At this point it is a well-known fact that the Government of Botswana supports the death penalty. In fact, President Ian Khama mentioned the government’s intention to retain the death penalty during his most recent diplomatic briefing. It is not only the ruling party that supports the death penalty either. There are also opposition members who support it. While Botswana is not alone in retaining the death penalty, more and more countries around the world are choosing to either abolish the death penalty or issue a moratorium. Both the European Union and Amnesty International are strong supporters of the abolitionist movement and are actively campaigning for the global abolition of the death penalty.
In response to the global trend towards abolition former Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Phandu Skelemani, has said that other countries “[…] are entitled [to abolish the death penalty] as long as it is democratic,” and that “the day that the majority of Batswana want it abolished that’s fine.” However, he strongly believes that the people of Botswana want the death penalty, and he does not foresee it being abolished in the near future. Like many Batswana, Skelemani is a strong supporter of the death penalty, and believes that if someone commits murder “they lose their right to the sanctity of life and don’t deserve to be protected by the law.”
Another politician who supports the death penalty is Botswana Congress Party (BPC) member Never Tshabang. According to Tshabang although his party has not taken an official stance on the death penalty many of its members are against it. This puts Tshabang, as a supporter of the death penalty, in the minority within his party. Tshabang justifies his support for the death penalty by saying that one person’s rights stop where another’s start. Tshabang believes that as soon as a person takes another person’s life they hand the state the power to take their life. He views citizens as property of the state, and as a result believes that it is up to the state to decide how to deal with the culprit.
At the other end of the spectrum is European Union Ambassador Alexander Baum. Baum, along with his colleagues at the EU, has been very vocal about his opposition to the death penalty. According to Baum the EU’s opposition to the death penalty has historical origins, and the right to life is one of their basic and fundamental convictions. The EU does not advocate for abolition on a case-by-case basis. Instead the EU has launched a global campaign targeted at all countries that retain the death penalty. Among the countries that retain the death penalty the situation in Botswana is what Baum calls “one of the better situations” since death sentences are not handed down lightly. This being said, he also admits that any system, no matter how supposedly foolproof it is, is open to abuse. At the end of the day for the European Union the need to abolish the death penalty isn’t about how many executions are carried out or how often, it is an issue of principles and values.
Like the EU, Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases and in all countries. As Oluwatosin Popoola, the organization’s advocate/adviser on death penalty issues explains, “Amnesty International believes the death penalty violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and it is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.” Given Popoola’s statement it is important to note that while the General Assembly of the United Nations has urged, and continues to urge, member states to phase out the use of the death penalty it has not explicitly outlawed it and as such Botswana is not in violation of any international agreement.
Although retentonist and abolitionist arguments have largely different focuses there is a common thread that runs through both, and that is the issue of deterrence. For retentionists deterrence is the primary reason to maintain the death penalty. Meanwhile, abolitionists argue that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, and therefore does not benefit society. It is difficult to say which argument is true in Botswana since there is a lack of statistical evidence. However, in countries where there have been statistical studies the results support the argument that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Nevertheless, the debate continues here in Botswana.
In response to those who say that there is no evidence to support the death penalty as a deterrent Skelemani says: How many people […] would have committed crimes if there were no death penalty? We don’t know, but who in their right mind would murder knowing that they could be hung.” Tshabang has a very similar response, and says: “The lack of evidence does not rule out that it is a deterrent.” In fact, he believes “[execution] is the only punishment that can cause deterrence.” Tshabang also suggests that the prevalence of suicides following passion killings is evidence that the death penalty is effective. The counter-argument to this claim is that these people have still murdered someone, and therefore were not deterred. However, Tshabang believes that these cases are still examples of deterrence because they show that the possibility of execution is on people’s minds; “they don’t want to go through the gruesome trial until they get murdered so they would rather take their own lives.”
