It is a journalistic ethic and a worldwide practice to grant individuals the right of reply by newspapers to anyone who has a strong view that they may have been misrepresented, to allow them to set the records straight.
However, it seems of late a number of local publications have notoriously violated this principle with impunity when it comes to Botswana Congress Party (BCP) officials wanting to exercise this right, even on the same platforms where someone may have pulled the wool over its views and character.
This unfortunate conduct by some media houses has a potential to stain and defile the integrity and reputation of the fourth state as an important source of unbiased and balanced reporting, which is critical in a democracy such as ours. It is therefore my hope that this time around, a temptation to muffle opinion will be avoided and I will be allowed to respond to some deliberate misinformation and misconceptions about my party, the BCP, that have littered the papers since the last elections.
Denying me that right to set the records straight will be practically the same as violating an ethical standard of true journalism.â€¨â€¨Since what some commentators have called a “dismal” performance by the BCP in the last elections, there has emerged from the woods impressionists, yes, parrots, bo bokolela di tlhabane, who behave like the proverbial lunatic who has stumbled upon a whistle.
We all know how irritating a whistle in the hands of a lunatic can be. They have assumed the role of sangomas and fortune tellers who even have the bravery to prescribe what is good for the BCP ahead of its members and the more than 140 000 people who cast their vote for the party. One ingenious singer has put up a line that best describes such characters in one of her songs when she said, “go lela fela le tse di senang marole.
”â€¨â€¨One such character is a self-appointed counterfeit analyst by the name Bernard Tibone Busani who behaves like a puppy barking without purpose with his uncoordinated rumblings. He is one of the excited zealots who think that the recent performance by the Umbrella For Democratic Change (UDC) in the elections have given them some driving force to venture into political commentary. We want to respond to Busani’s consignment of balderdash.
We ignored him when he first emerged from the trench, but like the proverbial lunatic who has picked a whistle and is making himself a centre of attraction, his irritation can no longer be put up with lest it pollute the minds of the unsuspecting readers with its discordant noise.
His articles are littered with lies, inconsistencies obviously springing from the lack of knowledge of the truth. Makgoa ba re little knowledge is dangerous and that is how sneering crude characters like Busani can be if left unchecked. â€¨â€¨Busani writes, “what has been said and is the truth is that the BCP walked away from the umbrella talks because of disagreement on five if not two constituencies.
The BCP did not finish the umbrella talks, which talks they initiated and embraced”. From the above, it is either Busani is imperceptive or he is downright obtuse. He is not even sure about what was the reason why the talks collapsed yet he thinks he is qualified to charge the BCP with treason. It is Busani’s own testimony that he is not sure if there was disagreement with five or two constituencies.
He also admits that this is not what he knows but what was said. Said by who? Strangely, based on what he is not sure of, he has the bravery to incriminate the BCP. How implausible! This is indeed a gross act of academic dishonesty.â€¨â€¨The truth that Busani and his likeminded need to told is that the BCP never walked away from the talks.
The talks collapsed and a communiqué declaring the collapsed was signed by the presidents of the four negotiating parties being the BCP, Botswana National Front (BNF), Botswana Peoples Party (BPP) and Botswana Movement for Democracy (BMD), and was pronounced by the president of the BNF in full view of the public and the media.
This is not what was said, but rather what happened. It is not the hearsay that Busani and other lost souls are peddling as the gospel truth. Where does Busani pick the walking out he alleges was committed by the BCP here, if this is not a figment of his fertile imagination?â€¨â€¨
The other truth that Busani his bunch of tittle-tattlers need to know and not the things that he has heard in the dark streets is that a few hours before the umbrella one talks were pronounced as collapsed, both the BNF and the BCP, who during the talks never had any disagreements, made a joint offer to the BMD, who were in fact the problem party throughout the talks.
It is on record that the BMD rejected such an offer which had given them all but one constituency were they were incumbent, plus six other constituencies. For starters, the only constituency that BMD were incumbent then and was not included in the joint offer was Ramotswa, but in its place, the BCP had traded off Mogoditshane, a more winnable constituency than the former. â€¨â€¨
There was a reason why the BCP which Busani has already admitted is a champion of opposition cooperation and initiated the talks, wanted to hold on to Ramotswa. It will be remembered, (and Busani should listen very carefully because it will benefit him to better his engagement on issues of opposition cooperation in Botswana), after the BNF and its partner in crime, the BPP, walked out the opposition cooperation talks in 2007, BCP and the former Botswana Alliance Movement (BAM), remained at the table and agreed on a PACT arrangement going into the 2009 general election. The two parties produced a joint manifesto which was titled “The Nation at Crossroads”.
