Connect with us
Advertisement

Political Vision and its Enemies in Botswana: the Argument against

Tedzani Thapelo

Botswana novelist, poet, historian, researcher, biographer, writer of short stories, travelogue and human rights campaigner, Teedzani Thapelo*, advances the critical argument that Vision 2016 failed principally because we failed right from the beginning of this political project to diagnose the nature and severity of our national crisis and then compounded the situation by tailoring it to subverted, blighted and meaningless public policies. To give Vision 2030 a better chance of success we should this time around try to do things the proper way. More important we should make sure political vision does not morph into a baiting gimmick for political catastrophe; blighting the fortunes and future of our children.

First things first, political vision is by tradition an intellectual inquiry into the problem of social order. It is rightly regarded as Plato’s greatest political programme, perhaps his greatest contribution to political art. Scholars are agreed about its centrality to political philosophy as we understand it today. I should, however, confess I’m rather surprised Botswana has become so much besotted with this thing.

First it was Vision 2016: Towards Prosperity for All, and we all know what happened to that little pet project. Now it’s Vision 2036: Beyond Tomorrow, Beyond the Stars. What next? Well, I suppose we should try to do something about the sociological landscape of our nation. Why not? We are a member of the global village. We have got neither our own philosophical tradition nor do we have philosophers to chart our way into the future; a future I should sadly admit, that looks rather bleak and perilous. It’s also interesting to find one’s country so suddenly head-over-heels in love with something so purely intellectual. Oh, yes, Botswana is charmed by Plato, it’s a first rate love affair!

But do we know what we are doing? No, Batswana, these vision things do not come from Government Enclave; ga se mananeo a goromente. The visions come from some obscure offices and corridors in the UN, very far away. We only talk about them here because we belong to that beastly old creature, and our political education cannot, of course, be anything but western. So let’s fall in love with this thing from the canon of Western political philosophy as we please, but I do think we should try at least to be certain we really do know what it is we are doing.

Utopian ideas can be dangerous in politics. We all know about the sparkling fire of communist rhetoric and what came of it. Look at Russia. Look at Zimbabwe. Remember what happened to Muamur Gadaffi and his little Green Book, and Mao Zedung and his little Red Book. Words that look too beautiful and too promising in politics generally lead to dangerous disasters.

Let’s hope these fantastic little visions that Government Enclave is embracing with so much romantic enthusiasm don’t take us the same road. 2036 is not very far. From Rwanda I understand Paul Kigame will still be in power. Mugabe is threatening to rule on earth and right on to heaven, if he does get past Saint Paul at the Golden Gate, and so he probably will still be around.

My eldest son who just started working in Canada will be a family man and the two little ones, Davis and Rabasi, will still be in school if they are foolish enough to spend twenty-one uninterrupted years collecting useless certificates from universities all over the world like their father did. Why, one might ask, am I saying these things? It’s because politics is a deeply personal thing. Many people don’t realize this, but there can never be thriving human life and happiness where there’s no politics.

This is why I am asking: do we know what we are planting in our political system and tradition by adding these little poetic visions into it? Are Batswana ready to contend with the Platonic vision? Are our institutions and belief systems ready for it? Do we have the resources, ingenuity and moral fortitude to see these visions through? Aren’t we baiting political catastrophe?

I am told Ian Khama sent out an eminently distinguished team of professors to teach Batswana about these things, hear their views and write up our next political vision. I can only hope these professors too knew what they were doing. Did Batswana know they were talking to Plato, the greatest philosopher known to mankind? Did they know this thing is not a joke? I can hear an impressed Motswana at Sekondomboro village lamenting, like Faust, “sweet analytics, thou hast ravished me.” Good work. Remember Faust wanted all the things that Botswana wants: prosperity, power, peace, immortality. We all know what happened to him.

Let’s hope the same thing does not happen to us. Let’s also hope our distinguished professors taught Batswana well. There must be a reason why Batswana accept these things. Much of Africa does not care about these visions. We have better things to do than excite the passions and interests of already highly restive populations is what one writer friend of mine said to me. Too cynical? I don’t know. What am I saying here? Let me explain.

A political vision is by definition not an easy thing. But we don’t have to resurrect Plato to understand what it is all about. The vision documents that have become the fundamental sub-texts of our political strategy, survival and destiny in the last twenty years, including the now discredited Vision 2016 Document, are products of a political imagination going back at least 2000 years. The original purpose of political vision as a project of political philosophy was aimed at addressing a set of perennial issues afflicting ancient civilizations.

