   |
|
afrol News, 7 November - As the Batswana this weekend were asked eight questions in a national referendum to amend the Constitution, only 5 percent bothered to answer. "It's a boycott," yell those opposing the questions. The government says it has to respect those few voting and go ahead with the amendment. To the cunning poll question "Do you agree that the designation of High Court Judges as 'PUISNE JUDGES' be altered to 'JUDGES'?" (question 1 from Botswana's 3 November referendum), 16,558 voted "yes" and 5.016 voted "no". All questions received approximately the same vote in favour of change. Only on question 5, which definitively was understandable (if "the retiring age of the Judges of the High Court and Court of Appeal should be increased from 65 to 70?"), voters showed an independent opinion. 11.737 voters were in favour, 9.999 voters against. Understanding the purpose of the referendum indeed was not easy. The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) failed to present the case in a clear language. Its most understandable definition of the upcoming referendum was that it "proposes changes in the structure and conditions of service of the judiciary in Botswana." Breathtaking? In addition came a political/judicial turmoil whether the referendum was legal at all. After successfully pressurising President Festus Mogae to postpone the referendum from 6 October to 3 November, the controversial youth organisation Pitso Ya Batswana dragged the President before the courts over the referendum, saying its postponement was illegal. The organisation this week lost its case, Lobatse High Court, Justice Horn demonstrating his irritation about Pitso Ya Batswana's strategy of confusing the voters. He observed the strategy was meant to cause embarrassment to the government and said despite advice from Attorney General, Mr Phandu Skelemani, to seek judicial arbitration as early as possible so as to cause minimal disruption to the referendum Pitso Ya Batswana "deliberately delayed launching their case so as to create last minute panic, confusion and uncertainty," 'The Botswana Gazette' reported. Observers claim the dispute over the poor-understood referendum boils down to tribalism. The Khalanga people, which constitutes only 10% of Botswana's population, has achieved to occupy a non-proportional part of the most senior positions in the Judiciary and Justice administration of the country at the expense of the majority Batswana people. Pitso Ya Batswana, in reality pursuing Batswana nationalist goals, thus has believed the referendum was an exercise designed by Khalangas to advance their own interests and nepotism. As the Khalanga community for decades has invested more in educating their children than the Batswana, several referendum questions about higher qualification demands for judges were seen in a tribalist perspective. The Batswana press must also take its part of the responsibility for the extreme low turnout. A quick review of Botswana's press the last month shows no signs of explaining the purpose of the confusing referendum to the national public. On the other hand, government officials, lawyers and NGOs were commenting the legality of the referendum, though not commenting its content. Alienated by the public debate about the referendum's legality and the diffuse questions, a solid majority of Botswana's population staid at home on 3 November. Reverend Rupert Hambira, President of the Botswana Christian Council, however made capital of the low turnout, claiming "The people have spoken by not going to vote," at a press briefing yesterday. Hambira said the small turnout of people at polling stations showed that people were either confused or were against the said changes. "If the changes were not so emergent why should the government hurry to change the Constitution when there is still confusion amongst the people?" Rev. Hambira asked, according to 'The Botswana Gazette'. In an interview today with 'The Botswana Gazette' the Minister of Presidential Affairs and Public Administration, Thebe Mogami, says government will go ahead with the proposed constitutional changes nonetheless. "The referendum was the basis of changing the constitution, and we will do just that," said Minister Mogami. Mogami told The Gazette according to the law, government has to go forward based on the results of those that came out to vote. "We gave everybody a chance to participate in the proposed changes through a referendum. Many chose not to vote, which is their constitutional right. But as government we have an obligation to those who voted no matter how few. We cannot be so irresponsible as to disregard those that voted," said Mogami.
|
