Connect with us
Advertisement

Rethinking Botswana Politics in the 21st Century: Whats to be done?

Teedzani Thapelo

Researcher, historian and award winning writer, Teedzani Thapelo* situates Botswana politics in the context of Western anxieties about public life, security, and happiness, and asks the critical question: in the world of Trump, Brexit, mounting terrorism, and climate damage, how should we do our politics? How best can we secure our public goods, and future? Should we allow BDP to continue creating commitments, and connections, that work against the people they represent; monstrous entanglements that work against the public interest, and the future of the country? How best can we handle our external relations? Bad politics, Thapelo says, can only lead to ruin, and it might be time students, intellectuals, and workers, started seriously taking it upon themselves to equip the public, and politicians, with ideas necessary to survival in our time.

  

 

I must point out I have only ever worked as a herd boy, researcher, academic and writer. Politics is something I am just drifting into as I enter the evening of my life. This, I suppose, is only natural. People my age worry about the future of their children, and this concern generally manifests in several ways, principal among which is the direction the country, and its public affairs, are taking.

The security, and success, of our children, is contiguous with that of the country they live in, grow in, prosper in, and eventually die in. This is something that old timers like me understand perfectly well. This, I suspect, is the reason why it is so easy for political parties to take old people to polling stations. Serious political parties understand our fears, and concerns. After years of taking personal responsibility for those you love, it is hard not to love the country they live in as well. There really is not that much difference between your country, and your home.


Any harm that comes to your country is likely to hurt you at home as well. We also know the damage people inflict on children at home eventually spills out into society in one way or the other. Nobody needs Freud to understand this simple fact. The other thing, of course, is the simple fact that as elders we are also driven by an abiding sense of nostalgia, and gratitude;

the exasperating wish that no matter how bad the odds, no matter how hard life becomes, no matter how complicated things get, and no matter how confusing the circumstances of our fragile human condition, we have a moral duty to preserve, and, improve that which gave us so much happiness, and excitement to our fading lives, and the oppressing regret, that we did so little with the possibilities open to us to build a better country, a better society, for our children.

It is not an easy thing to be a man my age. We have experienced so many things, seen so much, we know so many things, it is hard to contain all these things in the bosom of weakening hearts, and aging brains; oh, life, oh, life. Old people are great philosophers, and perfect psychologists. As we grow, we learn things along the way; the real world is our finest university. Only a few fools fail to realize this obvious fact. But I have never suffered fools in my life. Interest in politics presupposes one thing; concern about public policy.


I really do think politicians should understand this connection. Most of them don’t, and this is frequently reflected in the emptiness of their political rhetoric, and diatribes. Politics derives substance from two sources; human interaction with the natural world, and human experience of reality. I don’t want to go deeper than this but I must point out that good politics adds great value to community, and social life, and to the confidence, strength, and quality of national life. It is a recipe for great good in society.

Yes, many politicians are just greedy villains, but politics is essentially an art of conscience; a terribly fascinating art. It is through politics that we learn first-hand the complexity, and ambiguity, of both social systems, and human nature. Politics is both literature, and human life, writ large, both drama, and reality; it is the font of human existence, and both rich, and poor, worship at the same shrine in politics. This explains the origins of the parliamentary system; even democratic culture itself.
 

I sincerely do believe that politics can be a force for tremendous good, and that it has the potential to enrich everyone in the world. But I draw the line at arbitrary, and often disingenuous, efforts to internationalize the mantra of globalized political federation, especially when it comes to poor, small, and young, republics like Botswana. There are universal political values that we all admire, and adhere to, but all of us articulate, and domesticate, them differently.


There is nothing wrong, per se, with international standards, and expectations in politics, but everything wrong with applying the same haphazardly, and imperiously, on all and sundry, to the exclusion of local contexts, and concerns. Politics is, by nature, a very dynamic social and psychological force. It is the driving energy of social and national life. It should never be conceived as a universal abstract concern, for the simple reasons it is not.

We have different cultures, and religions, and we live in completely different natural habitats. Our politics can never be the same all the time, and all over the world. In conceptualizing politics, ecological, and behaviour, contexts matter a great deal. I am speaking to the real world, and the solutions, it daily proposes for its troubles. As a historian and enlightenment advocate, I seriously doubt the necessity to radically rethink the global political system as it has evolved since the end of the war in 1945. We tried this with the cold war, and failed. In other parts of world, such efforts have led to terrorism, and wars;


especially in the Middle East. Besides, this system, particularly its human rights, and environmental justice cultures, has benefited humanity spectacularly. It is also important to note developments, like Brexit, and the election of Trump, have just added more anxiety about this revisionist posturing; what the media calls the rise of native populism. My concern is with small countries, Botswana, in particular. How should we do our politics in the twenty first century?