Just as Skelemani and Tshabang strongly believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, Popoola is adamant that the death penalty is ineffective. According to Popoola: “The fact that no clear evidence exists to show that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect points to the futility and danger of relying on the deterrence hypothesis.” Similarly, Baum believes that one of the biggest misconceptions about the death penalty is that it is an effective deterrent. Furthermore, Baum believes that if the public as well as the government are going to continue to put deterrence forward as an argument in favour of the death penalty then its validity needs to be tested. As he explains, “the argument is that it saves lives. If it actually did save lives we would have a more difficult discussion, but this is an argument that is absolutely not proven.” Baum believes that the best way to test whether the death penalty is truly a deterrent is through a moratorium.
A moratorium would suspend the application of the death penalty. While Amnesty International and the European Union are ultimately advocating for the abolishment of the death penalty they believe that a moratorium is a good first step. As Baum points out a moratorium would allow Botswana to test whether the death penalty is actually working as a deterrent. If the murder rate increases during the moratorium then there is something to be said for the death penalty saving lives. Conversely, if the murder rate remains the same or even decreases then it may be time for the government to re-evaluate their position.
With regards to the possibility of a moratorium Skelemani says that he does not think that it will happen, and that if it does happen it will just raise people’s hopes for no reason. He says that a moratorium would serve no real purpose because it would not create permanent change. Along these same lines, he also believes that a referendum is unnecessary. Skelemani is confident that if there were to be a referendum the public would vote to maintain the death penalty. He says that if the majority truly wants change then they should speak to members of parliament who can then pass a motion that will prompt the government to bring up a bill to amend.
Baum is also against the possibility of a referendum, but for different reasons. According to Baum there is a global tendency at the moment for governments to “re-delegate the responsibility that was delegated to decision makers and representatives back to the population.” The issue here is not that the population is being asked to weigh in, but rather that they are being asked to make major decisions on what are often very emotionally charged issues. Baum says: “for the general public the tendency is to decide on the death penalty in emotions and without going through the entire range of arguments and then coming to a balanced conclusion.” Furthermore, Baum believes that “on some basic values majority rule is not good. It is not by accident that in most constitutions around the world certain basic principles and fundamental values are not subject to majority rule. […] Otherwise, and again let’s take the historical example from Europe, 90% of the population could vote in favour of eradicating 10%” As Baum points out, the majority of countries that have abolished the death penalty have done so without a referendum, and he sees no reason why Botswana should be different in this regard.
Not everyone is against a referendum though. Tshabang believes that “a referendum will be a fair test as to whether the majority still believe in [the death penalty] or not as long as people are not coerced and it is a free reflection of what people think.” The problem as Tshebang points out is that if there is a referendum the two sides (abolitionists and retentionists) will both take it as an opportunity to push their agendas, and as a result the referendum may not be a true reflection of people’s opinions. As Baum said, people all too often end up voting without weighing both sides.
With regards to what lies ahead there are different opinions about where change will come from if it comes at all.
Popoola believes that the government will eventually abolish the death penalty even if the majority of the public continue to support it. He also says that it is not unrealistic to believe that change will happen in the near future given the global trend towards abolition. Baum also believes that the change will ultimately come from above, but he does not seem to think it will come in the near future. While Baum acknowledges that around the world both public and government opinions are shifting he has not observed such a shift in Botswana. While the EU may not agree with Botswana’s stance on the death penalty Baum says “I don’t think that it should be our approach to impose our views and twist hands. I think that this is something that a society has to come to terms with. So the best we can do for this country is help to have this discussion ongoing.” This suggests that while Baum believes the government is responsible for enacting change he recognizes the importance of public opinion.
On the other side Skelemani and Tshabang both believe that change has to come from the majority. It is true that the change will ultimately come from the government, but Skelemani is instant that the public will have to make the first move. Tshabang also believes that the government will not change its stance until the people do, and right now the death penalty “is one of the only things that society still feels strongly about.” Tshabang does admit that people’s opinions are changing with increased discussions and dissemination of information, but he and many others like him remain strong in their convictions.
Regardless of whether change is a top-down or bottom-up process it does not look like it will be coming any time soon as both members of the government and of the public continue to support the death penalty.