They also had one presidential candidate who at that time was Cde Gilson Saleshando. It is common knowledge the BCP-BAM pact produced impressive results, winning five seats in parliament, one seat behind the BNF who went into the election with nine seats after losing three through irrational expulsions from the twelve it had after 2004 general election, and about seventy six council seats, surpassing the BNF in this regard.â€¨â€¨Immediately after 2009 elections, the BCP and BAM agreed to merge to form a single party, the current BCP which has a cow symbol.
The merger set out preliminary conditions which were to run until the merger has fully matured. One of the conditions was that the BAM president who was then Rre Lepetu Setshwaelo shall assume the vice presidency of the new BCP. Another condition was that Ramotswa, a constituency that Rre Setshwaelo contested under the BCP ticket in 2009 and lost narrowly to the Odirile Motlhale, be reserved for him.
This was in 2010, the same year that other political developments happened such as the formation of a Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) breakaway party, the BMD after the expulsion of the late Gomolemo Motswaledi. â€¨â€¨During the talks the BMD adopted a rigid position that they wanted to be given all the constituencies that they were incumbent.
They even developed a slogan, “incumbency or nothing”, which was quite an irrational position in any negotiation where parties should be prepared for a give and take principle. Both the BNF and the BCP were able to bend to accommodate the BMD which had not contested the elections in 2009. In the case of Ramotswa the BMD was made aware of other concessions that have taken place between BCP and BAM before the talks started such as reserving Ramotswa for Rre Setshwaelo.
The BCP which had performed exceptionally well in Mogoditshane in 2009, winning three council seats and losing the constituency with a margin of less than a thousand to the BDP, was ready to trade off that constituency in place of Ramotswa. But the BMD would not take any of it and they insisted on their incumbency or nothing stance. During the impasse, at some point the labour movements through their umbrella body, were roped in to mediate, but BMD couldn’t budge.
This is what happened and not what has been said which Busani and other zealots should take and avoid peddling falsehood.â€¨â€¨It is absurd for Busani to say the BCP did not finish the umbrella talks. He fails to state at what stage did the BCP abandon the talks. Of course this is an obvious lie that has been peddled by people who seem to master the dishonourable act of lying.
It has already been demonstrated above that the talks collapsed, and the reasons were stated by the conveners, the pronouncement of the collapse was made, publicly by the BNF president, who also doubles as the UDC president and leader of opposition in parliament. Where then does Busani get the walkout by the BCP when all the evidence is there that points to the fact the talks collapsed? â€¨â€¨
We know that the UDC used the above lie as their potency enhancer and fuel in their hatred against the BCP driven “moono” slogan. Like we have said before, moono was a call to hate the BCP because the UDC believed that in order for them to gain some semblance of relevancy to Botswana politics, they should at most be second to BDP and out class the BCP at all costs, even if that comes at the expense of the credibility of some in their leadership.
The case is point is the lies they peddled around to instil fear in the hearts of unsuspecting public in the run up to election. Bed time stories such as the existence of a hit list (which they no longer talk about), allegations that Gomolemo Motswaledi was assassinated (a report which was promised, but seems to be a forgotten thing); that the BCP President was doing business with BDP members, something they failed to bring forth evidence, were all splodges that the perpetrators are ashamed to face the nation at this point to say it was just a polluted, grubby campaign strategy which it is no longer necessary to pursue since it has achieved its intended objective. But the truth is, the integrity of most of them, including at a broader sense, the organisations they represent, have been soiled beyond redemption.
They are now viewed as untrustworthy.â€¨â€¨Busani is clearly wallowing in darkness, he needs urgent help. He claims that the BCP’s grand plan was to kill the BNF when they came up with the umbrella model as a model of cooperation. Tota gatwe motho yo o tswa kae? The umbrella model was the brain child of the BMD.
The BCP had proposed the pact model which it had used in the previous election with BAM and paid off. It is a fact that after the collapse of the umbrella talks that the BCP participated in, the party wrote a letter to the BNF requesting for a formal meeting to see if the two cannot forge a working relationship since they didn’t have any differences during the negotiations.