How should we do our economics? What is best for us? What is likely to harm us? What is likely to benefit us? I think we should enter this debate from this direction. Let us not blindly copy what other people are doing elsewhere. This just will not get us anyway. Let us do things our own way. Some may say but, Teedzani, this is exactly what we have been doing, but I beg to differ, vociferously.
 

Let me explain. The dawn of the previous century, thanks to the failure of internationalism, was bathed with blood, and mass deaths, right from the beginning, and some of us were born at the height of its most puzzling madness. That is now behind us. Our own age opened with both great hope-thanks in part to the controversial workings of globalization-and serious crisis, thanks again to the mixed blessings of the same phenomenon. Politics has never been more fascinating.

This is not surprising, given the number of people now allowed to have a voice in the art of politics; close on five billion human souls, a most staggering human experience in history. For all the past centuries, politics was largely a closed art, the preserve of way less than 1% of the number of people who lived on planet earth.

Just imagine that! By the end of the nineteenth century little Britain alone controlled three-quarters of our earth, possessing colonies, and dominion subjects, in every continent in the world, and where the British flag flew in the skies only propertied, well-educated British males voted, and everybody else, man or woman, black or white, young or old, obeyed British imperial diktat without raising a voice every day of their miserable lives on earth.
 

In less than a hundred years we have managed to bring more than 70% of earth inhabitants into political life. Is it any wonder politics itself is now rapidly changing as an art of managing human and environmental affairs? I think not. The people shocked, at the recent political experiences in the America of Trump, Brexit, Islamic terrorism, and the frightful political horrors in Africa, are people who have no sense of history, no knowledge of modern human experience. Look at the financial crisis of 1997 and 2008;

both of which eventually engulfed the whole world. Look at climate change. Look at the coming of freedom to African peoples. All these things have happened before but they happened in a different world, a fragmented and much smaller world, a world though occupied by many people, remained nothing more than isolated pockets of human islands, most of which knew nothing about each other.

Today thanks to integration of global markets, rising education standards, low communication, and transportation costs, the wide opening of political markets, the world has become completely different, much more complex, and sophisticated, and though in many ways still a small world, the expectations of all who live in it are now more pronounced, and the resources are becoming more strained under the pressures of ballooning populations; and this is a world we are still trying to figure out how best it can be managed. Is it any wonder our political lives are so turbulent?
 

In past centuries three subjects obsessed mankind; philosophy, theology and science. In our own time science, unsurprisingly, retains its place in the minds of scholars because broadly it is the source of all human life. God has failed so many people it really is no surprise theology is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Politics, and economics, both of which descend from philosophy and history, have now conquered human imagination.

It is these two disciplines that presently have the force to either help us create paradise on earth, or drive the entire human race, and planet earth itself, to ruin, and extinction. The sad thing is, not many politicians, and economists seem to realize this. Yes, technology, and nuclear science, are just as potent, but if they are going to ruin, and end human life, that would be the result of political decisions made by people who should have known better. It is not the first time in history that human beings have possessed weapons of mass destruction. In the end, it is how we use them that really matters.
 

Politics on the other hand is a different phenomenon altogether. If I had my own way, nobody would go into politics without a firm grasp of the potential for politics to either build, or destroy, societies. But then we live in changing times, and democratic culture, which so many clamour for, and so few really understand, dictate that all must have a say in their fates, and destinies. I really have no problem with that. What bothers me is the ignorance that characterizes political discourse, and practice, especially in Africa, and more troubling here in Botswana.

What I am going to say in this article will, no doubt, shock many in this country, and please a few. But I don’t mind sticking out my head for the truth. The subject of contention here must set a lot of minds to great reflection, and I have no doubt, it will generate a lot of debates. That is good for our democracy. To succeed as a nation, and a people, we need to be honest with ourselves. This is what the New Politics of our time is all about; raw truth, and honesty.

Good education, travel, television, internet connectivity, and cellular phones, now assure that billions of people have first-hand knowledge of how the real world works. The world of research is now wide open to billions of people. In much of the modern world ignorance is now a matter of personal choice. Things are still, of course, different in Africa were millions are struggling daily to get into school, to put food on the table-if they have one-and just to make it through the day. Such experiences abound here in Botswana as well, but in all honesty we are doing much better than other Africans.


As a matter of fact, we really could be doing excellently by now, but both our politics, and economic lives, are rotten, and for that we only have ourselves to blame. The fact that we openly admit our mistakes, and failures, I take to be a sign we are ready, and willing, to correct them, to put things right. People in opposition politics are clearly prepared to take this road. At BDP they are still in denial. They see themselves as national heroes, and heroes don’t make mistakes, heroes don’t fail.