I want to focus on only a few most pertinent ones; moral corruption and degeneration in civilization, and political decay and collapse of civilizations. Political vision sought to speak literally to these menacing concerns at certain levels; beginning, degeneration, end, and revival, as well as discernable moments of truth that could be recovered, and provide the necessary means for political redemption. In short political vision is born of political crisis.

This must sound familiar to any Motswana who has been watching BTV the last couple of weeks. Vision 2016 calls for a moral, compassionate, educated and informed, innovative and productive, safe and secure, democratic and accountable, and tolerant and united nation. The issue of pride is nothing but political jingoism and for the most part sentimental foolishness. The operative concepts for our purposes here are moral, educated, innovative and productive, and safe and secure. As for democracy and national unity these I critiqued in a recent widely published article concerning a public lecture by former president Ketumile Masire (Ref. 16-22 July, Weekend Post/15 July, 2016, Botswana Guardian).

More problematical, research shows that totalitarian regimes tend to deal with national crisis better than democratic ones; and that they often thrive and endure longer in moments of historical stress than democratic ones do under the same circumstances, sad but true enough. The issue is, however, still open to debate. Even Plato did address this issue in his famous political dialogues. To sum up, political vision always speaks to contemporary political crisis and the possibilities of political redemption. And here lies the greatest problem.

When Botswana authored this vision twenty years ago what political crisis did it seek to address? Was there any historical stress in the republic? If political crisis did exist, what political redemption has been accomplished?  I’ve already said the vision programme came from the UN; never mind what Madomkrag say. Our business was only to domesticate and own it. But did we do this thing well? I don’t think so. When this global discourse was first mooted I was a graduate student in the economics department at SOAS. I knew right away it would create policy problems for African countries and said so at our weekly student’s seminar.

To my surprise everybody present disagreed with me, arguing it was a great opportunity for Africans to rethink their politics and policy instruments. I was staggered. So far as I understood the debate what was at stake was the possible ruin of two phenomena: western civilization and the capitalist international economy. Africa’s existential problem at the time was located elsewhere: structural adjustment programmes and the debt trap. Our problem was one of underdevelopment and perennial political crisis; and that of the West, corpulent affluence run amuck, and institutional complacence.

We were failing to adjust to postcolonial modernity and trauma; and Europe struggling to adjust to globalization and the triumph of capitalism. How could we lump the two development trajectories together? I was furious, so implacably furious my thesis advisor, the distinguished Marxist-Leninist scholar and philosopher, Ben Fine, decided I should write a development theory paper on the subject for the next seminar. I can’t say I entirely convinced my classmates about the merits of my argument. But that was to be expected. I was the only African student in that seminar. But my supervisor was delighted when two years later my thesis examiner, an oxford economics professor, brought up the question on the day I was defending my PhD and intellectual integrity, and I calmly stood up and gave the don that document word for word; from nothing short of an astonished memory and anguished temper. One hour later I was awarded my doctorate and only a week later I arrived home a free man.

To my surprise I found Batswana here agog about the same vision thing. I did try to make a contribution but my proposition seems not to have sat well with better minds at Government Enclave so I let the thing run. No one can deny today the whole thing is a scandalous failure. Just look at the crisis in education, and productivity, and the problem of political intolerance. Consider the continuing radical income inequalities, and the political anxiety gripping the entire country. Are we really as safe and secure as we think? Are we compassionate? Are we truly educated? Are we prosperous? Are we democratic and accountable? Are we a moral and united nation? Did we properly diagnose the real problems facing this country twenty years ago?

Why were we so shy to talk about HIV/AIDS at the time and its possible spill-over consequences in the areas of human capital, market integration and growth? Why didn’t we worry about its decimation of the finest educated and trained professional elites this country ever possessed; the very people whose mass deaths and anguished existence was soon to orphan and traumatize an entire generation of our national youth? Why were we so coy to concede our own environmental weaknesses? Why didn’t we talk about our ruinous maladjustment to diamond liquidity capital? Why didn’t we talk about the cancer of corruption in public life? Why didn’t we worry about donor fatigue and departure? 

