3. That is a sharp decline. The best-performing countries are Mauritius, Seychelles, Tunisia, and Cabo Verde, in that order. A glance at the categories shows that Botswana is in third place in Africa on the Security and Rule of law; ninth in the Participation, Rights & Inclusion Category – indicating a shrinking participatory environment; eighth for Foundations of Economic Opportunity category; and fifth in the Human Development category.
The 2022 IIAG comes to a sweeping conclusion: Governments are less accountable and transparent in 2021 than at any time over the last ten years; Higher GDP does not necessarily indicate better governance; rule of law has weakened in the last five years; Democratic backsliding in Africa has accelerated since 2018; Major restrictions on freedom of association and assembly since 2012. Botswana is no exception to these conclusions. In fact, a look at the 10-year trend shows a major challenge. While Botswana remains in the top 5 of the best-performing countries in Africa, there are signs of decline, especially in the categories of Human Development and Security & Rule of law.
I start with this picture to show that Botswana is no longer the poster child for democracy, good governance, and commitment to the rule of law that it once was. In fact, to use the term used in the IIAG, Botswana is experiencing a “democratic backsliding.”
The 2021 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) had Botswana at 55/ 100, the lowest ever score recorded by Botswana dethroning Botswana as Africa’s least corrupt country to a distant third place, where it was in 2019 with a CPI of 61/100. (A score closer to zero denotes the worst corrupt and a score closer to 100 indicates the least corrupt country). The concern here is that while other African states are advancing in their transparency and accountability indexes, Botswana is backsliding.
The Transitional National Development Plan lists participatory democracy, the rule of law, transparency, and accountability, as key “deliverables,” if you may call those deliverables. If indeed Botswana is committed to these principles, she must ratify the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance (ACDEG).
The African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance is the African Union’s principal policy document for advancing democratic governance in African Union member states. The ACDEG embodies the continent’s commitment to a democratic agenda and set the standards upon which countries agreed to be held accountable. The Charter was adopted in 2007 and came into force a decade ago, in 2012.
Article 2 of the Charter details its objectives among others as to a) Promote adherence, by each State Party, to the universal values and principles of democracy and respect for human rights; b) Promote and protect the independence of the judiciary; c) Promote the establishment of the necessary conditions to foster citizen participation, transparency, access to information, freedom of the press and accountability in the management of public affairs; d) Promote gender balance and equality in the governance and development processes.
The Charter emphasizes certain principles through which member states must uphold: Citizen Participation, Accountable Institutions, Respect for Human Rights, Adherence to the principles of the Rule of Law, Respect for the supremacy of the constitution and constitutional order, Entrenchment of democratic Principles, Separation of Powers, Respect for the Judiciary, Independence and impartiality of electoral bodies, best practice in the management of elections. These are among the top issues that Batswana have been calling for, that they be entrenched in the new Constitution.
The ACDEG is a revolutionary document. Article 3 of the ACDEG, sets guidance on the principles that must guide the implementation of the Charter among them: Effective participation of citizens in democratic and development processes and in the governance of public affairs; Promotion of a system of government that is representative; Holding of regular, transparent, free and fair elections; Separation of powers; Promotion of gender equality in public and private institutions and others.
Batswana have been calling for laws that make it mandatory for citizen participation in public affairs, more so, such calls have been amplified in the just-ended “consultative process” into the review of the Constitution of Botswana. Many scholars, academics, and Batswana, in general, have consistently made calls for a constitution that provides for clear separation of powers to prevent concentration of power in one branch, in Botswana’s case, the Executive, and provide for effective checks and balances. Other countries, like Kenya, have laws that promote gender equality in public and private institutions inscribed in their constitutions. The ACDEG could be a useful advocacy tool for the promotion of gender equality.
Perhaps more relevant to Botswana’s situation now is Article 10 of the Charter. Given how the constitutional review process unfolded, the numerous procedural mistakes and omissions, the lack of genuine consultations, the Charter principles could have provided a direction, if Botswana was party to the Charter. “State Parties shall ensure that the process of amendment or revision of their constitution reposes on national consensus, obtained, if need be, through referendum,” reads part of Article 10, giving clear clarity, that the Constitution belong to the people.
With the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance in hand, ratified, and also given the many shortfalls in the current constitution, Batswana can have a tool in hand, not only to hold the government accountable but also a tool for measuring aspirations and shortfalls of our governance institutional framework.
