By: Theko Tlebere
This week I would like to continue with the cult of the conspiracy of retiring Vs recalling, simply because the ideal phenomenon that I would like to bring home is for young people to understand fully some of the underlying concepts of politics. For this series I will make a clutch on some key concepts, giving their meanings and how the political world has erupted when it comes to retiring and recalling. I have looked at a few examples in our political spectrum with a main focus on the American political history, and it was with the sole hope that it will be a very interesting conundrum for the young people.
First allow me to begin by conceptualizing some of the key terms that I will be using for the rest of today, retire according to its literal dictionary meaning is to stop doing your job, especially because you have reached a particular age or because you are sick. In most instances it is a voluntary task but in the political context leaders are forced to retire depending on the issue on table. While recalling would simply mean to ask for somebody to be returned, often because there is something wrong with that person. Surely we should all adjust that before the Second World War Prime minister Chamberlain Neville had to be recalled because during the 1930s, Chamberlain’s professed commitment to avoiding war with Hitler resulted in his controversial policy of “appeasement,” which culminated in the Munich Pact (1938).
Although contemporaries and scholars during and after the war criticized Chamberlain for believing that Hitler could be appeased, recent research argues that Chamberlain was not so naive and that appeasement was a shrewd policy developed to buy time for an ill-prepared Britain to rearm. After the British debacle in Norway, he was forced to resign in May, 1940. It is very important to note that, at that particular time the basic reason for his recalling was his fear to take the responsibility of war against Hitler, and the nation started doubting this strong man.
The analogy in the above paragraph is simply meant to unwind the elementary factor of making decisions that are meant for the masses. My fervent hope is that we can be able to conceptualize the anatomy in our own country more especially in the instance of our former Prime Minister Thabane and how he was removed. It is still very debatable whether his removal was for the nation or rather a political move meant to safe his own a** or that of his political party. A defacto ambush could be that it doesn’t matter how he was removed but and why but rather if his removal would save the country in some way.
Like I said earlier my examples will linger more towards the political history of the Americans, hence another autopsy on one of my best ever Presidents of the US President John F. Kennedy indicates that he was assassinated not recalled. It is very sad phenomenon that most of us do not want to tap into but most political leaders, and sometimes civilians have died politically. Here in Lesotho the prominence of death that I remember so well is that of Ntate Selometsi Baholo, who also died or rather was brutally killed in the menace of our politics. For the sake of not triggering old wounds allow me for today to keep our focus on Kennedy.
Being one of the best and renowned Presidents of America of his times Kennedy was killed for a number of reasons, the president was killed by those who wanted the United States to become actively involved in the Vietnam War. Another theory holds that Kennedy was killed because he failed to help the Cuban exiles in their 1961 attempt to invade Cuba and overthrow the Communist government of Fidel Castro. And still another theory claims that, because he did not destroy Cuba in the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, he angered anti-Castro factions and so was slain. Another theory involves the president’s relationship with his brother when Robert Kennedy was attorney general. Robert was a relentless foe of organized crime. The only way to stop the attorney general was to kill the president. That’s what some investigators think.
It must come to our concern that the two political leaders I have talked about have a common astrology in terms of how they were both removed from their positions. First chamberlain was naive to attack Castro yet that was what the people of the UK wanted, this just shows that not obeying the nation’s commands leads to serious downfall. Kennedy also did not fight Castro, sadly he was killed. Not that I condone political deaths but once a leader could not listen to the nation he was bound to face problems. Emphasis must be put that he was also blamed for nepotism which called for forensic acts of maladministration which included a lot of scandals of women being mentioned and taking the high waves… The future is Now!!
….to be continued