UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND
 A F R I C A N S T U D I E S I N S T I T U T E
 African Studies Seminar Paper
 to be presented in RW
 4.00pm FEBRUARY 1973
 Title: Political Parties in Botswana - Some Observations
 by: John Wiseman
 No. 006
University of Manchester
 Department of Government ..-"'
 y GIUiDUATE RESEARCH SBMINAH
 Thursday, February 15 1 9 7 3 ' a t 2 .15 p.m. i n The S t u d i o
 POLITICAL P I T I E S 1:3 BOTS^ fiNA - SOME OBSERVATIONS
 by John A. Wiseman
 Perhaps I could begin by stressing the tentative nature of the
 paper which I shall be presenting to this seminar. In the main this
 is due to the inadequacy of source material, relating to Botswana,
 available in Britain. The country is small (in terras of population)
 and poor, a situation which does not encourage the generation of much
 in the v/ay of primary material, especially outside the governmental
 sector. With one or two exceptions the secondary material concerning
 Botswana seens to be based on the promise that the most important
 factor concerning the country is its relationship with the rest of
 Southern Africa. Thus it is regarded as a rather small p?.wn in the
 wider struggle with usually little more than a cursory glance at its
 internal politics. I am at the moment planning a trip to Botswana
 for the purposes of fielc*. work later in the year, but for the present
 I acknowledge that there are serious gaps in the ptiper I shall put
 before you. In most cases I shall attempt to point to the o&issions
 myself. In spite .of this I believe that the paper may be of interest,
 not only to those few who have a particular interest in Botswana, but
 to the much wider number who accept that the study of new states is
 of vital relevance to our understanding of politics.
 This account rejects the notion of any "single explanation" of
 the party system in Botswana: it rejects single variable determinism
 or even dominancy as a core explanatory factor. Thus it regards as
 simplistic any attempt to use one variable (e.g. tribe, class, region
 etc.) as a sensible method of understanding the nature of political
 parties or their interactions, analytically positioned as "party
 system". What is more, this account argues that the sane method
 cannot be usod to explain all the parties, even after allowance has
 been made for different content variables. The Botswana Democratic
 Party is both qualitatively and quantitatively different fron the
opposition parties. The 3-D.P. is and always has been since independence
 a governing party, and in the context of Botswana governing party and
 opposition party are two entirely different social entities (this, of
 course, is not to argue that this should or will always be the case -
 in dealing with a state like Botswana the brevity of the time scale
 represents an inescapable problem and limitation). I wish to explain
 support for opposition by regarding 3.D.P. support as a behavioural
 norm for Botswana. Thus support for opposition parties can be seen
 as deviancy from a given norm. I then wish to argue that in the case
 of each individual opposition party, the basis of support, and hence
 of deviancy from the posited behavioural norm, is due to a single
 y
 fairly coherent set of grievances against the B.D.P. government
 performance in which I include the subjective expectations regarding
 "future performance. Furthermore, it is crucial to see that in each
 opposition party the set of grievance^ is.quite different from the
 set of grievances in any of the others and that the only common factor
 in these "sets" is dissatisfaction with the B.D.P, Hence no single
 common variable exists for opposition parties in Botswana other than
 the tautological one that they oppose the B.D.P. government.
 Although we are explaining opposition parties by reference to
 the Democratic Party, this does not mean that the B.D.P. is regarded
 solely as an independent variable. The relationship between the B.D.P.
 and the opposition parties is two way and the latter affect the
 former's structure, j)Olicies and so on. Also we need to relate all
 parties to factors in the environment (in a svstemic sense). It
 is in this sort of cross-referential examination that some understanding
 of process can emerge (to add depth to this form of analysis we need
 to view parties as Apter suggests, as intervening, independent and
 dependent variables within the political system - see David Apter
 ?The Politics of Modernisation^),.
 However, having qualified my overall explanation in this way,
 it is necessary to point out that the relationship between the B.D.P.
 and the opposition is causally asymmetrical. That is to say the B.D.P.
 determines the nature of the opposition parties more than vice versa.
 Of course the B.D.P. does not "control" the overall political situation
 and must react to stimuli in the physical and social environment.
 Of course these stimuli in the sense of inputs of demands may contradict
 one another and it is the inability or unwillingness of the B.D.P. to
- ???
 resoond to certain stimuli in the desired way which is posited as
 the "cause" of the opposition. The 3.D.P., of course, have since
 independence haU a major say in the constitutional rules under which
 party conflict is conducted, lit a higher level the B.D.P. exercise
 a pivotal influence in defining the political struggle. If I may
 be polemical, I wish to argue that for Botswana to continue as a
 nation in anything resembling its present fora the B.D.P. must
 continue to rule at least in the near future. I am seriously
 suggesting that if the B.D.P. were removed from the political scene
 in Botswana, the nation state would cease to exist such is the
 weakness of the forces of fusion and the strength of the forces of
 /T\\ fission outside the U.D.P.. The Democratic Party leaders are
 aware of this. Thus it is not rhetoric, or at least it is not
 only rhetoric for the D.D.P. Manifesto to state, "above all, it is
 for the people to judge whether any other political grouping can be
 entrusted v/ith Botswana's destiny at this critical moment in our
 history." (Botswana Denocratic Party: Election Manifesto 1969, printed
 by Botswana Press (Pty) Ltd., Industrial Township !lafeking). (Before
 I am accused to value prejudices in favour of a system maintenance,
 I should add that I ma}:e no judgement as to whether or not the D.D.P.
 or Botswana ought to continue in anything resembling their present
 states.)
