David Sebudubudu

The critical role of leadership in Botswana’s development: What lessons?:

Many countries, particularly in Africa, have failed to realize development largely because they suffer from a ‘leadership deficit’. Evidence across the African continent shows that even countries that are endowed with resources have failed to transform, in part because of bad leadership. Yet, there are countries that are an exception to this trend. Botswana is one such a country. This paper uses the case of Botswana to demonstrate that leadership can make a difference. It, therefore, argues that leadership can either make or break a country. Botswana has been able to transform itself from a position of desolation at independence to one of an upper middle income country by the 1990s. It is today held as an economic and political success story that can offer lessons to other African countries. This is remarkable by African standards. Botswana’s transformation was possible in part because of the good leadership and good policy decisions. The case of Botswana shows that leadership is a crucial success factor for any country’s development prospects. The paper uses the case studies of presidents Seretse Khama, Ketumile Masire, Festus Mogae and Ian Khama to demonstrate the significance of leadership in influencing the direction and development of the country.

Limited freedom and intolerance in Botswana

Botswana has held ten successive formal elections without fail since independence in 1966. The country has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries at independence to an upper middle income one. On the basis of these, Botswana has been regarded as a political and economic model that has been largely praised for the resilience of her democratic institutions, respect for civil liberties, a high degree of political tolerance and an economic success story by African standards. To this extent, Botswana has been perceived as exceptional compared to most African countries. This paper argues that despite having won international acclaim as an African ‘success miracle’, freedom and tolerance in the country exist within the limits set by the state. It is argued that there is limited freedom and growing intolerance of dissenting views by the political leadership. The Botswana state therefore perfectly fits the model of ‘authoritarian liberalism (Good 1996).

In permanent opposition: Botswana's other political parties

Political opposition parties are considered crucial to the nurturing, enhancing and consolidating of democracy in every political system. Indeed, their existence is proof of political tolerance, competitive party elections, the provision of choices to the voting public and the possibility of alternation in power. However, the political opposition on the African continent is generally weak, and particularly so in Botswana, resulting in the predominance of the ruling party in political affairs. This article analyses the weaknesses of Botswanas opposition parties by tracing their historical evolution, characteristics, electoral base, and performance against the background of the political and electoral system in Botswana and the strength of the ruling party itself. It concludes that future prospects for the opposition to make greater inroads into the Botswana Democratic Partys support are small because of the fragmented nature of the opposition itself and the relative satisfaction of citizens with the current governments performance.

Elections in Botswana: A Ritual Enterprise?

Botswana has the reputation of being Africas longest surviving democracy having held uninterrupted elections at five year intervals since the pre-independence elections of 1965. The latest elections were held in October 2009. Al- though in democratic discourse it is assumed and/or expected that the holding of regular free, fair and competitive multi- party elections should provide an opportunity of regime change, this has so far not materialized in Botswana. The country is therefore a dominant-party system with only one political party, the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), having won all the elections held so far. This paper argues that there is nothing inherently undemocratic with people voting for the same political party provided the political playing field is level. A number of factors are advanced to explain the dominance of the BDP in the countrys politics. These include, inter alia, the perceived delivery of the ruling party, the politics of pa- tronage, advantages of incumbency and other factors related to the culture of Batswana. Having said this, it is concluded that recent political events in the country point towards the emergence of a new undemocratic culture which may result in the reversal of the system of one-party dominance. Thus, it is argued that the dominance of the BDP in the countrys poli- tics is likely to be seriously challenged in the not too distant future.

Towards understanding Botswana and South Africa’s ambivalence to liberal democracy

ABSTRACT Despite their recognised democratic successes, Botswana and South Africa have had ambivalent experiences with liberal democracy. It is contended that they fall somewhere in-between what scholars refer to as electoral and liberal democracies; dominant party systems within Carothers’ ‘gray zone’. Two explanations are offered. The first relates to the underlying political culture of the ruling elite: the liberal democratic values of the founders and early elites of both the African National Congress (ANC) and the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) were never fully embedded; instead, their political cultures were influenced by traditions and ideologies with illiberal values. The second explanation focuses on a key feature of a liberal democracy – restraining of power, namely through encouraging an autonomous civil society and limiting executive access to the state. It is argued that for fear of losing their dominant positions, the ANC and the BDP resist restraints on their access to state power.