Over breakfast, Karin Alexander brims with satisfaction about the previous evening’s launch of A Fine Balance: Assessing the Quality of Governance in Botswana, the inaugural democracy index for Botswana that is an initiative of Idasa, a South African-based institute that studies democracy in Africa.
She explains that the index evolved out of a project to assess the depth of democracy in South Africa, which Idasa does every two or three years. About two years back, the organisation decided that given the success of the index in sparking debate in South Africa about the quality of democracy, other countries in the region might also find it worthwhile. It was then rolled out to four other countries, including Botswana. The index relies on expert analysis to answer a set of questions that interrogate how closely democracy meets the broad ideal of self-representative government. It also seeks to establish to what extent citizens control elected officials and government appointees who make decisions about public affairs; and how equal are citizens to one another in this accountability process. Each country is assessed through five focus areas:
participation, elections, accountability, political freedoms, and human dignity.
As the team leader of Idasa’s Measuring and Monitoring Democracy initiative, Alexander co-edited the Botswana study, but she underscores the fact that all the authors picked to contribute as well as the other co-editor are Batswana drawn from different backgrounds in civil society and academia.
Therefore, it is not a case of someone coming from outside to assess the state of Botswana’s democracy, but rather Batswana doing it for themselves ÔÇô citizens stating what they want to see done. She emphasises that the index is not a survey, but an experts’ analysis that is meant to be a discussion tool. From the South African experience, we may, indeed, brace ourselves for a season of some serious discussion ÔÇô some of it heated ÔÇô around our democracy.
“In South Africa we have had some controversy and some discussion [generated by the index],” says Alexander, pointing out that it has always been fascinating to read Idasa’s Democracy Index side by side with the Afro Barometer findings, which provide national public attitude surveys on democracy and governance in Africa.
Later this year, Afro Barometer will release its results for Botswana, and Alexander points out that “it will be interesting to see what the people say and what experts say”.
From interaction with the analyses of Batswana experts who contributed to the democracy index for Botswana, she has noted an oddity that jumps out. While Botswana has a strong record of delivery on socio-economic rights, it scores low on the legal framework because these rights are not constitutionally guaranteed. She notes that in other countries, it is the other way round ÔÇô the rights are constitutionally entrenched, but delivery is low. The problem for Botswana, therefore, is not lack of delivery but one of ensuring that if a new government ÔÇô or even the current one ÔÇô were to stop the services, there is nothing in law that would provide recourse for the affected citizens. That is where Botswana gets a lower score.
Out of a possible mark of 10 for each of the five focus areas, the highest mark awarded is 7. Naturally, one would want to know what that says about the quality of Botswana’s democracy. Alexander points out that it is hard to interpret the scores in isolation, but to read the explanation each analyst has given for the score assigned.
“I think they are saying Botswana is a stable and strong democracy,” she says. “But they are also saying that there are some problems. One of these is constitutional guarantees of some human rights. Another is the quality of participation. The most interesting about these challenges is the growing apathy among the citizens. There are avenues for participation but people do not feel that their voices are being heard.”
She extrapolates that the voter apathy in Botswana would seem to speak to the quality of participation that individual citizens feel they can exercise. This comes with the terrain because in any nation, citizens need to feel that they are not only listened to, but also heard and that they have agency in their situation because they are heard.┬á “The aim should be to deepen the quality of engagement between citizens and their elected leadership in order to ensure that citizens feel their vote leads to the election of individuals who privilege the representation of the needs of their constituents above the needs of themselves as individuals or members of a particular political party,” she states.
There is a view that says ordinary citizens are tired of the political process, and that what people are concerned about is not so much the right to vote, especially if the vote does not deliver the basic necessities of life such as shelter, food, and decent work. Alexander agrees that there is an argument to be made that we are seeing a shift away from traditional forms of organisation, be that in terms of political parties or civil society groupings, but that it is not yet clear whether that shift will be sustained or what new forms of organising it might result in.  
“Shelter, food and decent employment are concerns that can legitimately be laid at the feet of government but, again, citizens need to feel like they are heard or they will either stop speaking or find alternative ways to make their claim,” she says.
As it turns out, the clamour for more meaningful participation in the democratic process is not something peculiar to Botswana. Alexander observes that across Africa and the rest of the world, citizens are saying they want more avenues for their voices, and they want those voices heard. The effect of this is that citizens are questioning certain norms that those in authority have become used to over time ÔÇô and even thrived on. One such practice is the tendency by governments to “consult, but not listen to the people”. Increasingly, Alexander states, citizens will demand that when government officials call them to meetings, they should not only be prepared to listen ÔÇô but to take on board what the people say.
In this new reality, I ask Alexander where the future of democracy in our region lies. Does it lie with politicians, political parties, civil society organisations, or ordinary citizens?
“The future of democracy,” she answers, “should lie in the hands of citizens ÔÇô be they ordinary citizens or the citizens elected, for a period of time, to hold office and represent the needs of others in the service of the country.┬á The hope is that, as a region, we can work to establish sustainable democratic consensus between active citizens in all of our nations, a consensus that doesn’t shy away from contestation but uses dialogue and debate to make critique and improvement a central cycle of the democratic process. States and parties cannot, on their own, be trusted to sustain democracy. We need to build democratic societies based on accountability, equity and justice.”
So, who should define the concept democracy? Is democracy a case of one size fits all?
“Democracy involves an on-going negotiation to achieve consensus between a government and the people who elected them into power,” Alexander explains. “It is sustained by accountable institutions and these can take differing forms but should always be measured on the extent to which they create just and equitable societies.┬áDemocracy is about building a system in which people and parties lose elections and cede power to others in response to the changing needs of the society that is governed.┬á A society is the best judge of democracy in any country. Always ask the citizens first, the leaders second.”
As a citizen of the region (A Zimbabwean who currently works and lives in South Africa, and regularly travels throughout the region), Alexander is in a good position to give an assessment of how we are doing as a regional bloc in terms of building enduring and vibrant democratic institutions, and whether there is reason to be optimistic about the future of democracy in the region. To answer this question, she refers to the recent peaceful transition of power in Malawi following the death of President Bingu wa Mutharika, which she holds as a sign that “we are building institutions that can sustain democratic practice”.
I ask if she is disappointed that Botswana, once the beacon of democracy in the region, seems to have lost its shine.
“I have found the experience of engaging with Batswana interesting. To discover that there are challenges even here is interesting for me as a Zimbabwean. It’s always interesting to know that other countries also have challenges. I am intrigued to see how Botswana responds to these challenges. We have learnt many important lessons from Botswana, the most significant being the use of resources to improve people. I am looking forward to learning more lessons from Botswana as it listens to requests from citizens to deepen its democracy,” she states.
A Fine Balance: Assessing the Quality of Governance in Botswana is co-edited by Karin Alexander and Gape Kaboyakgosi. Its contributors are Emmanuel Botlhale, Keneilwe Marata, Ingrid Melville, Segametsi Moatlhaping, Alice Mogwe, Gaontebale Mokgosi, Ketlhomilwe Moletsane, and Thapelo Ndlovu. It was launched at The Grand Palm on April 26.