Why did we not talk about the yawning cultural vacuum that was already threatening to eat out our national soul and vitality at the time? And the question of national unity: why didn’t we realistically talk about the things that held us together and go out of our way to cement and solidify them while doing away with those that continue to divide us, eating at the heart of our national consciousness? Why didn’t we talk about these things? Why did we settle for empty borrowed words that were mostly irrelevant to our situation? Why did we borrow other people’s problems instead of acknowledging our own and trying to do something urgently about them? Look again at Vision 2016.

Even today we could give that blasted thing to Burundians, or the South Sudanese. They need it. We don’t; or at least we didn’t need it twenty years ago. We failed, dismally, to author our own destiny as a nation and a people in 1997, to seek political redemption to the crisis facing us at the time, and what a missed opportunity. We have got fewer resources today, fewer friends in the international community who really count for something, and we have got far less energy and fire in us. It’s terrible the way things are going on in this country.

But maybe we still have a chance. I see now Ian Khama has just received the Vision 2030 Document. Once again its origin is the UN, and Western philosophical disquisition. I said it was compiled by Botswana’s finest intellectuals. Well, I won’t step on their decorated feet this time. I do see, however, the UN has this time diagnosed our national crisis fairly well; social and human development, sustainable growth, and environmental protection. Yes, governance, peace and security as well. This is all proper. International relations have changed profoundly in the last twenty years. The mandate of political philosophy is now somewhat different; thanks to the third wave of globalization, the forth industrial revolution in the West, the crisis of capitalism and the 2008 world recession, climate change and crazy imans in the Middle East. In general, right now we are not a safe world. Botswana must share these extraordinary and extreme concerns and these things must be reflected in our political agenda and calendar.

But what really is our current national crisis? How should we seek to explain our contemporary politics?  And what are the possibilities of political redemption going into the future; to 2030? These are issues that require serious research and rigorous analysis. I see the professors tasked to prepare this document had clear terms of reference; to mobilise Batswana to define their national dream and aspirations, to review background materials on the subject, to produce a document built from national consultation and consensus. I am sure the experts did this competently.

What baffles me, though, are the questions put to Batswana. The kind of country they want to see built by 2030? The kind of person a Motswana should look like in terms of social standing in 1930? The first question is open to too much irrelevant waffling. The second, well, one would have to look for something between Darwin’s evolution of species theory and Dickens’s Great Expectations. It’s a most singular question to put to any person; and ridiculous questions always get ridiculous answers. This is the major problem with Batswana. We never take ourselves seriously.

I remember the questions for Vision 2016. They were just as bad. I don’t even care if these questions-God forbid!-come from the UN as well. They are bad research questions. Then; what should be done to accomplish this dream? A good political question, but the who part is suspect. Why not how, given our poor work ethic, diminishing resources, education crisis, the malice of nature on the land, possibilities for political caprice, etc.? That way you enter the province of political philosophy where the political vision project originates.

Political vision presupposes ideological purpose. It is a symbolic character of human activity. It speaks to the philosopher’s city that is at work. It presupposes rule by those who profess to know the ground of justice. It implies the end of tension between truth and politics. It is rooted in the dilemmas and social tensions of society and the disillusioning experiences of a known and lived world (Ref. my article The Trouble with Botswana: a poet speaks, in 15 July, 2016 vol. 33, No. 106, Mmegi and subsequent publication). In some cases it originates from the failure of political experience. It is a therapeutic vehicle for the possible failures of nationhood and human civilization.

It seeks answers to the problems of human order and historical existence. It is key to the fundamental understanding, not only of human beings, but of the world as well. Its greatest concern is the problem of social order and man’s relation to his natural resource base; the environment. It seeks and desires to create a cultural world that conditions historical existence. For man it seeks perfect orientation and intellectual disposition, and politics, the authority to order society. Its creative transformation draws power and strength from agreed upon political symbols. It is, in the poetic language of Heidegger, the house of Being; a beautiful thing. But like all things beautiful it is not immortal. It can be destroyed with deliberate vehemence which, sadly, I believe, is what happened to Vision 2016.

What is required for a political vision to succeed? I refuse to answer this question. It would be the height of arrogance to try to tutor the best and brightest at Government Enclave, and a possible invitation of unnecessary personal harm and humiliation. But I do think Batswana know exactly what it is they ought to do.

First, identify the national crisis to be addressed, and then go all way out to seek political redress. Word of advice, take heed of the wise words of that great poet, the author of Paradise Lost, John Milton; “there is no art that has been more cankered in her principles, more soiled, and slobbered with aphorizing pedantry than the art of policy,” and all will proceed well, bearing in mind, of course, all the time, that politics imply a certain idea of man, and not always a good idea.