Most BNF central committee members believed so too. But the BNF president who appeared to have other interests snubbed this gesture by the BCP. He started to play hide and seek with his own central committee. We later heard that he had been promised the presidency of the umbrella party if he can support the BMD on their incumbency stance (maybe that explains why he was never subjected to a vote to become the UDC president). There was even fallout with members of the executive committee of the BNF.
Many would remember that the BNF vice president Rre Isaac Mabiletsa, the Secretary General Cde Akanyang Magama, the Deputy Secretary General Dr Nono Kgafela Mokoka, the secretary of International Affairs, Mephato Reatile, member of parliament for Kanye North Cde Kentse Rammidi and many others, later left the BNF to join the BCP and some the BDP. If at all the BCP had any intention to kill the BNF as alleged by Busani, would the BCP have courted the BNF for further talks after the initial collapse?
The BNF president Duma Boko is on record after the collapse of the initial talks saying that he does not want to work with the BCP because the later hurt the former in 1998 and that he only wants to work with the BMD and BPP under the umbrella model (Reference: The Botswana Guardian). â€¨â€¨Down his article Busani displays his political dwarfism in a dramatic fashion. He is mottled, bamboozled and enthralling.
He lacks composure. He is illogical, lucid and grossly irrational in all manner of imagination. He lists what he purports to be truth about the BCP. But the truth is that none of what his claims are truths about the BCP comes anyway near the measure of truth. He is indeed a prophet of doom,, a political fortuity who is not known in the political analysis market place.
He senselessly asks, “Where are the shadow ministers? What was the real purpose? How do you have a shadow minister outside parliament?” Uhu! Such imbecility is amazing for someone who wants to be taken seriously. â€¨â€¨Busani believes there were no differences in the UDC and BCP manifestos.
Ao bathong! Didn’t the BCP talk about a land audit which the UDC opposed with so much vigour and instead concurred with the BDP driven LAPCAS? Didn’t the BCP talk about bringing back our jobs which the UDC through its president also opposed and instead agreed with the BDP that Botswana is not yet ready for beneficiating its minerals and other raw materials to employ the many unemployed young people? I think Busani needs to have his head examined thoroughly.
He is not in a good way.â€¨â€¨The BCP remain focussed and believes that it remain the voice of the more than 140 000 Batswana who cast their votes in its favour. The BCP will not be derailed by incoherent characters the likes of Busani, but it continues to push its message through its representatives in parliament, local authorities and outside parliament.
We shall continue talking the message of land audit; we will not relent on calling the BDP government to account. Our voice will not deem on issues of youth un-employment, the use of the mother tongue. Lastly, the BCP will never be forced into any marriage of convenience that some see as a fast lane to power, even if it means replacing the BDP with another Domkrag with a different name. We will continue to push the agenda for true transformation of this country, economically, socially and politically. â€¨â€¨
Parliament was this week once again seized with matters that concern them and borders on conflict of interest and abuse of privilege.
The two matters are; review of MPs benefits as well as President Mokgweetsi Masisi’s participation in the bidding for Banyana Farms. For the latter, it should not come as a surprise that President Masisi succeeded in bid.
The President’s business interests have also been in the forefront. While President Masisi is entitled as a citizen to participate in a various businesses in the country or abroad, it is morally deficient for him to participate in a bidding process that is handled by the government he leads. By the virtue of his presidency, Masisi is the head of government and head of State.
Not long ago, former President Festus Mogae suggested that elected officials should consider using blind trust to manage their business interests once they are elected to public office. Though blind trusts are expensive, they are the best way of ensuring confidence in those that serve in public office.
A blind trust is a trust established by the owner (or trustor) giving another party (the trustee) full control of the trust. Blind trusts are often established in situations where individuals want to avoid conflicts of interest between their employment and investments.
The trustee has full discretion over the assets and investments while being charged with managing the assets and any income generated in the trust.
The trustor can terminate the trust, but otherwise exercises no control over the actions taken within the trust and receives no reports from the trustees while the blind trust is in force.
Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) Secretary General, Mpho Balopi, has defended President Masisi’s participation in business and in the Banyana Farms bidding. His contention is that, the practise even obtained during the administration of previous presidents.
The President is the most influential figure in the country. His role is representative and he enjoys a plethora of privileges. He is not an ordinary citizen. The President should therefore be mindful of this fact.
