Popular perceptions of Botswana as a shining example of liberal democracy in Africa are misguided. Its political system favours one party and one president, and that predominant party has been in power since 1966. It is an elitist arrangement that harbours corruption and has failed to hold elected officials to account. How has Botswana’s ‘democracy’ allowed non-accountability to flourish? What must be done to improve governance?
This article for Africa Insight debunks the myth of Botswana as a regional beacon of democracy throughout the second half of the twentieth century. The root of the problem lies in the system preceding democracy, through which a small number of chiefs accumulated wealth and power. Its autocratic and hierarchical characteristics were perpetuated by the leaders of Botswana’s modern democracy. The result was a weak civil society and an ineffective political opposition that has crumbled further over the years. Corruption has thrived in an environment with few checks on power. However, the government’s impunity is finally being questioned by the media and the people. This is bringing about a slow shift towards cleaner, more accountable government.
Corruption is often associated with the absence or weakness of democracy. Where ruling elites are not made to account for their actions, democracy crumbles, corruption increases, and the poor lose out. This came to a head in Botswana in the 1990s when the media exposed many scandals involving government officials. In most cases, those concerned gave no satisfactory explanation for their role, and were rarely sanctioned. However, thanks to growing pressure from the press, whistleblowers and citizens, the process towards more accountable government in Botswana is underway. It will take time, and requires not only anti-corruption legislation and bodies, but also the strengthening of democratic processes. Scandals included:
- Illegal land transactions in villages near Gaborone, involving the vice president and another minister.
- A controversy surrounding the Botswana Housing Corporation, in which a contract was awarded in exchange for a loan to an assistant minister.
- The near bankruptcy of the National Development Bank, under the weight of losses on bad loans made to government officials.
- Huge unjustified expenditure on a military expansion programme.
The existence of a ‘democratic’ system does not necessarily mean that a country enjoys a strong multi-party democracy that can prevent corruption. Thorough analysis of government practice may reveal inadequacies in a ‘democracy’ that is thought to be well established. Where this is the case, the introduction of pro-accountability measures will not be enough to enforce transparency and stamp out corruption. A fully accountable society can only be achieved on the basis of the following, long-term democratic reforms:
- Greater political participation
- A stronger civil society
- Improved popular decision-making.
