What is the role of the judiciary in our law: Makers, Translators, Interpreters or misinterpreters of the law? Part 1
Opinions
Row has erupted in the country (Botswana) when, on the 26th of September 2015, His Excellency ,the President Lt Gen Ian Khama, suspended a quartet of Judges on allegations of having concurrently occupied government houses and undeservedly received accommodation allowances for a considerable period of time.
Suggestions from some quarters are that there is need to make arrangements to pay back the money as the matter is purely administrative and a mere blunder on the part of the staff at the department of Administration Of Justice. In that sense, to borrow Shakespeare‘s words, the judges are more sinned against than sinning’ (‘King Lear’ Act 5 scene 2 lines 57 -60).
Begging to differ, other people are of the opinion that this anomaly is nothing but a tip of the proverbial iceberg of what is happening behind the scenes within the judiciary and therefore contend that nothing short of a deterrent measure will right this wrong.
But what does the constitution say about that development?
Section 97 of the Botswana Constitution provides for grounds and procedures to be followed religiously for the removal of judges of the High Court
‘A judge of the High Court may (and not shall) be removed from office only for inability to perform the functions of his or her office (whether arising from infirmity of the body or mind or any other cause or for misbehavior, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with the provisions of this section’ (subsection 2) and subsection 3 reads: ‘If the President considers that the question of removing a judge of the High Court under this section ought to be investigated then:
(a) He or she shall appoint a tribunal which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two other members, who hold or have held high judicial office.
(b) the tribunal shall enquire into the matter and report on the facts thereof to the President and advise the President whether the judge ought to be removed from office under this section for inability as aforesaid or for misbehavior’
Subsection 4 provides that if the tribunal advises the President to remove the judge concerned he (the President) shall dismiss that judge.
As can be seen, the wording of the constitution is quite clear but what differs is the interpretation and that is the center of the debate. For example, what is misbehavior? and how can it be quantified? Unfortunately, the constitution does not have the interpretation section to define the word and it will be up to the Judges, and not President, to decide the meaning, using their own viewstandards given the value-laden or normative nature of the concept. But why this panic given that section 10 of our constitution presumes everyone innocent till proven guilty?.
This writer‘s interest liest not in the debate on whether or not His Excellency has acted ultra-vires the Constitution but on: who really makes the law, the politician or judge? Are judges translators, interpreters or mis-interpreters of the law?
Before addressing these emotive questions we need to refresh our minds by getting into the bible and then link our discoveries to the topic in question.
When Jesus Christ was rejected at Nazareth,’ he could not do might works – because of people ‘s unbelief” This is Mark ,the evangelist, ‘s version (Mark 6:5).After having noted that this presentation was not only unintelligible and absurd but was bound to leave a sour taste in the mouths of the early Christian community, Matthew sugar-coated it to read ‘— He could not do many might works – ‘(Matthew 13:58).
It is in this context that Matthew is regarded a modified version of Mark whose language was rough and ready and riddled with grammatical slips and peculiar construction of various description .In the process, he ended up confusing both the reader and himself due to his failure to put himself across effectively.
As can be seen, Matthew ended up totally changing the complexion of Mark’s story through the insertion of the word ‘many’. In a related development ,Mark portrays James and John ,the sons of Zebedee ,as very ambitious people who went to Jesus demanding for the lion ‘s share in the kingdom of God (Mark 10:35-45)but Matthew exonerates them by saying it was their mother who did so(Matthew 20:20-28).
The two separate occasions by Mark reflect the weak or dark side of both our Lord, Jesus Christ Himself, and two of his inner circle disciples, the former succumbing to anger while the latter are over-ambitious. No doubt, at the back of his mind, Mark did not intend to bring about this result but due to lack of education and stunted intellectual and linguistic prowess, he unwittingly produced that effect.
What makes the situation worse is that the meanings of words are neither fixed nor final but vary according to the context in terms of time, culture etc. Just like the concepts deviance and beauty, which lie in the eyes of the beholder, the meaning of a word is influenceddetermined by what the reader would want it to mean.
I am sure that those into socio-linguistics will support my contention that words do not have meanings but we give meanings to words and words are just symbols to represent phenomena. Also, words are a social convention which we use to express our thoughts. For example, a table could be something else but we call it such for convenience‘s sake.
This equally applies for what we write.As humans continue indulging in a social intercourse some words become obsolete while new ones come into picture and this is also influenced by the ever-changing socio-political ,economic and environmental situation obtaining at any given time.
Do you still remember ,for instance, the archaic Shakespearean or Chaucer ‘s English?Also, do you remember how those with the poetic license can easily combine and recombine ,in a very unique way, ordinary words,into new expressions ,in as much the same way as man can combine and recombine objects into new devices?
The above scenario compares very well with the cor-relationship between the legislators and thejudges and, how through statutory interpretation, judges totally stray away from what Parliament meant, by creating sense into the legislature’s nonsense, and this leaves us doubting who between the two arms of government, the legislature or the judiciary ,is the supreme law making body. This task naturally leads us to the doctrine of separation of powers which we briefly delve into.
The term Separation of powers, which was coined by Montesquieu, the French philosopher, is the formal division of the 3 arms of government in the following manner: structure, function and personnel. The issue of checks and balances is also an integral aspect of this concept. With regards to structure, we mean the 3 arms exist as distinct entities and not one.
