Instead of leading a frank national conversation about the economic crisis and how to tackle problems like divestment, decentralisation, economic restructuring, digitisation and immigration reform, the government has turned its attention to corruption – a problem that exists but does not rank as the country’s most pressing concern
DOUGLAS RASBASH
Special Correspondent
In a country that enjoys a consistently high ranking on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI), one might expect that a forensic audit of public finances would be a routine exercise rather than the subject of national headlines. Yet, Botswana’s government has embarked on a highly publicised effort to root out corruption and malpractice in public accounts – an initiative that, on the surface, seems commendable.
But as the country grapples with an economic downturn and declining diamond revenues, one cannot help but wonder whether this sudden zeal for financial transparency is a genuine act of good governance or a convenient distraction from a far deeper crisis.
A Solution in Search of a Problem?
Botswana is widely regarded as one of the least corrupt countries in Africa, second only to Mauritius. In 2023, it ranked 35th globally in the CPI, far ahead of its regional peers. Of course, no country is free from corruption, but Botswana’s institutions – its judiciary, the Auditor Generals Chambers, and other oversight bodies – have generally been seen as effective in keeping public finances in check.
If Botswana were a nation riddled with graft, this forensic audit would be a justified and urgent intervention. But the government’s dramatic approach – replete with press conferences, strong rhetoric, and sweeping investigations – suggests that this is more about political optics than substantive reform. It is an exercise in reinforcing the image of a government “fighting corruption” rather than tackling the structural economic challenges that threaten Botswana’s future.
Economic Reality: The Elephant in the Room
Botswana is in a recession, and the numbers paint a troubling picture. The economy shrank in 2023, and with global diamond prices in decline and demand from key markets like China weakening, the country’s primary revenue source is under severe strain. For decades, diamonds have accounted for more than 80% of Botswana’s export earnings and a significant portion of government revenue. That model is now faltering, yet there is little evidence that the government has a coherent strategy for diversification beyond rhetorical commitments to mega investments that it cannot afford.
There appears to be a lack of real commitments to tackle problems like divestment, decentralisation, economic restructuring, modernisation, digitisation and immigration reform. Instead, the forensic audit theatre is more likely designed to capture the attention of the public and time and energy of the leadership. Instead of leading a frank national conversation about the economic crisis, the government has turned its attention to corruption – a problem that exists but does not rank as the country’s most pressing concern.
The forensic audit is an easy narrative: it allows the government to claim action, name and shame individuals, and create a media spectacle – all without having to answer the difficult questions about unemployment, public sector inefficiencies, and revenue sustainability.
A Convenient Political Tool?
History has shown that anti-corruption drives, particularly when they are aggressively publicised, often serve political ends. In many countries, such initiatives become tools to weaken opponents, control narratives, and reinforce ruling party dominance. Given Botswana’s recent elections, it is not unreasonable to suspect that this audit may be used selectively – to expose wrongdoing where it is politically convenient while ignoring systemic governance failures that cut across party lines.
If the government were serious about long-term financial prudence, it would focus on strengthening existing oversight institutions, reforming procurement laws, and improving fiscal transparency – all of which could be done without the theatrics of a grand forensic audit.
Benchmarking
Many high-profile anti-corruption campaigns have been politically motivated, often serving as tools to eliminate rivals, consolidate power, or reshape political landscapes. Here are some notable examples:
- China – Xi Jinping’s Anti-Corruption Campaign (2012–Present)
Xi Jinping’s sweeping anti-corruption campaign targeted tens of thousands of officials, including powerful figures like Bo Xilai, Zhou Yongkang, and Sun Zhengcai – all of whom were seen as political threats. While the campaign cracked down on corruption, critics argue that it disproportionately targeted Xi’s rivals while sparing his allies.
- Russia – Putin’s Crackdown on “Corrupt” Oligarchs (2000s–Present)
After coming to power, Vladimir Putin used corruption charges to weaken oligarchs who opposed him, most famously Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the head of Yukos Oil who was jailed for a decade. More recently, Alexei Navalny, a vocal critic of Putin, was targeted under corruption-related charges, leading to his imprisonment and eventual death.