We should as a nation continue to thrive for improvement of our laws with the viewing of enhancing good governance. We should accept perpetuation of certain practices on the bases that they are a norm. MPs are custodians of good governance and they should measure up to the demands of their responsibility.
Parliament should not be spared for its role in countenancing these developments. Parliament is charged with the mandate of making laws and providing oversight, but for them to make laws that are meant solely for their benefits as MPs is unethical and from a governance point of view, wrong.
There have been debates in parliament, some dating from past years, about the benefits of MPs including pension benefits. It is of course self-serving for MPs to be deliberating on their compensation and other benefits.
In the past, we have also contended that MPs are not the right people to discuss their own compensation and there has to be Special Committee set for the purpose. This is a practice in advanced democracies.
By suggesting this, we are not suggesting that MP benefits are in anyway lucrative, but we are saying, an independent body may figure out the best way of handling such issues, and even offer MPs better benefits.
In the United Kingdom for example; since 2009 following a scandal relating to abuse of office, set-up Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA)
IPSA is responsible for: setting the level of and paying MPs’ annual salaries; paying the salaries of MPs’ staff; drawing up, reviewing, and administering an MP’s allowance scheme; providing MPs with publicly available and information relating to taxation issues; and determining the procedures for investigations and complaints relating to MPs.
Owing to what has happened in the Parliament of Botswana recently, we now need to have a way of limiting what MPs can do especially when it comes to laws that concern them. We cannot be too trusting as a nation.
MPs can abuse office for their own agendas. There is need to act swiftly to deal with the inherent conflict of interest that arise as a result of our legislative setup. A voice of reason should emerge from Parliament to address this unpleasant situation. This cannot be business as usual.
The 490-hectare campus researches the world’s deadliest pathogens, including Anthrax (in 1944, the Roosevelt administration ordered 1 million anthrax bombs from Fort Detrick), Ebola, smallpox, and … you guessed right: coronaviruses. The facility, which carries out paid research projects for government agencies (including the CIA), universities and drug companies most of whom owned by the highly sinister military-industrial complex, employs 900 people.
Between 1945 and 1969, the sprawling complex (which has since become the US’s ”bio-defence centre” to put it mildly) was the hub of the US biological weapons programme. It was at Fort Detrick that Project MK Ultra, a top-secret CIA quest to subject the human mind to routine robotic manipulation, a monstrosity the CIA openly owned up to in a congressional inquisition in 1975, was carried out. In the consequent experiments, the guinea pigs comprised not only of people of the forgotten corner of America – inmates, prostitutes and the homeless but also prisoners of war and even regular US servicemen.
These unwitting participants underwent up to a 20-year-long ordeal of barbarous experiments involving psychoactive drugs (such as LSD), forced electroshocks, physical and sexual abuses, as well as a myriad of other torments. The experiments not only violated international law, but also the CIA’s own charter which forbids domestic activities. Over 180 doctors and researchers took part in these horrendous experiments and this in a country which touts itself as the most civilised on the globe!
Was the coronavirus actually manufactured at Fort Detrick (like HIV as I shall demonstrate at the appropriate time) and simply tactfully patented to other equally cacodemonic places such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China?
THE FORT DETRICK SCIENTISTS’ PROPHECY WAS WELL-INFORMED
About two years before the term novel coronavirus became a familiar feature in day-to-day banter, two scientist cryptically served advance warning of its imminence. They were Allison Totura and Sina Bavari, both researchers at Fort Detrick.
The two scientists talked of “novel highly pathogenic coronaviruses that may emerge from animal reservoir hosts”, adding, “These coronaviruses may have the potential to cause devastating pandemics due to unique features in virus biology including rapid viral replication, broad host range, cross-species transmission, person-to-person transmission, and lack of herd immunity in human populations … Associated with novel respiratory syndromes, they move from person-to-person via close contact and can result in high morbidity and mortality caused by the progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).”
All the above constitute some of the documented attributes and characteristics of the virus presently on the loose – the propagator of Covid-19. A recent clinical review of Covid-19 in The Economist seemed to bear out this prognostication when it said, “It is ARDS that sees people rushed to intensive-care units and put on ventilators”. As if sounding forth a veritable prophecy, the two scientists besought governments to start working on counter-measures there and then that could be “effective against such a virus”.
Well, it was not by sheer happenstance that Tortura and Bavari turned out to have been so incredibly and ominously prescient. They had it on good authority, having witnessed at ringside what the virus was capable of in the context of their own laboratory. The gory scenario they painted for us came not from secondary sources but from the proverbial horse’s mouth folks.
