Democracy is one of the words that almost all the people use on daily basis. Even though the word is very common, most of us have never paused for a second and asked ourselves questions like: what exactly does it mean to be a democratic country? Who is responsible for nurturing and consolidating a democratic system of governance? Is it the ordinary citizens, public servants or politicians? Is democracy a public or private good? If it is a public good, who must pay for it?
These may sound like simple questions but they are difficult to answer as evidenced by the fact that we currently do not have a consensus on what really constitutes democracy or how best a democratic set-up can be improved. Different countries have different systems of democracies premised mainly on their history, culture, expectations of the citizens and others.
In Botswana, we still fail to agree on whether our democratic system of governance is good or bad. Whilst some people, particularly members of the opposition parties, strongly believe that we should have a comprehensive constitutional review, some supporters of the ruling BDP are totally against the proposed review. The differences of opinion can be attributed to the fact that in most cases, our analysis of the prevailing situation is clouded by our political affiliation, business interests, personal and family relationships with the powers that be, hatred for each other, ignorance to mention just a few.
Some people defend the Khama administration not because it is doing a good job in terms of promoting and consolidating democracy, but simply because they want to protect their political and/or business interests. Others secretly disagree with the manner in which things are done but openly support President Khama because they harbor the ambition of being appointed cabinet ministers, high commissioners etc.
So at the end of the day, it is all about “what is in it for me” instead of “what is in it for the nation.” We place our personal interests before those of the nation and this is where I believe we lose sight of the issue at hand, which is how our democratic institutions can be strengthened so that we can continue to be a leading example of democracy in the developing world.
I am of the view that as we continue to discuss issues pertaining to the quality of our democracy and the need for constitutional review, we should be mindful of the fact that democracy is a public good. It is a public good just like defense, street lighting, education, health, broadcasting etc. because it is characterized by non-rivalry and non-excludability as will be explained below. It is only when we treat it as a public good that we can appreciate calls for a constitutional review given the fact that those who support it contend that the main objective is to promote and nurture our democracy.
An important characteristic of public goods is that they are non-rival in consumption. When we say that public goods are non-rival in consumption, we basically mean that a given quantity can be enjoyed by more than one consumer without decreasing the amounts enjoyed by other consumers (Hyman, 2005). In other words, an increase in the number of consumers does not result in a decline or reduction in the quantity of the good provided.
For example, if the number of people who listen to RB1 and RB2 increases, it does not mean that my chances of listening to both radio stations will be affected negatively. I will continue to listen to both of them as and when I want. And the same argument can be made when we talk about democracy. It is a public good that must be consumed by all citizens irrespective of their age, location, educational background, social status etc.
The improvement and nurturing of our democracy through a constitutional review will not in anyway disadvantage Batswana. We will all enjoy the benefits of such a development because democracy should never be provided in such a manner that it only benefits a few privileged members of the society as it is currently the case in Botswana where those who vigorously defend the President get multi-million tenders to provide police officers with uniforms.
The other important characteristic of a public good as stated earlier on is that of non-exclusion. Non-exclusion means that it is too costly to develop a means of excluding or preventing those who refuse to pay from enjoying the benefits of a given quantity of a public good (Hyman, 2005). Think of a situation where the Gaborone City Council tries to develop a means of excluding people from benefitting from street lighting simply because they do not pay for the same.
Just like street lighting which is a public good enjoyed by all citizens irrespective of whether they pay or not, democracy must be viewed in the same light because it cannot be enjoyed by some people while others are excluded. For example, we cannot afford to have democracy in Extension 9 and a dictatorship in Old Naledi simply because residents of the latter are unable to pay.
Let me conclude by indicating that as a public good, democracy comes at a cost to the taxpayers. It is the citizens who finance the existence of a democratic system. It is the citizens who can decide as to whether the constitution of the country is relevant to the modern society that they live in. As President Khama rightly pointed when delivering his State of the Nation address to Parliament last year, “In this house we must forever respect the will of the people. Let us accept our common responsibility. We may oppose each other when we believe we must; work with each other when we can, while at all times appreciating the expectations of the nation that has brought us here together.”
If the president truly believes that in a democratic country such as ours the will of the people must be respected, then he should create a platform that will allow all citizens to state their views and opinions about certain provisions of our constitution. It is only the citizens (not cabinet or parliament) who can indicate whether or not the constitution is relevant to modern times. And to this end, I agree entirely with Gosego Lekgowe when he states that it is high time President Khama “must let go of his prohibitive and antagonistic attitude and put the interests of the nation at heart” (Sunday Standard 23-29 January 2011). Let the people decide!
*Dr Mothusi teaches Public Administration at the University of Botswana