- Saudi Arabia – Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MbS) Purge (2017)
Under the guise of anti-corruption, MbS detained hundreds of royal family members, ministers, and businessmen at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh. While framed as a crackdown on corruption, the move was widely seen as a power grab, eliminating potential rivals and consolidating control over Saudi Arabia’s wealth.
- Turkey – Erdogan’s Anti-Gülenist Purge (2016–2017)
After the failed coup attempt in 2016, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan launched a massive purge, arresting or dismissing tens of thousands of judges, academics, military officials, and journalists. While some had genuine ties to corruption or the Gülenist movement, many were political opponents or individuals critical of Erdogan.
- Brazil – Operation Car Wash (2014–2019)
The Lava Jato (Operation Car Wash) corruption investigation led to the imprisonment of major figures, including Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the former president. Lula’s conviction prevented him from running in the 2018 election, paving the way for Jair Bolsonaro’s victory – though the conviction was later overturned due to judicial bias.
- Nigeria – Buhari’s Anti-Corruption Drive (2015–2023)
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari launched an anti-corruption campaign, but it disproportionately targeted opposition figures while sparing allies. Critics argue that the campaign was a tool to weaken political rivals rather than genuinely reform governance.
- Zimbabwe – Mnangagwa’s Purge of Mugabe Loyalists (2017–2018)
After Robert Mugabe was deposed, his successor Emmerson Mnangagwa led an anti-corruption purge that targeted Mugabe loyalists, including former vice president Phelekezela Mphoko and members of the G40 faction. The purge secured Mnangagwa’s hold on power while presenting the illusion of reform.
These cases highlight how anti-corruption drives can be selectively enforced, weaponised against political adversaries, and used to strengthen the ruling elite.
Centralisation of Power
In contrast to its manifesto, the first acts of the new government were to consolidate and centralise power moving all national security apparatus under the Office of the President. Though seemingly logical to rationalise under its Commander-in-Chief, the move does not follow the pre-election promises to reduce the power of the presidency. When viewed in isolation, it may seem to be an ambiguity, but when coupled with the high profile national forensic audit, one can only hope that the anti-corruption drive does not follow the same pathways as those of authoritarian governments.
To imagine purges and mass arrests of those implicated in corruption is a complete anathema and one that observers can pray never happens in Botswana. Corruption is real enough, of course, but the international perceptions of corruption in Botswana are currently low and not generally cited as a deterrent to foreign investment. This may change for the worse as the auditing process gains traction.
The grand auditing inquisition
The term ‘forensic audit’ has already joined the lexicon of cliches, and no audit will never again be carried out without the ‘forensic’ prefix. The process will undoubtedly disrupt everything that government is doing. Imagine a team of faceless auditors demanding the attention of public servants, demanding information, reports and data that is hard to find. Just think of the chaos and inevitable excuses for failing to progress day to day objectives.
The workshop excuse for unavailability and lack of progress will be readily replaced by having to comply with the overarching forensic audit. While Botswana is desperate for new ideas, its government machinery will be grinding to halt to support the grand auditing inquisition.
What Botswana Actually Needs
Rather than deterring investors and chasing headlines with corruption crackdowns, the government should be focusing on economic restructuring and realignment. It needs to ratchet up all efforts to reduce dependency on diamonds by actively fostering industrialisation, manufacturing and service industries. It should be streamlining government operations to improve efficiency, reduce spending and ensure successful outcomes. The dominant and diamond-funded public sector needs dismantling before it crumbles through lack of income.
Critically, a prerequisite is to create new revenue streams such as carbon credits, taxing social media and digital nomad and golden visas, to compensate for declining diamond income. Until these and other fundamental issues are addressed, no amount of forensic auditing will fix Botswana’s economic reality.
The current exercise may uncover financial mismanagement but it will not rescue the country from recession. At best, it will result in a few high-profile prosecutions. At worst, it will be remembered as a well-timed distraction from a crisis that needed urgent, strategic leadership.