Botswana has not signed, nor has it acceded or ratified the ACDEG. The time to ratify the ACDEG is now. Our Movement, Motheo O Mosha Society, with support from the Democracy Works Foundation and The Charter Project Africa, will run a campaign to promote, popularise and advocate for the ratification of the Charter (#RatifytheCharter Campaign). The initiative is co-founded by the European Union. The Campaign is implemented with the support of our sister organizations: Global Shapers Community – Gaborone Hub, #FamilyMeetingBW, Botswana Center for Public Integrity, Black Roots Organization, Economic Development Forum, Molao-Matters, WoTech Foundation, University of Botswana Political Science Society, Young Minds Africa and Branding Akosua.
Ratifying the Charter would reaffirm Botswana’s commitment to upholding strong democratic values, and respect for constitutionalism, and promote the rule of law and political accountability. Join us in calling the Government of Botswana to #RatifyTheCharter.
*Morena MONGANJA is the Chairperson of Motheo O Mosha society; a grassroots movement advocating for a new Constitution for Botswana. Contact: socialcontractbw@gmail.com or WhatsApp 77 469 362.
Opinions
The Taiwan Question: China ramps up military exercises to rebuff US provocations
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosis visit to Taiwan has violated the One-China policy, and caused the escalation of tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Experts and political observers across the spectra agree that Pelosis actions and subsequent pronouncements by US President Joe Biden gave impetus to an already simmering tension in the Taiwan Strait, provoking China to strengthen its legitimate hold on the Taiwan Strait waters, which the US and Taiwan deem as international waters.
Pelosis visit to Chinas Taiwan region has been heavily criticised across the globe, with China arguing that this is a serious violation of the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US Joint Communiqus. In response to this reckless move which seriously undermined China’s sovereignty, and interfered in China’s internal affairs, the expectation is for China to give a firm response. Pelosi visit violated the commitments made by the U.S. side, and seriously jeopardized peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
To give context to Chinas position over Taiwan region, the history behind gives us perspective. It is also important to note that the history between China and Taiwan is well documented and the US has always recognized it.
The Peoples Republic of China recognises Taiwan as its territory. It has always been the case even before the Nationalist Republic of China government fled to the previously Japanese-ruled Island after losing the civil war on the mainland in 1949. According to literature that threat was contained for decades first with a military alliance between the US and the ROC on Taiwan, and after Washington switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1979 by the US One China policy, which acknowledges Beijings position that Taiwan is part of One China. Effectively, Taiwans administration was transferred to the Republic of China from Japan after the Second World War in 1945, along with the split between the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) as a consequence of the Chinese Civil War. Disregarding this history, as the US is attempting to do, will surely initiate some defence reaction on the side of China to affirm its sovereignty.
However, this history was undermined since Taiwan claimed to democratise in the 1990s and China has grown ever more belligerent. Furthermore, it is well documented that the Biden administration, following the Trump presidency, has made subtle changes in the way it deals with Taipei, such as loosening restrictions on US officials meeting Taiwanese officials this should make China uneasy. And while the White House continues to say it does not support Taiwanese independence, Bidens words and actions are parallel to this pledge because he has warned China that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan another statement that has provoked China.
Pelosi, in her private space, would know that her actions amount to provocation of China. This act of aggression by the USA seriously undermines the virtues of sovereignty and territorial integrity which has a huge potential to destabilize not only the Taiwan Strait but the whole of the Asia- Pacific region. The Americans know very well that their provocative behavior is deliberately invoking the spirit of separatism masqueraded as Taiwan independence. The US is misled to think that by supporting separatism of Taiwan from China that would give them an edge over China in a geopolitics. This is what one Chinese diplomat said this week: The critical point is if every country put their One-China policy into practice with sincerity, with no compromise, is going to guarantee the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Therefore, it was in the wake of US House speaker Nancy Pelosis visit to Taiwan, that China, in a natural response revealed plans for unprecedented military exercises near the island, prompting fears of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait and the entire Asia-Pacific region. The world community must promote and foster peace, this may be achieved when international laws are respected. It may also happen when nations respect the sovereignty of another. China may be in a better space because it is well capacitated to stake its territorial integrity, what about a small nation, if this happens to it?
As to why military exercises by Beijing; it is an expected response because China was provoked by the actions of Pelosi. To fortify this position, Chinese President, Xi signed a legal basis for Chinas Peoples Liberation Army to safeguard Chinas national sovereignty, security and development interests. The legal basis will also allow military missions around disaster relief, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. In addition the legal changes would allow troops to prevent spillover effects of regional instabilities from affecting China, secure vital transport routes for strategic materials like oil, or safeguard Chinas overseas investments, projects and personnel. It then follows that President Xis administration cannot afford to look weak under a US provocation. President Xi must protector Chinas sovereignty and territorial integrity, of which Taiwan is a central part. Beijing is very clear on One-China Policy, and expects all world players to recognize and respect it.