 

Continue Reading

Columns

STRESS TEST

14th December 2022

We have come a long way from the 19th century, when mental un-healthiness was not recognised as treatable. In those days mental health problems were viewed as a sign of madness, warranting imprisonment in often merciless and unhygienic conditions; and with that backdrop you would think twice before calling in sick because of stress or admit feelings of hopelessness or depression but that’s changing. That may sound like good news but it’s not.

Reasons why employees don’t show up for work can vary, but one thing is for certain; an organisation relies on its staff to get things done and when employees don’t show up for work it disrupts organisational plans, takes up the valuable time from management and lowers the company’s productivity. It’s always been that people miss work for several reasons, some understandable and legitimate and others less so but it’s important that we know the reasons so that such situations can be better managed.

Today stress is one of the most common causes of long-term absence and is especially prevalent amongst office-based staff. This is also related to absence due to depression or anxiety. Is this indicative of where we are as a society, a sign of the times which is that people are constantly pressurised and have less work-life balance?

The British Museum houses a tablet which provides a peek into work-life balance in ancient Egypt. It documents how many sick days and why 40 workers took time off from their workplace in 1250 BC. All sorts of fascinating reasons have been given for why people were away from their work, including a note about someone named Buqentuf, who needed time off for embalming and wrapping the corpse of his dead mother.

There were other reasons like some workers, such as a man named Pennub, missed work because their mothers were ill.  Others had causes that we wouldn’t expect to hear as often today, such as men who stayed home to help around the house due to a “wife or daughter bleeding” – a reference to menstruation. But no mention of mental health, not because it didn’t exist, but it wasn’t labelled thus not reported.

What was reported was a person such as Aapehti who was said to have been ill on a regular basis and also took time off when he was “making offerings to god”.  Workers also took days off when they had to perform tasks for their superiors – which was apparently permitted in moderate amounts. For example, Amenmose was allowed time away from work when he was “fetching stones for the scribe:  And what about other employees who had to excuse themselves from work to brew beer, an activity which was associated with some of their gods and rituals.

All fascinating stuff which provides insight into life at that time. But what insights can we gather from today’s sick leave records? One study recently undertaken gives us insight into the UK police force’s absenteeism. Figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from police forces in the UK showed that the number of days absent due to mental health problems increased by 9% in one year, from 457,154 in 2020 to 497,154 in 2021.

And here is the shocker. Police have taken a record 500,000 days off due to mental health issues. Zoe Billingham, a former police inspector, suggested there was a greater prevalence of mental health issues among emergency services, due to what they faced during the pandemic of coronavirus. “Police and other frontline services have protected us during the pandemic,” she said. “The pandemic was a great unknown. People were really scared of dying and coming into contact with the virus, and a lot of people did.”

It is a ‘mental health epidemic’ among police. Alistair Carmichael, Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: “Frontline police officers do an incredible job serving their communities. But we know that the stress of policing can take a heavy toll on the mental health of officers, in some cases leading to burnout.

Let’s look at another group. A poll by Gallup reported that in the last three years, 75% of young adults aged 18–22 have left their jobs because of stated mental health reasons. This study showed that employees (millennials and Gen Z) want employers who care about their wellbeing. Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity;  inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation:  Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.

 

The real story here is not that burnout, stress, depression and anxiety are becoming the number one reasons for absenteeism but that for a large part they are preventable. We have the data telling us it’s the problem but still organisations are doing very little to proactively manage it. Sure, we have counselling services for staff who are struggling and wellness days to reinforce feelings of wellbeing, but this is not enough.

If we start caring and developing work cultures that do not create unintentional stress through how work gets done, that will go a long way to change the status quo. Simple things like ensuring your culture doesn’t thrive on fire drills and heroics to get things done and that emails do not come with expected responses after hours or over the weekend. If we can stop managers bullying, yelling or losing their cool when there is a performance or customer issue and begin giving people more control over their work – all of these are the kinds of stuff that contribute to weakened mental health and absenteeism.

To sum up, your staff’s stress levels are directly proportional to your business’s absentee levels.  Ergo, lowering the former, will also reduce the latter.  Stress down, productivity up and everybody wins out.

QUOTE

Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity;  inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation:  Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.

