The emerging resistance movement toyed with the idea of constitutional reforms. I intervened to guide the constitutional reforms. My point was to provide proper guidance on constitutional reforms so that the resistance is not derailed. I pointed out that Botswana runs a hybrid system, combining parliamentary and presidential elements. The question is, should the hybrid be reformed in a parliamentary fashion or in a presidential fashion? To some people, it does not matter. All they are calling for are reforms, no matter whether they damage our parliamentary side of the hybrid.
Unfortunately, past reforms (as I will show below) strengthened the executive at the expense of parliament. My thinking is that reforming the Botswana system by introducing direct presidential elections is not a parliamentary, but a presidential, way of reforming it. It helps to empower the presidential side of the hybrid. To help us understand this point, I appeal to ideal models.
My intention is, to present two ideal systems, so that each is improved in its own manner, without gravitating towards the other. If the Botswana system is a hybrid, consisting of parliamentary and presidential elements, how should it be reformed to strengthen our democracy? My bias is towards reforming the system in a parliamentary way. That is, to identify all presidential components in the system and reform them in a parliamentary manner. My argument is that electing the president directly, is reforming the system in a presidential way. But reforming the Botswana system towards presidentialism would only help to strengthen the executive. In contrast, reforming the Botswana hybrid system towards parliamentary democracy would make the executive more embedded in, and accountable to, parliament. Actually, the Botswana Constitution regards the president as an MP, entitling him/her to speak and vote. This parliamentary aspect has been corrupted through presidential-oriented reforms that promoted presidentialism, enabling the president to avoid having to answer questions, allowing him to even miss parliament, and to choose his vice as leader of the House for that purpose. This past reform made the president less of a parliamentarian and more of a president, detached from parliament, to the extent that the president can actually go swimming or bike-riding while Parliament is sitting. How odd! If our intention is to strengthen parliamentary democracy, it is one of the things that constitutional reform needs to resuscitate, to demand that the president be the leader of the House and to field questions in parliament. The President should be the Leader of the House, and should face a question time where he should be required to answer questions directly. This is one reform that could strengthen the parliamentary-side of the hybrid system as it would make the President more accountable to Parliament.
Our system of drawing cabinet from parliament is a parliamentary practice. It is meant to position Cabinet as the first committee of Parliament. If reforms are to be made here, the intention must be to make it more visible that cabinet ÔÇô which consist of the president, vice president and ministers ÔÇô is the first committee of parliament. A lover of parliamentary democracy (of which I am one) would prefer that the president should have a constituency just like any other MP. (Seretse Khama actually had a constituency and was voted twice in that regard). If cabinet ministers can play a double role of being minister and MP, so too can the president. If the president lost his constituency, then he could not become president. This would allow Parliament to directly elect the President.
In contrast, separating the President from Parliament through presidential elections and drawing cabinet outside parliament (as some reformers suggest) promotes presidentialism.  It would make Botswana more presidential than parliamentary. Moreover, such separation has the potential to create a dictatorship not answerable to parliament and to the ruling party. It would need an elaborate system to contain dictatorial inclinations from any sitting president.
Automatic succession was a presidential-oriented reform that strengthened presidentialism. It made the President (with the connivance of parliament) the sole authority to determine the presidential successor. Automatic succession denies parliament the voice to determine the successor. For instance, when parliament approved President Festus Mogae’s choice of vice president in 2008, it knew he was appointing his own successor, who ascended to the throne. In contrast, the Botswana parliament used to elect the successor if the incumbent failed to finish his/her term. For instance, when President Seretse Khama died in office, Vice President Ketumile Masire did not automatically take over. Parliament elected him (within seven days as required by the Constitution then), not necessarily because he was the sitting vice president. The system was reformed in a presidential manner around 1997, taking away from it, the authority to fill a vacancy in the presidency, and authorising the President to choose his own successor. My argument is that a parliamentary-oriented reform would abolish automatic succession, reinstate the old position that allowed parliament to vote a presidential successor in case of death or otherwise, and help improve parliamentary democracy.
A successful “Vote of No Confidence,” is a parliamentary element of the Botswana system. The constitution requires that if Parliament successfully passes a Vote of No Confidence, the President shall either resign or dissolve Parliament, and call for fresh elections. Resignation by the President is a parliamentary element. In contrast, dissolving Parliament in the case of a successful Vote of No Confidence, is a presidential element that constrains the actions of Parliament. It was used threateningly by President Festus Mogae who threatened to dissolve Parliament if it rejected his choice of Ian Khama as vice president. To reform this law in a parliamentary manner, the constitution should only require the resignation of the President, so that Parliament can re-constitute itself for the purposes of electing a new president.
*Maundeni is Professor of Political Science at the University of Botswana