As an illustration, Parliament (legislature) is distinct from the Executive and the Judiciary. In terms of personnel, a member of one arm of government should not double cross it with the other arms as in being a Member of Parliament, a judge and a member of the Executive at the same time.
Their functions (duties) are markedly different also: Parliament makes the law, which we call a statute or Act of Parliament such as the Employment Act, the Public Service Act or the Penal Code; the Judiciary interprets that law so that it becomes crystal clear while the Executive applies and enforces the law.
This concept ensures that there is specialization and specialization brings about operational efficiency and effectiveness. Again, following the adage power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, we are trying to guard against a situation where power is concentrated in one bodyarm as it will be subject to abuse.
By checks and balances we mean one arm should act as a monitoring mechanism to check the abuse of power by the other arm. In political science we use the concept trias politicas doctrine for separation of powers and its antonym is fusion of powers.
The concept ‘fusion of powers’ is designed in such a way that the 3 arms do everything jointly as was the case with monarchs during primitive times: the king was lawmaker (legislature) ,interpreter (judiciary)and enforcer(executive).This was the also the case with Moses(Deuteronomy 16:18,numbers 18:13)
Without getting into the heart of legalese, the law comes into being through the initiative of the politicians in both the legislature and Executive. Meaning through the hands –on- approach ,the Executive arm eg the Ministry of Education initiates a Bill (proposed law)governing that department and it is taken to the August House for debating .If it succeeds the Bill becomes law and this becomes so after the Presidential Assent and subsequent publication in the Government Gazette.
Of course, the Attorney General, who is the principal legal adviser to the Legislature, also plays a role since in most jurisdictions he is the ex-officio Member of Parliament. We also have the Parliamentary legal committee which, in my view, must consist of people with legal minds so that some loopholes on the Bill are detected early and rectified before it graduates into law. As a monitoring mechanism again, the President, who is the embodiment of the constitution would not assent to a Bill that is ultra-vires the constitution. On that basis, one can safely conclude that it is Parliament, and not the judiciary, that makes the law.
When members of Parliament make the law it is not in their individual capacity but on behalf of the electorate and, as such, that law must prevail, even if unreasonable? This is what democracy is all about! But is it really legislators who make the law?
When a case has found its way in court, the courts have the duty to apply that law in concrete situations and this is achieved through the interpretation of statutes. In this exercise the court will be trying to bring to light the intention of Parliament.
What is interpretation, as opposed to translation? To interpret is to form an opinion from given facts or deduce the implication of what someone says. Translation, on the other hand, refers to merely reducing or converting one language into another eg from Setswana to English.
For example,preachers in Church are involved in interpretation of the word and people usually get locked up in disputes over an interpretation of the same words in the bible.(At times ,however, translation is involved if the bible has been written in a foreign language).
In as much the same way, judges are always arguing over the interpretation, and not translation, of a statutory provision, as we saw above. On that basis ,it is actually a misnomer, if not a mischievous misrepresentation of the facts, to refer the court personnel in charge of converting one language into another to as court interpreters but, instead, translators.
If they were interpreters what would be the duty of the court? It is for the same reason that even witnesses are not allowed to interpret but simply state the facts as they are without forming an opinion!Judges give meanings to written words presented to them by Parliament through an Act.
Unfortunately the authors of that document are mostly laypersons who do not have the slightest idea about the characteristics of a good law and are not even available in court to clarify what they meant. In the light of a lapse of time all the authors of that statute might be dead ,just like Shakespeare must be turning in his grave and mourning as he hears in his spiritual ear mis-readers or mis-interpreters of his writings.
Tragic as it sounds, he cannot do anything to change it. Tough luck again, because in any society that lays claim to the espousal of democracy, everyone, and judges included, is entitled to his own opinion, whether bad or good. As noted above, judges are not translators but interpreters of the law.
In the process of interpreting statutes, judges employ various tools or aids, both intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic ones are those within the statute itself such as the long and short title, headings and the preamble. Those outside the text are the extrinsic aids and they include the historical background surrounding that statute eg it was crafted against the background of Apartheid.
This information could be drawn from textbooks and other pieces of literature. Dictionaries could also be referred to and even the Hansard. Judges also make use of cannons, maximums, and presumptions and, of course, the rules of interpretation which are the Literal, Golden and Mischief rules. Another guiding principle is the purpose of the Legislature.
In a word, this article defined the concepts separation of powers, translation and interpretation of statutes and concluded that it is, on the face of it, Parliament which is the supreme law making body. We also realized that it is only the court(judges) which has the powers to interpret ,and not translate, the law since we have court personnel that is involved in the translation. We managed to browse through possible reasons why the interpreter (judge) might give words a different meaning from what a writer (Parliament) intended.
Next week we shall get into the rules of interpretation and see how judges depart from what Parliament intended and, in the process, make their own laws ,laws never envisaged by the legislature ,or misinterpret the law either deliberately or by accident. In the oncoming epistle, again, we shall also try to map the best way forward .Bie .See part 2 of this discussion next week
Email: maniareturns@gmail.com ckungws@gmail.com
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.