 

Continue Reading

Columns

Diana Irks Queen

14th December 2022
I

In September 1978, General Atiku, Princess Diana had enrolled for a cookery course. That same month whilst she was staying at her parents’ home in Norfolk, her friends innocently asked about the health of her father  John Spencer, the 8th Earl. Hitherto, the Earl’s health had never been a matter of concern but Diana somewhat inscrutably voiced a somewhat portendous outlook. “He’s going to drop down in some way,” she said.  “If he dies, he will die immediately;  otherwise he’ll survive.”  

It came to pass,  General. The following day, the telephone bell rang to the news that her father had collapsed in the courtyard of his Althorp Estate residence and that he had been rushed to a nearby hospital after suffering a massive cerebral haemorrhage. The medical prognosis was bleak:  Earl Spencer was not expected to survive the night. Writes Andrew Morton in Diana Her True Story: “For two days the children camped out in the hospital waiting-room as their father clung on to life. When doctors announced that there was a glimmer of hope, Raine [second wife] organised a private ambulance to take him to the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in Queen Square, Central London, where for several months he lay in a coma.”

Raine was so fiercely protective of her beloved husband that she had the nurses see to it that his own children did not come near him in this critical condition in his elitist private room.  ‘I’m a survivor and people forget that at their peril,” she would later tell a journalist. “There’s pure steel up my backbone. Nobody destroys me, and nobody was going to destroy Johnnie so long as I could sit by his bed – some of his family tried to stop me – and will my life force into him.” But if Raine had steel in her, General, so did the implacable Spencer children, more so the eldest of them all.  “During this critical time,” Morton goes on, “the ill feeling between Raine and the children boiled over into a series of vicious exchanges. There was iron too in the Spencer soul and numerous hospital corridors rang to the sound of the redoubtable Countess and the fiery Lady Sarah Spencer [the Earl’s firstborn child] hissing at each other like a pair of angry geese.”

As Diana had correctly predicted, her father was not destined to die at that juncture but healthwise he was never the same henceforth. First, he suffered a relapse in November that same year and was moved to another hospital. Once again, he teetered on the brink. He was drifting in and out of consciousness and as such he was not able to properly process  people who were visiting him, including his own daughters when nurses relented and allowed them in. Even when he was awake a feeding tube in his throat meant that he was unable to speak. Understandably, Diana found it hard to concentrate on the cookery course she had enrolled in a few days before her father suffered his stroke.

But Raine, General,  was determined that her husband survive come rain or shine. Morton: “When his doctors were at their most pessimistic, Raine’s will-power won through. She had heard of a German drug called Aslocillin which she thought could help and so she pulled every string to find a supply. It was unlicensed in Britain but that didn’t stop her. The wonder drug was duly acquired and miraculously did the trick. One afternoon she was maintaining her usual bedside vigil when, with the strains of Madam Butterfly playing in the background, he opened his eyes ‘and was back’. In January 1979, when he was finally released from hospital, he and Raine booked into the Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane for an expensive month-long convalescence. Throughout this episode the strain on the family was intense.”

Altogether, Earl Spencer had been in hospital for 8 straight months. The lingering effects of the stroke left him somewhat unsteady on his feet when he escorted his daughter down the aisle at St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1981 for her marriage to the Prince of Wales.

 

R.I.P. EARL SPENCER

 

It was not until March 29, 1992, General, that Earl Spencer finally gave up the ghost. He was admitted in hospital for pneumonia but what killed him days later was a heart attack. Rumours of his death actually began to make the rounds the day before he passed on. At the time, Diana was on a skiing holiday in the  Austrian Alps along with  her estranged hubby Prince Charles and their two kids William and Harry.

When Diana was told of her dad’s death, she insisted that under no circumstances would she return to England on the same flight as Charles, with whom she was barely on talking terms. “I mean it, Ken,” she told her body minder Ken Wharfe. “I don’t want him with me. He doesn’t love me – he loves that woman [Camilla]. Why should I help save his face? Why the bloody hell should I? It’s my father who has gone. It’s a bit bloody late for Charles to start playing the caring husband, don’t you think so?”

