analysis
In her October 20 AfricaPlus essay - "Democracy Derailed? Botswana's Fading Halo" - Amy Poteete provides a critical assessment of democratic institutions and practices in this southern African country. She contends that in Botswana, a stellar democratic and economic performer since independence in 1966, corruption and mismanagement are increasing. The abuse of governmental authority, she claims, reflects "the absence of effective checks on executive power". Poteete criticizes the shift from "cooperation to coercion" under President Ian Khama and the long-ruling BDP (Botswana Democratic Party).
John Holm, a senior scholar of Botswana government and politics, responds to Poteete's contentions. We publish this important debate - including remarks on the October 2014 parliamentary election and post-election disputes - which should be read in conjunction with Poteete's initial essay.
John Holm's Rejoinder
Amy Poteete's excellent essay makes a good case for the increasing authoritarian and violent context of Botswana politics. However, one wonders if it goes too far. The ruling party, from the beginning, has always made extensive use of state resources in election campaigns.
Ruling party politicians always increase their speaking in kgotlas (the tradition-based assemblies), for instance, as an election approaches.
Outrageous statements by both government and opposition parties are a common element of Botswana campaigns. Many Batswana go to campaign events simply to enjoy the humor of very bad behavior by local cultural standards. And, since the founding of the independent government, it has harassed private newspapers with frivolous legal cases and withdrawal of journalists' travel documents.
Other parts of the author's discussion are not really relevant to the quality of the country's democracy. Automatic succession did not impact the October 24 election, though it could in the next one. Even then, it is a "legal" advantage for the ruling party and not something which places the party or its leader "above the law".
The fact that the President cannot be sued personally has a limited impact on what the President can or cannot do. The Botswana courts can still limit government actions, as they have in a number of cases.
Moreover, there is little evidence that the freedom of the President from litigation is significant for most election/democratic realities.
See the article here:
Botswana: Botswana Democracy On Course or Derailing?