Saturday, October 5, 2024

Batswana want unfettered access to public information

About eight in 10 Batswana (79%) favour citizens’ right to government information, disagreeing with the assertion that information held by public authorities is for use only by government officials – a recent survey Afrobarometer has revealed.  
The survey findings further revealed that an overwhelming majority of Batswana hold strong opinions on the role and freedom of the media in their country. The data indicates that about three-quarters (76%) of citizens believe that the media should consistently investigate and report on government mistakes and corruption. This sentiment underscores a broad public demand for transparency and accountability in governance.  
The survey, reflecting widespread views across Botswana, also highlights that 77% of respondents advocate for media freedom.  

In particular, strong majorities endorse the proposition that specific types of information be made publicly available, including information regarding budgets and expenditures for local government councils (88%) and bids and contracts for government-funded projects or purchases (88%).  
Half (50%) of those surveyed support making the salaries of teachers and local government officials public.  About half (49%) say the country’s media is “somewhat free” or “completely free” to report and comment on the news without government interference.  
About eight in 10 Batswana (79%) favour citizens’ right to government information, disagreeing with the assertion that information held by public authorities is for use only by government officials. Only 16% support keeping such information from public view. While support for public access to information is strong across the board, older citizens are less likely than their younger counterparts to endorse this view (73% vs. 80%), as are citizens with less education (69%-72%) compared to those with more education (82%-83%). Respondents experiencing high lived poverty (84%) are somewhat more likely than better-off citizens (77%-79%) to favour public information sharing.  


Most Batswana want media that hold power to account. Three-quarters (76%) “agree” or “strongly agree” that the media should “constantly investigate and report on government mistakes and corruption,” while just 21% instead emphasise that “too much reporting on negative events only harms the country” (Figure 1). A similar proportion (77%) say that the media should be free to publish any views and ideas without government interference, while one-fifth (20%) believe that the government should be able to prevent the media from publishing things it disapproves of (Figure 2). Support for media freedom is somewhat stronger among urbanites than rural residents (81% vs. 74%) (Figure 3). It also increases with respondents’ level of education, ranging from 63% among citizens with no formal education to 85% among those with post-secondary qualifications. But it decreases as respondents’ economic status rises, from 80% among the poorest to 71% among those experiencing no lived poverty.1 Middle-aged respondents (82%) are more likely than their younger (75%) and senior (70%) counterparts to endorse media freedom.

 
Views are divided on whether media freedom exists in practice in Botswana. About half (49%) of citizens say the country’s media is “somewhat free” (22%) or “completely free” (27%) to report and comment on the news without censorship or interference. But a similar share (46%) consider the media “not very free” (29%) or “not at all free” (17%)  
Perceptions of the media as largely free are more widespread among rural residents (55%), older citizens (54%), and those with less education (51%-55%) than among urbanites (47%), younger respondents (47%-49%), and citizens with more education (44%-48%) (Figure 5). Views vary most strongly, however, by respondents’ economic conditions: Only 35% of those who report high levels of lived poverty believe that the media is free, whereas nearly double that proportion (64%) of the best-off discount the possibility of government interference with the press.  

RELATED STORIES

Read this week's paper