CDC’S RECKLESS ADMISSION
In March this year, Robert Redfield, the US Director for the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told the House of Representatives’ Oversight Committee that it had transpired that some members of the American populace who were certified as having died of influenza turned out to have harboured the novel coronavirus per posthumous analysis of their tissue.
Redfield was not pressed to elaborate but the message was loud and clear – Covid-19 had been doing the rounds in the US much earlier than it was generally supposed and that the extent to which it was mistaken for flu was by far much more commonplace than was openly admitted. An outspoken Chinese diplomat, Zhao Lijian, seized on this rather casual revelation and insisted that the US disclose further information, exercise transparency on coronavirus cases and provide an explanation to the public.
But that was not all the beef Zhao had with the US. He further charged that the coronavirus was possibly transplanted to China by the US: whether inadvertently or by deliberate design he did not say. Zhao pointed to the Military World Games of October 2019, in which US army representatives took part, as the context in which the coronavirus irrupted into China. Did the allegation ring hollow or there was a ring of truth to it?
THE BENASSIE FACTOR
The Military World Games, an Olympic-style spectrum of competitive action, are held every four years. The 2019 episode took place in Wuhan, China. The 7th such, the games ran from October 18 to October 27. The US contingent comprised of 17 teams of over 280 athletes, plus an innumerable other staff members. Altogether, over 9000 athletes from 110 countries were on hand to showcase their athletic mettle in more than 27 sports. All NATO countries were present, with Africa on its part represented by 30 countries who included Botswana, Egypt, Kenya, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Besides the singular number of participants, the event notched up a whole array of firsts. One report spelt them out thus: “The first time the games were staged outside of military bases, the first time the games were all held in the same city, the first time an Athletes’ Village was constructed, the first time TV and VR systems were powered by 5G telecom technology, and the first use of all-round volunteer services for each delegation.”
Now, here is the clincher: the location of the guest house for the US team was located in the immediate neighbourhood of the Wuhan Seafood Market, the place the Chinese authorities to this day contend was the diffusion point of the coronavirus. But there is more: according to some reports, the person who allegedly but unwittingly transmitted the virus to the people milling about the market – Patient Zero of Covid-19 – was one Maatie Benassie.
Benassie, 52, is a security officer of Sergeant First Class rank at the Fort Belvoir military base in Virginia and took part in the 50-mile cycling road race in the same competitions. In the final lap, she was accidentally knocked down by a fellow contestant and sustained a fractured rib and a concussion though she soldiered on and completed the race with the agonising adversity. Inevitably, she saw a bit of time in a local health facility. According to information dug up by George Webb, an investigative journalist based in Washington DC, Benassie would later test positive for Covid-19 at the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital.
Incidentally, Benassie apparently passed on the virus to other US soldiers at the games, who were hospitalised right there in China before they were airlifted back to the US. The US government straightaway prohibited the publicising of details on the matter under the time-honoured excuse of “national security interests”, which raised eyebrows as a matter-of-course. As if that was not fishy enough, the US out of the blue tightened Chinese visas to the US at the conclusion of the games.
The rest, as they say, is history: two months later, Covid-19 had taken hold on China territory. “From that date onwards,” said one report, “one to five new cases were reported each day. By December 15, the total number of infections stood at 27 — the first double-digit daily rise was reported on December 17 — and by December 20, the total number of confirmed cases had reached 60.”
TWO CURIOUS RESEARCH HALTINGS
Is it a coincidence that all the US soldiers who fell ill at the Wuhan games did their preparatory training at the Fort Belvoir military base, only a 15-minutes’ drive from Fort Detrick?
That Fort Detrick is a plain-sight perpetrator of pathogenic evils is evidenced by a number of highly suspicious happenings concerning it. Remember the 2001 anthrax mailing attacks on government and media houses which killed five people right on US territory? The two principal suspects who puzzlingly were never charged, worked as microbiologists at Fort Detrick. Of the two, Bruce Ivins, who was the more culpable, died in 2008 of “suicide”. For “suicide”, read “elimination”, probably because he was in the process of spilling the beans and therefore cast the US government in a stigmatically diabolical light. Indeed, the following year, all research projects at Fort Detrick were suspended on grounds that the institute was “storing pathogens not listed in its database”. The real truth was likely much more reprehensible.
