Introduction
The bulk of literature on Botswana is heavily imbued with celebratory stories about the country due to the fact that for much of the post-colonial period, many African countries were under either, one party rule, military dictatorship or both.
In 1989 opposition parties were illegal in 32 of the 50 independent African countries, but Botswana stood out as an example of a liberal democracy that was tolerant to opposition and where economic development proceeded apace.
At a time when Africa’s dismal economic performance and political corruption have given rise to a school of thought referred to as Afro-pessimism, Botswana stands alone as an example of economic development and functioning governance, as an exception that confounds generalization and whose very exceptionality makes it a hopeful model and example for other African societies.
Botswana has eluded the rampant corruption and mismanagement that bedevils most developing countries and its exceptional development has taken place in an environment of a genuinely functioning liberal democratic system.
In sharp contrast to the Asian Tigers, whose economic miracle took place in a context of political repression?
Much earlier Hoogvelt et al had criticized what they characterized as the World Bank’s simplistic tendency to lump together African countries as if Africa is one homogenous entity.
Using a range of statistical techniques of cluster and descriminant analysis, that there are four distinct types of African countries, but assigned Botswana to cluster four all by itself. Botswana is not like any African country.
For the most part of the post colonial period its economy grew by an average nine percent, among the highest in the world and was ranked a middle income country in the mid 1980s. Botswana has also received positive credit ratings from agencies such as Standard and Poors, Moody’s Investors Service and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
In 2007, the World Bank ranked Botswana 16th among 212 world countries surveyed for key dimensions of good governance, namely(1) voice and accountability(11) political stability and the absence of violence(111) government effectiveness, (1V) regulatory quality, (V) rule of law and, (V1) control of corruption.
Botswana was singled out by the researchers as being among a select group of developing countries that scored higher on these key indicators, and was the only African country to be so singled out.
On the political front, Botswana has held elections regularly since its independence in 1966 and come October 2009, Botswana is expected to go for her tenth multiparty general elections.
On 1 April 2008 Botswana inaugurated General Ian Khama as its fourth president in what was hailed as another validation of Bo enviable record of good governance and political stability. It is perhaps this kind of perceptions that led one of South Africa’s scholars, Professor Wiseman Nkhulu, and the Chief Executive Officer for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) to remark that, “We don’t want countries like Botswana to be an exception. We want more countries too be like Botswana.”
While there is no doubt that Botswana has gone some way in the direction of democracy and good governance, it is important that this is not exaggerated as it might lead to distortions.
This record, therefore, re-examines Botswana’s much vaunted record and reveals some of its disconcerting aspects that are never mentioned when the country’s record is discussed. The article looks at Botswana’s exceptional economic growth that has occurred in tandem with rising unemployment and social inequalities, the enormous powers of the president and the emasculation of a popularly elected parliament.
The article further reveals how the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) which has been losing popular support over the years is now trying to regain lost ground by the “branding” of the Khama family name, thus creating a political dynasty, the Khama dynasty.
These revelations are an indictment against Botswana’s image of democracy and good governance. They show that its exceptionality is a myth and with the advent of new democracies in the region, should thus be treated as a thing of the past.
In South Africa, for example, and in contrast to Botswana, there are a number of institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), whose mandate is to strengthen democracy, and their independence guaranteed by the Constitution. This re-examination and critique of Botswana’s much vaunted democracy and good governance provides new and fresh insight into this much praised and prized African country.
Post-Colonial Economic Performance
Botswana’s post-colonial economic achievements have been a subject of much acclaim in the last few years and there is no need to repeat the story here. Suffice to note that since independence the country has undergone fundamental structural changes in its economic social and political landscape. These economic changes were driven by the post colonial state’s strategic objective to re-orientate Botswana’s economy to create conditions for indigenous private capital accumulation in partnership with international capital.
Overall, Botswana’s economy was thought to have grown by an average nine percent since 1974\75 until recently. This growth was fuelled primarily by the discovery of rich deposits of diamonds and their profitable exploitation, principally as a result of a Botswana government’s partnership with De Beers mining company. This joint venture has had a positive effect on the economy as a whole because not only has Botswana been able to reverse its balance of payments deficit, but the country’s foreign reserves now stand at about US$10.2 billion, representing 28 months cover.
Yet Botswana’s economic progress has not been compatible with the principle of social justice. In particular, economic growth has occurred in tandem with growing unemployment, poverty and social inequality. From 1991 to 2002\03 unemployment in Botswana grew from 14percent to 24 percent which tends to be prevalent among young females.
In 1984\85, 80 percent of Batswana population received only 38, 5 of the national income. This figure rises marginally to 38, 8 percent for 1993/94 and to 39 percent for 2003\04. Although overall social inequality has decreased slightly, social inequality in the rural areas has not really decreased over the last 20 years.
The Gini co-efficient – as the measure of inequality- has decreased only slightly from 0,703 in1984\85 to 0626 in 2003\04.
According to the most recent but conservative estimates, 45 percent of the country’s income goes to only ten percent of the population and 23, 4 of Botswana’s population live on less that US$1 a day. In rural areas, this figure rises to about 36 percent.
More recently, the Happy Planet Index ranked Botswana 167th out of 178 countries, revealing that the people of Botswana are among the least happy people on the planet. The United Kingdom (UK) was ranked 108 and the United States 150. It is interesting to note that most of the agencies that that have been rating Botswana so highly are based in these same countries.
Dudley Seers once remarked that in evaluating the economic development of a country three questions are always critical: (1) what has been happening to poverty, (11) what has been happening to unemployment, and (111) what has been happening to inequality? If one or to of these central problems have remained unchanged, or are increasing, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result development even if per capita income has soared.
It seems that in the case of Botswana, these pertinent questions have not been adequately taken into consideration. The problem of poverty and social inequality that confront Botswana today, aptly described as “ poverty in the midst of plenty” are systemic and emanate from the policies of private capital accumulation, often concealed in the ideology of “ national interest” or national development” that have been so vigorously pursued by the post colonial state since independence. In addition, much as the celebratory position on Botswana is economic in its approach, it also fails to take cognizance of the political dynamics of the country.
READ NEXT WEEK’S EDITION FOR THE NEXT INSTALLMENT ON PARLIAMENT AS A RUBBER STAMP AND THE KHAMA DYNASTY