Naturally, General, Charles was alarmed, particularly that his efforts to use one of his right-hand-men to reason with the Princess had been rebuffed. He therefore  prevailed over Wharfe to try and ram sense into his wife. “Lord Spencer’s death was a major news story,” writes Ken Wharfe,  “and if the Prince and Princess did not return to Britain together then nothing, not even compassion for the grief-stricken Diana, would stop the journalists from going for the jugular. The truth about the Waleses would be immediately and blindingly obvious to the most naive journalist … Returning to the Princess’s room, I told her bluntly that this was not a matter for debate. ‘Ma’am, you have to go back with the Prince. This one is not open for discussion. You just have to go with it’.’’

At long last persuaded, General, Diana said, “Okay Ken, I’ll do it. Tell him I’ll do it, but it is for my father, not for him – it is out of loyalty to my father.” But what in truth got Diana to change tack was the intervention of the Queen, who personally called her at Charles’ own request. That, however, General, was only as far as Diana was prepared to play ball: as far as engaging with Charles in conversation was concerned, that was simply inconceivable. “There was an icy silence for the rest of the two-hour journey,” writes Wharfe. “Nothing was said during the entire flight. The Princess did not want to speak to her husband and he, fearing a furious or even hysterical outburst, did not dare even to try to start a conversation. Whatever the discomforts of the journey, however, it was soon clear that the PR spin had worked. The next day it was reported that Prince Charles was at Diana’s side in her hour of need. Yet as soon as the Prince and Princess arrived at Kensington Palace they went their separate ways – he to Highgrove, and she to pay her last respects to her father.”

Lord Spencer was 68 when he died. He was a remote descendant of King Henry VIII.

 

PRINCE CHARLES FINALLY OWNS UP TO ADULTERY WITH CAMILLA

 

In June 1994, when Diana and Charles had been separated for exactly one-and-half years, Prince Charles was interviewed in a BBC documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby. The interview was billed as intended to mark Charles’ 25 anniversary as Prince of Wales but it was in truth a not-to-cleverly-disguised riposte to Diana Her True Story, the highly controversial 1992 collaboration between Diana and Andrew Morton.

In the interview, which was watched by 13 million people, Charles, General, openly admitted for the first time that he had committed adultery with Camilla Parker-Bowles, who he hailed as, “a great friend of mine who has been a friend for a very long time and will continue to be a friend for a very long time”. Diana had been requested to feature in the interview alongside her husband but she parried the overture on the advice of her aides, which was spot-on as she would have been greatly embarrassed by her hubby’s unsavoury confession in her own face and on national television.

The Prince’s candid confessional was followed weeks later by a book titled The  Prince of Wales: A Biography, which was written by the same Jonathan Dimbleby. The book was even frankier than the interview. In it, Charles put it bluntly that she had never once loved Diana and that he married her only because he was coerced into doing so by his  notoriously overbearing father. Charles also made it known that as a child, he had been bullied by his abusive father, virtually ignored by his mother, and persecuted by a wife he portrayed as both spoiled and mentally unstable.   Both Diana and his parents were revolted by the bare-knuckle  contents of the book though Dana need not have been irked considering that it was she herself who had fired the first salvo in the Morton book.

 

BASHIR INTERVIEW BODES ILL FOR DIANA

 

If Diana’s collaboration with Morton was a miscalculation, General, Prince Charles’ Dimbleby interview was equally so. For in November 1995, the wayward Princess hit back with her own tell-all interview on BBC’s  current affairs programme called Panorama. “She wanted to get even with Prince Charles over his adulterous confession with the Dimbleby documentary,” writes Paul Burrell, her final butler, in A Royal Duty.

The interview was conducted by journalist Martin Bashir who was attached to BBC, and was watched by 23 million people,  conferring it the distinction of having attracted the largest audience for any television documentary in broadcasting history. In the interview, Diana voiced concern about there having been “three of us in this marriage and so it was  a bit crowded”, the intruder obviously being Camilla. Diana also gave Charles a dose of his own medicine by confessing to her own adulterous relationship with James Hewitt, of whom she said, “Yes, I adored him, yes, I was in love with him”. Hewitt had at the time documented his affair with Diana in lurid detail in a best-selling book and Diana thought he had ill-conceivedly stabbed her in the back.

And as if to rub salt into the wound, General, Diana cast serious  doubts on her husband’s fitness to rule as future King and therefore his eventual accession to the British throne.   Unfortunately for her, the interview sealed her fate  in so far as her marriage was concerned. “In her headstrong decision to co-operate with Bashir,” says Burrell, “she had never considered, perhaps naively, the implications that Panorama had for her marriage.” Indeed, just four weeks after the interview, the Queen, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote personally to both the Prince and Princess of Wales requesting that they divorce sooner rather than later.

