It is common knowledge that Botswana is celebrated as one of the oldest democracies in Africa and a model for the African continent.
In 1998, former US President Bill Clinton, while in Botswana, had this to say: “We have seen the promise of a new Africa whose roots are deep in her soil, for you have been an inspiration to all who cherish freedom’”.
The former president also remarked that ‘Africa needs more Botswanas and America is determined to support all those who would follow your lead’.
That was then, when Botswana, under President Masire, was truly the epitome of a vibrant democracy. At the time, Botswana’s democracy, even though it might have had its own flaws as is the case with every flourishing democracy, was indeed worth the accolades and unending tributes from the world’s beacon of democracy and standard bearer of a free people.
Five years later in 2003, largely on account of her enviable reputation as a beacon of political stability and economic prosperity in a turbulent continent, Botswana was honoured with yet another high profile visit by Bill Clinton’s successor, President George W. Bush.
While in Botswana Bush said, “Botswana is known for the strength of your democracy and for the rigor of your economy. And that is a tribute to the leadership of President Mogae and his administration…Together our two nations are determined to build Africa that grows in peace, in prosperity and in hope.”
A fitting tribute indeed!
That was then. Such visits have since dried up mainly indicating that Botswana has become something else, certainly the opposite of what the people of Botswana and the two former presidents of the US treasured. Except for those from some bogus institutions with a poor understanding of democracy, accolades in respect of Botswana’s envied democracy have justly faded.
It is a fact that democracy as a system of government is fluid, elastic and thus capable of being abused and defiled. This explains why political theorists developed various forms of democracy specifically to distinguish its peculiarities in its application in specific contexts. For instance, some scholars, such as Kenneth Good, have classified Botswana’s democracy as elite democracy in reference to the ability of the ruling elites to allow for opposition while using disguised methods, such as patronage and co-option, to control subordinate groups and classes to perpetuate their (ruling elite) supremacy.
Up until 2008, Botswana’s political leadership guaranteed freedoms and the protection of civil liberties while, of course, ensuring that by any measure everything is done to their advantage. This has helped to maintain Botswana as a flagship of Africa’s democracy even when being characterized as a democracy for the ruling elite.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that a healthy democratic culture is a threat to the elite in so far as it requires them to account for their actions hence the inherent desire by the elite to limit its practice by curtailing freedoms and controlling information with a view to concealing their dishonest dealings.
The trend of events of the last few years, as illustrated in part by the unique consecutive visitations by US Presidents up to Mogae’s presidency, contrasted with the subsequent snub of the current regime by Obama’s administration compels us to rethink the nature and quality of Botswana’s democracy.
This discussion seeks to argue that Botswana’s elite democracy is morphing into a dictatorship democracy. It is akin to a virgin transiting into a model whore against all expectations.
I use the term ‘dictatorship democracy’ in contrast with the traditional model of dictatorship characterized by absolute rule by the leadership without any constitutional restrictions. Perhaps political scientists would use the term constitutional dictatorship to denote a form of dictatorship where the dictator’s authority is limited by the constitution.
In truth, Botswana’s dictatorship is mild in comparison with the old-style customary practice of authoritarian regimes of the likes of Uganda under Idi Amin hence my use of dictatorship democracy.
For instance, while there are liberties of expression and association, President Khama has made it a habit to openly attack the private media, trade unions and individuals who question his style of leadership to the extent of branding them unpatriotic elements, perhaps implying that were it not for the constitution, he would summarily censure them.
What is clear is that President Khama’s decision to classify them as unpatriotic elements is a calculated campaign to influence state apparatuses to malign them ÔÇô kill them softly, so to speak. Batswana’s passivity, coupled with over-respect for authority, has conspired to make Botswana one of the most stable nations in the world. For most people, the leadership is sacrosanct and can do no wrong and anyone criticizing it must be having hidden motives.
Unlike Idi Amin who fed his opponents to crocodiles, ours use moderate, legitimate and civil methods such as marginalization of citizen critics and banishment of expatriate detractors to fix their opponents. Deportations and placing critics on the government’s blacklist is a mild form of censure of unwanted persons.
In the last five years precisely since Khama’s presidency, Botswana has banished more foreign nationals than at any time since independence. In absolute dictatorship, such people would have been eliminated once and for all hence my argument that ours is a dictatorship whose appearance has been enhanced through plastic surgery and then decorated by a skilled beautician.
It does not matter how stubbornly you refuse to agree with the observation that Botswana’s democracy has received severe hammering over the last five years. The change in attitudes by America towards Botswana speaks volumes.
Years of accolades have been replaced by hardened attitudes that express contempt and disapproval. Of late, the Embassy of the United States has taken to openly making statements that fall short of denouncing the present administration. For instance, a few months ago, the Embassy office publicly warned that Botswana’s water (at least for the greater Gaborone area) was unsafe for human consumption. Under normal circumstances, one would have expected the Embassy to treat the matter as confidential while dialoguing with the Botswana government. The Embassy’s decision to publicly divulge their findings before engaging with the Botswana government tells of possible strained or poisoned relations due to the deteriorating quality of our democracy.
A few weeks later, the Embassy’s Security Office issued a statement alerting American citizens about increasing incidents of violent crime in Gaborone. While it is normal for embassies to advise their nationals as and when necessary, my critical read of this particular piece of advice is that it is a tactful denouncement of the current political regime.
In fact, it appears to me that the statement is a thinly veiled warning to American citizens to stay away from Botswana if they can. Such advice is normally given to American citizens living in rogue states. My interpretation of all the above cited cases is that the US is changing its views on Botswana and is communicating its disapproval in skilful diplomatic style. The US is probably letting the world know that Botswana has become hostile towards its people and foreign nationals and those who can should stay away.