What a load of nonsense! The reality is that people at BDP are scared shitless. They fear not only for their future lives, but also for the promises, and commitments, they have made to others, to outsiders, and worse, the crimes they have committed against the people, and the state. They fear enemies they invited, and continue to bring, into the republic. In life we are free to choose our friends. If such friendships eventually hurt us, then we have only ourselves to blame.
 

But people who hold political office by public mandate have no right to create friendships, and political commitments, and connections, that work against the people they represent; monstrous entanglements that work against the public interest, and the future of the country, things that may completely change the face, and spirit, of Botswana, as we know them today, to the detriment of not only Batswana, but the entire land as well.

Batswana gave BDP the privilege to govern but not destroy Botswana, and Batswana. This much I must make clear. Good governance has the potential to benefit everyone in the country. Bad politics, and misguided economic policy, on the other hand can only accomplish one thing; national ruin. BDP rule needs to be radically rethought. The way we are governed is very troubling. I lived in Britain under the premierships of Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and Tony Blair, and every time a serious economic or social issue threatened public lives, and national security, you would be excused to think bees were trying to create their hives throughout England.

Every time reform was proposed in education, social security, transport, labour, wages, nationalization or privatization of public utilities, even bankruptcies of large private employers of labour like multinationals, or mergers of the same that might threaten workers, and public welfare, and safety, there would be a great deal of buzz, and intellectual, bellowing throughout Westminster, the City of London, Oxford, Cambridge and the Midlands.

Students and professors equipped with terrific ideas would march in the streets prescribing solutions. Workers would join them, armed to the teeth with their own fantastic solutions, and politicians, all of whom have offices stuffed with the finest researchers in the land, would have a hard time just trying to be heard by any side of the protagonists. Political constituencies would rise in revolt, demanding to be heard, and every hour or two freely sweating politicians from both sides of the House of Commons would be forced to appear on TV channels desperately defending their positions on the issue. Voters in Britain always voice their concerns on all public issues.
 

In the end a solution would be found, probably not suitable to everybody, but I always noted people were satisfied they had been heard, and if the solution recommended turned out to be too costly, unworkable, or even more of a threat than was expected, it would be brought down, torn to pieces, and another road taken. I know how democracy functions in civilised society. I have since lived in Canada, South Africa, and Sweden, and here public issues arouse just as much interest, and debate.

But in Botswana, well, I don’t even know what to say. Try to talk to a politician about bankruptcy law, or educational reform, and he will refer you to his permanent secretary, who in turn will refuse to talk to you, or refer you to a foreign consultant whose advice they frequently seek, and the latter will appeal to confidentiality clauses; you just can never get anywhere. Such matters only interest a few unionised workers, and journalists, who, in reality, are the only people daily engaged in democratic process, and struggles, in this country. The rest of the population cares not what happens so long as they have food to eat.
 

Many laws, and reforms, in public life, pass unchallenged because the majority of Batswana do not think it their business to engage in public affairs. Most of the time a few words memo from the president-acting alone-is enough to propose a solution to a complex issue like privatization of national assets, and transference of national symbols to the direct ownership of foreigners, and the matter ends there, and everybody goes out to drink beer, enjoy sex, and snore till kingdom come. Isn’t this shocking?

Worse, not one of these so-called government policies has really ever worked! It is easy to blame opposition politicians, but these committed men, and women, are terribly under-resourced, in fact they depend entirely on their brains to get any work to be done at all. They have no really well trained researchers, competent legal advisors, and their workload is alarmingly huge, comprising as it does, not only parliamentary business, but constituency services as well as family commitments.
 

In other countries brilliant university students, and professors, volunteer their services in opposition offices, or accept work as interns, helping to considerably reduce this burden, and open political, and research, careers for themselves in public life through such opportunities. But here university teachers with no knowledge of public life at all and no highly specialized, and internationally acclaimed, research background on matters of national interest, expect to be picked from their small perches in academia, and be appointed directly to parliament, or worse, cabinet. Is it surprising that many of them have failed so dismally; read Sheila Tlou and other BDP PhD holders?
 

Do Batswana know any famous researcher who has been turned up by Government Enclave? Do you know any famous Botswana researcher who comes from the University of Botswana? Why is it that all solutions to the serious problems facing our country never work? Isn’t the answer obvious? We never research our problems! We never seriously think about them. We never seriously talk about them. People just take it everything written on paper will work out in the real world. Are we really that foolish? Now here is where we err most. Two things corrode our ability to deal with national problems, even when we have resources at hand; ideology, and politics.

All my life I have noticed that decisions to deal with problems are made because of politics, and ideology. Such actions, of course, never solve the problems at hand. BDP likes doing things this way because such actions perfectly fit the beliefs, and interests, of the people in power. In short, they make policies for themselves, for their own benefit, as a political group, and the entire nation sees nothing wrong with this; the attitude is: if you can’t beat them, join them, and meanwhile, everything throughout the country goes to ruin and waste every hour of the day. Just what kind of citizens are we?
 