 Thus in the 1969 Election ^ the choice in any individual
 constituency was between B.D.?. and B.N.F. or B.P.P. or B.I.?, (in
 no constituency did the B.D.P. fall below second place), but at the
 national level the choice was B.D.?. or nothing in the sense that it
 was extremely doubtful that any other party could have forced a workable
 government. Nor would any other party have the power to maintain
 national unity by the use of coercion.
 Of course up to this point we have treated the 3.D.P. as a
 homogeneous unit which intuitively we know it not to be. It has,
 however, been free, so far, from any najor factional splits and
 defections which since independence have always been from opposition
 parties to the Democratic Party. Also the B.D.P. makes a real
 attempt (and a fairly successful one) to appeal to all sections of
 political opinion in Botsv/ana as opposed to being based on a single
 set of grievances. One might evan say that the I3.D.P. attempts to
 respond to the aspirations of the different groups in the population
and crucially to shape and channel those aspirations. Certainly it
 is aware as a governing party that there is some need to strive for
 sotae unattainable equilibrium of forces. In practice these
 aspirations may contradict one another so that the ruling party
 cannot respond positively to both. It can then try to mediate,
 suggest compromise or persuade the actors that the contradiction
 does not exist, but in the long run it will be necessary to come
 down on one side (for the cynic "the art of leadership lies in
 judging whose hand may be safely slapped when it reaches for the
 pork barrel so that there will be enough to satisfy those whom it
 is not safe to exclude" - in P.G. bailey, "Strategeras and Spoils").
 This wil^ normally be legitimised as being "in the national interest".
 The "truth content" of this legitimisation will vary from case to
 case. However, when Dentley argued that "the national interest is
 rather a form of argument used by party members than a characteristic
 of party tendency" he was probably betraying the weakness of a group
 theory which can recognise only sectional interests (A./^ ~ Dentley,
 "The Process of Government"). From one perspective of course the
 Democratic Party can be seen as an existential collection of groups>>
 interests, grievances, aspirations, prejudices, beliefs and so on,"*
 but from another it can be seen as a national party in a way that as
 yet the opposition parties cannot. Central to this is that the D.D..P,
 define the arena of possible political conflict as the nation and
 force opposition to place the emphasis of polemic in the conceptual
 boundaries of nation state. a brief example of this can be the
 struggle with the chiefs, although this v/ill be dealt with in far
 more detail in the paper. We may say that there exists a variety
 of sets of values and procedures which we may label "traditional
 systems" providing we recognise at least some element of dynamism.
 Before independence we can see these as being largely self-contained.
 Although there was some contact at the elite level/ these systems
 existed in and for a defined parochial environment. However the
 existence of the B.D.P. government and its actions and intentions
 concerning the relationship between the traditional systems and
 national ideals has forced these traditional ideas to be made
 manifest on a national scale and thus has defined the overall
 framework for conflict. The Rouse of Chiefs provides a
 constitutional channel for this to take place, although individual
chiefs who find this method unacceptable can resort to other means.
 The most notable example was of course the resignation of Chief
 Bathoen of the Bangwaketse, but it is crucial to note that Dathoen
 was forced to enter the national party political arena to continue
 the struggle. Thus the Democratic Party can be said to have forced
 the chiefs to argue their case at a national level and have thus
 defined the acceptable political arena as tho nation state.
 In the paper I shall discuss the four political parties
 individually, although at all times the stress will be on the
 interactions both with each other and with the wider political
 environment. One of the problems of listening to a paper which
 deals with an unfamiliar country is that the listener often becomes
 confused by the multitude of people and organisations which are
 mentioned. In the case of my own paper I feel this would especially
 apply to those members who are relatively unfamiliar with Setswana
 names. I shall therefore conclude with a short list of the main
 participants etc. which 1 hope may enable people to follow more
 clearly what I have to say.
 The country is Botswana
 The people are Batswana
 An individual is a. Botswana
 The language is Setswana
 Parties
 B.D.P. ~ Botswana Democratic Party
 ?(/? B.P.P. - Botswana Peonies Party
 ^, B.N.F. - Botswana National Front
 {?? D.I.P. - Botswana Independence Party
 Important Individuals
 Seretse Kharaa - President and leader of the D.D.P.
 Quett Masxre - Vice-President
 Motsamai Mpho - Leader of B.I.P.
 Dathoen Gasoitsiwe - Formerly Chief Bathoen of the Hangwakstse now
 leader of the D.N.F.
 H. Vane - 3.N.F. M.?. for Kanye Worth
 P. Tshane - B.N.F. M.P. for Ngwaketse-Kgalagadi
 Kenneth Koma - Important B.i-J.F. figure (not to be confused with
 G. Koma B.D.P. M.P. for Mahalapye)
 Daniel Kwele - One-tine leader of Z3.N.F.
 Philip Matante - Leader of D.P.P.
 T.W. Motlhaqodi - 3.P.P. M.P. for Mochudi
 K.M. Nkhwa -"Tirp.P. M.P. for Tati West
 Chief Linchwe of the Dakgatla - One-time opponent of the government
 ************