In 2014, there was a mini local pandemic in the US which killed thousands of people and which the mainstream media were not gutsy enough to report. It arose following the weaponisation at Fort Detrick of the H7N9 virus, prompting the Obama administration to at once declare a moratorium on the research and withdraw funding.
The Trump administration, however, which has a pathological fixation on undoing practically all the good Obama did, reinstated the research under new rigorous guidelines in 2017. But since old habits die hard, the new guidelines were flouted at will, leading to another shutdown of the whole research gamut at the institute in August 2019. This, nonetheless, was not wholesale as other areas of research, such as experiments to make bird flu more transmissible and which had begun in 2012, proceeded apace. As one commentator pointedly wondered aloud, was it really necessary to study how to make H5N1, which causes a type of bird flu with an eye-popping mortality rate, more transmissible?
Consistent with its character, the CDC was not prepared to furnish particulars upon issuing the cease and desist order, citing “national security reasons”. Could the real reason have been the manufacture of the novel coronavirus courtesy of a tip-off by the more scrupulous scientists?
President Mokgweetsi Masisi may have breathed a huge sigh of relief when he emerged victorious in last year’s 2019 general elections, but the ultimate test of his presidency has only just begun.
From COVID-19 pandemic effects; disenchanted unemployed youth, deteriorating diplomatic relations with neighbouring South Africa as well as emerging instability within the ruling party — Masisi has a lot to resolve in the next few years.
Last week we started an unwanted cold war with Botswana’s main trade partner, South Africa, in what we consider an ill-conceived move. Never, in the history of this country has Botswana shown South Africa a cold shoulder – particularly since the fall of the apartheid regime.
It is without a doubt that our country’s survival depends on having good relations with South Africa. As the Chairperson of African National Congress (ANC), Gwede Mantashe once said, a good relationship between Botswana and South Africa is not optional but necessary.
No matter how aggrieved we feel, we should never engage in a diplomatic war — with due respect to other neighbours— with South Africa. We will never gain anything from starting a diplomatic war with South Africa.
In fact, doing so will imperil our economy, given that majority of businesses in the retail sector and services sector are South African companies.
Former cabinet minister and Phakalane Estates proprietor, David Magang once opined that Botswana’s poor manufacturing sector and importation of more than 80 percent of the foodstuffs from South Africa, effectively renders Botswana a neo-colony of the former.
Magang’s statement may look demeaning, but that is the truth, and all sorts of examples can be produced to support that. Perhaps it is time to realise that as a nation, we are not independent enough to behave the way we do. And for God’s sake, we are a landlocked country!
Recently, the effects of COVID-19 have exposed the fragility of our economy; the devastating pleas of the unemployed and the uncertainty of the future. Botswana’s two mainstay source of income; diamonds and tourism have been hit hard. Going forward, there is a need to chart a new pathway, and surely it is not an easy task.
The ground is becoming fertile for uprisings that are not desirable in any country. That the government has not responded positively to the rising unemployment challenge is the truth, and very soon as a nation we will wake up to this reality.
The magnitude of the problem is so serious that citizens are running out of patience. The government on the other hand has not done much to instil confidence by assuring the populace that there is a plan.
The general feeling is that, not much will change, hence some sections of the society, will try to use other means to ensure that their demands are taken into consideration. Botswana might have enjoyed peace and stability in the past, but there is guarantee that, under the current circumstances, the status quo will be maintained.
It is evident that, increasingly, indigenous citizens are becoming resentful of naturalised and other foreign nationals. Many believe naturalised citizens, especially those of Indian origin, are the major beneficiaries in the economy, while the rest of the society is side-lined.
The resentfulness is likely to intensify going forward. We needed not to be heading in this direction. We needed not to be racist in our approach but when the pleas of the large section of the society are ignored, this is bound to happen.
It is should be the intention of every government that seeks to strive on non-racialism to ensure that there is shared prosperity. Share prosperity is the only way to make people of different races in one society to embrace each other, however, we have failed in this respect.
Masisi’s task goes beyond just delivering jobs and building a nation that we all desire, but he also has an immediate task of achieving stability within his own party. The matter is so serious that, there are threats of defection by a number of MPs, and if he does not arrest this, his government may collapse before completing the five year mandate.
The problems extend to the party itself, where Masisi found himself at war with his Secretary General, Mpho Balopi. The war is not just the fight for Central Committee position, but forms part of the succession plan.