...where SKI failed, he failed as a person and leader like we all do. He was never a dictator ask those who are honest and were around him and are without agendas. While he was still with us, I argued at length against him in a meeting and never got backlash- when those around asked that I stop he simply said ‘let him speak’. They know I tell the truth. That alone can not prove he was not a dictator. But it’s an anecdotal note from me to say at times what we call a dictator is a reflection of our own fears and interests- because we have hidden motives and interests we fear to speak our truth then we say we were afraid."
LAWRENCE OOKEDITSE WRITES...
[[I asked class earlier to answer to something. Class failed to submit on time. So I shall submit.
A revolutionary movement has never been the preserve of a proletariat. All revolutions were led in part by an amalgamation of classes. And yes, in politics as it is in many other spheres of life, there are no permanent friends or enemies- only permanent interests.
That SKI may be wealthy is neither here nor there. No party in this country can say it does not have wealthy people within its fold. And the shunning of wealth is part of the reason we cry Indians arrive and take over our country. Because when a citizen is wealthy we have ways to look at them as though they do not belong. Remember, Marx himself argued differential access to wealth and its possession and power, that wealth itself is a tool for dominance and attainment of political power.
Fidel Castro was born wealthy to an estate said to have employee hundreds of people. Che was upper middle class. Friedrich Engels (the old white man with white hair alongside Marx) was born into a wealthy family in the yarn and cloth industry- they owned large scale cotton mills. So wealth and revolutionaries do go together.
Back to the fallacy of a proletariat revolution anyway. Listen, a proletariat revolution will not happen. And there is no vanguard party for the revolution in this republic. MELS is long gone. Deep in the belly of the beast that is BCP. The takeover by BCP of MELS is itself instructive. BCP is a social democratic party. MELS a scientific communism movement. But they co-exist.
The UDC in form and shape is a centre of left institution. In its approach to society and economics, it is social democratic in distribution of the economy but greatly capitalist in its approach to ownership of the means of production/ doing business/accumulation.
In essence, bar issues of efficiency and maybe ethics, the UDC and the BDP are the same. Zero difference ideologically. Anyone, then, who is in the UDC who claims they can not ideologically coexist with SKI is peddling hate. Afterall, SKI in many ways is a social democrat. So, let’s find other reasons for wishing to alienate SKI.
Could the reason be in the foundation of the BNF? (See Keaoleboga Dipogiso), no. The reasons can not be. I disagree Ras. The BNF ideologue Dr Kenneth Koma made it clear over and over that the BNF is a multi organizational front whose intent is to unite disparate political organizations and interests in society to effect change. At no point does he say Kings, the wealthy and former rulers can not be welcome. At no point does the theory say leaders, the sons and daughters of leaders/feudalists/President etc can not be allowed into the front. It is a pervasion of history to argue that he at any point alluded to these. And for you who are marxists, key to Marxism is praxis right? Great.
In practice, the BNF has actually been led by feudalists before. Kgosi Bathoen was of a different class to you yet he led the party. The BNF popularity in the Ngwaketse territory is attributable to the influence of the great chief. So, we can not argue that Dr Koma had not intended for only the proletariat to lead and cooperate with the Front. That would be terrible revisionism. And it would be an unfortunate distortion of the teachings of Dr. Koma.
So what then could disbar SKI? Authoritarian. I shall call this the Kago Mokotedi theory. This should be attended to- it avers that SKI is Amin or Hitler or Eugene Terreblache (See Kago Mokotedi). I differ. This is a pervasion of reality and history. SKI was a firm but democratic leader. In theory yes everything is democratic. In reality, leadership is about making decisions. And there is no single decision that’ll ever please a whole nation. None. A decision we do not like we are conditioned to call authoritarian. So let’s not accept this revisionism that seeks to equate Khama to Amin or Hitler. It’s not true.
Where SKI failed, he failed as a person and leader like we all do. He was never a dictator ask those who are honest and were around him and are without agendas. While he was still with us, I argued at length against him in a meeting and never got backlash- when those around asked that I stop he simply said ‘let him speak’. They know I tell the truth. That alone can not prove he was not a dictator. But it’s an anecdotal note from me to say at times what we call a dictator is a reflection of our own fears and interests- because we have hidden motives and interests we fear to speak our truth then we say we were afraid. This is unfortunate and we have a duty to not allow this pervasion of history.
Live and let SKI live cdes. Embrace him. 2024 we need a strong challenge. In the end, in politics, permanent enemies and friends do not exist. What exists are permanent interests.]]