It was a dream-come-true for at least two parties to the triangle, namely Charles and Camilla. But did it also constitute music to the ears of Princess Diana too, General?

 

Pic Cap

SOWING THE WIND ONLY TO REAP THE WHIRLWIND: Martin Bashir interviews Princess Diana in a BBC documentary which aired on Monday 29 November 1995. The interview incensed the Windsors: the following month, Queen Elizabeth ordered Charles and Diana to sever matrimonial ties. In her vengeful resolve to hit back at her husband following his own interview the previous year, Diana had foolishly sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

NEXT WEEK: DIANA REVERTS TO SINGLENESS

Continue Reading

Columns

Rights of an Individual in Islam

14th December 2022

Islam is a way of life completed and perfected by the last and final Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Holy Quran along with the practical teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) forms the basis of Islamic law, social, economic and political systems of Islam – in short the basis of a complete code of conduct for the entire life of a Muslim

Regrettably in this day and age there are certain views in non-Muslims that have a very negative ‘view’ of Islam. The bottom line is that if a Muslim says that two plus two is four, others can ‘argue’ to say three plus one is four, or two times two is four or the square root of 16 is four. The bottom line is no matter what we may think we all are ‘correct’. The fact is that we are all on this earth for a ‘limited’ time. Regardless of beliefs, tribe, race, colour or our social standing in life, we will all die one day or the other and we will “all” be called up thereafter to answer for our behaviour, beliefs, and our life on this earth.

To a Muslim the Holy Quran is the Divine Revelation which is all encompassing and lays down in clear terms, how we should live our daily lives including the need for humans to allow fellow humans certain basic rights at all times. Due to the limited space available I can only reflect on some of the major fundamental rights laid down by Islam:

Right to life

The first and foremost of fundamental basic human-rights is the right to life. “Whosoever kills any human being (without any valid reason) like manslaughter or any disruption and chaos on earth, it is though he had killed all the mankind. And whoever saves a life it is though as he had saved the lives of all mankind” (Quran Ch5: v 32). It further declares: “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law” (Quran Ch6: v 151). Islam further explains that this sacrosanct right to life is not granted only to its adherents (believers), but it has been granted to all human beings without consideration of their religion, race, colour or sex

Right to Equality 

The Holy Quran recognises equality between humans irrespective of any distinction of nationality, race, colour or gender. “O Mankind We have created you from a male and female, and We made you as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognise each other (not that you may despise each other). Indeed the most honourable among you before God is the most God-conscious”. (Quran Ch49: v 13). The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) further explained this: “No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab…… You are all the children of Adam and Adam was created from soil”. If there is any superiority for a man it is based on his piety, righteousness, sense of responsibility and character. Even such a person with these noble qualities would not have any privileged rights over others.

Right to justice

Allah Almighty has bestowed on all human beings, believer or non-believer, friend or foe the right to justice.  The Holy Quran states: “We sent our messengers with clear teachings and sent down along with them the Book and the Balance so that society may be established on the basis of justice” (Quran Ch 57 : v 25). It further says “O Believers stand for the cause of God and as witness to justice and remember that enmity of some people should not lead you to injustice. Be just as it is nearest to God consciousness” (Quran Ch 5:v  8 ). This makes it obligatory that a believer must uphold justice in all circumstances, including to his enemies.

Right to freedom of conscience and religion

The Holy Quran clearly mentions that there is no compulsion in accepting or rejecting a religion. “There is no compulsion in (submitting to) the religion” (Quran Ch 2 : v 256). Every individual has been granted basic freedom to accept a religion of his or her choice. Therefore no religion should be imposed on a person.

Right to personal freedom

No person can be deprived of his or her personal freedom except in pursuance of justice. Therefore there cannot be any arbitrary or preventive arrest without the permission of duly appointed judge and in the light of a solid proof.

Right to Protection of Honour

Every person has been ensured basic human dignity which should not be violated. If someone falsely attacks the honour of a person the culprit will be punished according to the Islamic Law. The Holy Quran says: “Do not let one group of people make fun of another group”. It further states: “Do not defame one another”, the Quran goes on to say: And do not backbite or speak ill of one another” (Quran Ch 49  : v 11-12).

Continue Reading