The Peoples Liberation Army has made it clear that it has firepower that covers all of Taiwan, and it can strike wherever it wants. This sentiments have been attributed to Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the PLA Navy Research Institute. Zheng further said, We got really close to Taiwan. We encircled Taiwan. And we demonstrated that we can effectively stop intervention by foreign forces. This is a strong reaction from China to warn the US against provocation and violation of the One-China Policy.
Beijings military exercises will certainly shake Taiwans confidence in the sources of its economic and political survival. The potential for an effective blockade threatens the air and shipping routes that support Taiwans central role in global technology supply chains. Should a humanitarian situation arise in Taiwan, the blame would squarely be on the US.
As Chinas military exercises along the Taiwan Strait progress and grow, it remains that the decision by Nancy Pelosi to visit Chinas Taiwan region gravely undermined peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and sent a wrong signal to Taiwan independence separatist forces. This then speaks to international conventions, as the UN Secretary-General Antnio Guterres explicitly stressed that the UN remains committed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. The centerpiece is the one-China principle, namely, there is but one China in the world, the government of the Peoples Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is a part of China. It must be noted that the US and the US-led NATO countries have selectively applied international law, this has been going on unabated. There is a plethora of actions that have collapsed several states after they were attacked under the pretext of the so-called possession of weapons of mass destruction illuminating them as threats – and sometimes even without any valid reason. to blatantly launch military strikes and even unleash wars on sovereign countrie
Opinions
Internal party-democracy under pressure
British novelist, W. Somerset Maugham once opined: If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.
The truism in these words cannot be underestimated, especially when contextualizing against the political developments in Botswana. We have become a nation that does not value democracy, yet nothing represent freedom more than democracy. In fact, we desire, and value winning power or clinging to power more than anything else, even if it harms the democratic credentials of our political institutions. This is happening across political parties ruling and opposition.
As far as democracy is concerned, we are regressing. We are becoming worse-off than we were in the past. If not arrested, Botswana will lose its status as among few democratic nations in the Africa. Ironically, Botswana was the first country in Africa to embrace democracy, and has held elections every five years without fail since independence.
We were once viewed as the shining example of Africa. Those accolades are not worth it any more. Young democracies such as South Africa, with strong institutions, deserves to be exalted. Botswana has lost faith in democracy, and we will pay a price for it. It is a slippery slope to dictatorship, which will bring among other excess, assault on civil liberties and human rights violations.
Former President, Festus Mogae once stated that Botswanas democracy will only become authentic, when a different party, other than the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) wins elections, and when the President of such party is not from Serowe.
Although many may not publicly care to admit, Mogaes assertion is true. BDP has over the years projected itself as a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of democracy, but the moment its stay in power became threatened and uncertain, it started behaving in a manner that is at variance with democratic values.This has been happening over the years now, and the situation is getting worse by the day.
Recently, the BDP party leadership has been preaching compromise and consensus candidates for 2024 general elections. Essentially, the leadership has lost faith in theBulela Ditswedispensation, which has been used to selected party candidates for council and parliament since 2003. The leadership is discouraging democracy because they believe primary elections threaten party unity. It is a strange assertion indeed.
Bulela Ditswewas an enrichment of internal party democracy in the sense that it replaced the previous method of selection of candidates known as Committee of 18, in which a branch committee made of 18 people endorsed the representatives. While it is true that political contest can divide, the ruling party should be investing in political education and strengthening in its primary elections processes. Democracy does not come cheap or easy, but it is valuable.
Any unity that we desire so much at the expense of democracy is not true unity. Like W. Somerset Maugham said, democracy would be lost in the process, and ultimately, even the unity that was desired would eventually be lost too. Any solution that sacrifice democracy would not bring any results in the long run, except misery.
We have seen that also in opposition ranks. The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) recently indicated that its incumbent Members of Parliament (MPs) should not be challenged for their seats. While BDP is sacrificing democracy to stay in power, UDC is sacrificing democracy to win power. It is a scary reality given the fact that both parties ruling and opposition have embraced this position and believe democracy is the hindrance to their political ambitions.
These current reality points to one thing; our political parties have lost faith in democracy. They desire power more than, the purpose of power itself. It is also a crisis of leadership across the political divide, where we have seen dissenting views being met with persecution. We have seen perverting of political process endorsed by those in echelons of power to manipulate political outcomes in their favour.
Democracy should not be optional, it should be mandatory. Any leader proposing curtailing of democracy should be viewed with suspicion, and his adventures should be rejected before it is too late. Members of political parties, as subscribers of democracy, should collectively rise to the occasion to save their democracy from self-interest that is becoming prevalent among Botswana political parties.
The so-called compromise candidates, only benefits the leadership because it creates comforts for them. But for members, and for the nation, it is causing damage by reversing the gains that have been made over the years. We should reject leaders who only preach democracy in word, but are hesitant to practice it.