French intellectual Pierre Bourdieu has suggested that politicians must learn to behave like scholars, to engage in scientific debate, to look for evidence before they can engage in actions for the solutions of national problems. Well, I suppose this might work elsewhere. Probably that’s how governments now do things in their countries elsewhere.

But here where not one politician knows the meaning of the word research, and given politicians spend most of their time with witchdoctors, bathing in piglet, and chicken blood, trying to divine the least costly ways of doing away with their opponents, within, and outside, the party, this sort of thing is never ever going to work. It’s not an easy thing to live in Africa. I know BDP often involves foreign professors in making policy recommendations but these routinely get politicized.

Frequently, even good policy prescriptions are bent to fit with the ideas, and expectations, of BDP cabinet ministers, and their Indian, and Lebanese allies. Batswana are always left out, including the majority of BDP members who live in rural areas that have seen their real incomes decline by more than fifty per cent in less than twenty years. I wonder what the witchdoctors, most of who live in rural areas, think about this. Isn’t it, perhaps, time they ditched these BDP hypocrites, and start taking the side of the suffering majority?

I don’t know what the success rate for these nocturnal mumbo jumbo services are, but I don’t suppose many Batswana would mind much if these fellows started helping us to divine the least costly ways of getting rid of our useless BDP politicians. A backward economy like Botswana can easily benefit from advanced and latest ideas in applied subjects like the economics of the public sector, development, and monetary policy. I am thinking here subjects such as bankruptcy; for we should expect many failures going ahead, corporate governance, and the openness of, and access, to information.

We really ought to know how to handle such transitional transactions before we can talk about things like privatization, before we can create a really working stock market, pass, and implement, effective competition laws, and other institutions, that add value to a small growing economy. We must always get our priorities right. Put resources where they are needed most, at the right time, and for the right reasons. As things stand right now, it is obvious the legal flatulence that assaults society every other day from BDP parliament is informed by nothing else but pure political greed, and the endless demands, and expectations, of crony capitalism.
 

This is dangerous given how poor the country is. Our markets are small, and not at all competitive. Our resource base is small. Our tax base is small, and contracting. How best can we really improve the lives of our citizens? This is the simple question that should exercise the minds of our politicians; not how best can we engorge till we bust. Good economic policies have the potential to really lift thousands of Batswana from extreme levels of poverty.

Our researchers must stop picking whole ideas and paragraphs from World Bank and IMF research papers, and start seriously engaging in local empirical research in the areas of market imperfections, and failures, so that we evolve theoretical work in economics that will make our markets work for us.

We need local research work that convincingly explain things such as differences in information between workers and employers, lenders and borrowers, the insurance companies and the insured. We need to lay firm foundations for more realistic theories of labour, and financial markets, we need to know why there is unemployment, and why those who need credit often cannot get it; just simple things like that.
 

Local economic expertise must inform World Bank, and IMF research findings, and not the other way round. IMF researchers, for instance, only spend, on average, only three weeks here, reading rotten government documents, in their hotels, and then after they are gone, we turn to their stupid reports, always based on simplistic economic models, for information about how we should manage our economy. Isn’t that silly? Our own researchers live here all their lives and they need to do better than this.

Information economics, with its useful analysis of labour, capital, and product markets, is critical in the development of macroeconomic models that provide deeper insights into unemployment, and theories with strong policy implications for economic growth. We need theories which are in touch with the real world. I am just giving one example.
 

But in 2016 the Nobel Committee awarded an economics prize for contract law which means the world is really moving forward. We should be doing the same. Archaic economic models will not do us any good. We need social models that speak to the situation, and condition of Botswana.

Planet earth is changing, the environmental world is changing, global economic trends are becoming more complicated, and uncertain, and we really need to know ourselves well, to know our country, and appreciate our circumstances, and changing situation well, if we are to grow, and prosper, as a nation, and a republic. It happens, sometimes, that models developed in other developing nations may work here, but most of the time, home grown is better, and more rewarding. Stop those silly wasteful benchmarking trips, and start educating yourselves, about your own needs, and possibilities for success. That is the way forward.
 

Teedzani Thapelo*, is author of the Botswana novel series Seasons of Thunder, Vol. 1(2014), Vol. 2 (2015) and Vol. 3 (2016) and forthcoming books; Battle Against the Botswana Democratic Party: the beginning of the point of departure, Politics of Unfulfilled Expectations in Botswana: a dangerous mess, Philosophy of Death and the Ruin of Selibe-Phikwe: abandonment and revolt, The Argument Against the Botswana Democratic Party: an intellectual inquiry and Khama Presidency and Vanity Fair in Parliament: an African political tragedy.

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