The surprising shift reflects a new, executive-driven structure that consolidates power in the hands of the President, resembling governance models seen in nations with significant military influence over civil society
DOUGLAS RASBASH
Special Correspondent
Botswana, once heralded as a beacon of stability and democracy in Africa, is witnessing a significant shift in its governance. The newly-appointed government has opted to place the nation’s security apparatus under direct presidential control.
This surprising decision has stirred concerns regarding Botswana’s democratic trajectory, especially considering the country’s reputation for peace and civilian oversight. To better understand the implications of this move, we can draw comparisons to other countries, both in Africa and beyond, where military and police oversight rests firmly with the head of state.
What the UDC manifesto says
A review of the UDC manifesto highlights the contrast between campaign promises and recent actions. The manifesto’s “Democracy, Governance, and Security” pillar, specifically Section 2.5, aims for a “Safe and Secure Nation” but mentions no plans to concentrate national security under the President’s control. Infact, Section 2.1r clearly promises to “drastically reduce” presidential powers, appealing to an electorate wary of centralised authority.
Moreover, the manifesto commits to establishing a Constitutional Court (Section 2.1t) and a Human Rights Commission (Section 2.2h), neither of which have been mentioned in the recent governmental reforms. A Gender Commission has been proposed and adopted, yet the Human Rights Commission remains conspicuously absent.
Botswana’s new security framework
Under this new model, the President’s authority has been expanded to include national defence, police services, military veterans’ affairs, and control over internal security functions. Institutions like the Defence Council, the Police Council, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and even the National DNA Board, now fall under the President’s direct oversight.
Apologists argue that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the military so should have direct control. But most heads of state do have this mostly symbolic title and very few are the Chief of Police.
This approach raises questions about Botswana’s commitment to civilian control over its security forces, which has long been a hallmark of its governance. The shift reflects a new, executive-driven structure that consolidates power in the hands of the President, resembling governance models seen in nations with significant military influence over civil society.
A global context: militarised governments
To understand the risks of this governance style, we can look at other countries where the military and police are tightly controlled by the Executive. Examining cases such as Egypt, Turkey, Russia, and China provide insights into the potential erosion of democracy and civil liberties that can follow from centralising security functions under a single leader.
Egypt
In Egypt, the military has long held a central role in governance. Since the 2011 ousting of President Hosni Mubarak, the military’s influence has only grown. Under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the military commands vast political power, with control over internal security and law enforcement. The Egyptian military’s dominance extends into the economy, running various industries, and security forces operate under presidential direction. Although elections take place, Egypt is seen by many as a de facto military state rather than a civilian-led democracy, with limited transparency and accountability.
Turkey
Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has experienced similar consolidation of authority. While Turkey’s military historically served as a balance to political power, Erdoğan’s administration has significantly increased its control over military and police functions. Although nominally civilian oversight exists, Erdoğan’s role as Commander-in-Chief allows him substantial influence over security agencies, which he has used to suppress political opposition. This centralisation of power raises concerns about democratic backsliding, as the government faces criticism for undermining political freedoms and checks on executive power.
Russia
In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has exercised complete control over the country’s security apparatus. As both head of state and Commander-in-Chief, Putin wields authority over the military and police forces, with internal security managed by the FSB (Federal Security Service). Russia’s governance has been described as authoritarian, with security forces routinely suppressing opposition and dissent. The significant role of the military in political life has reinforced Putin’s power, undermined democratic processes and eroded civil liberties over his two-decade rule.
China
China’s governance structure places vast power in the hands of its President, who also serves as Chairman of the Central Military Commission. President Xi Jinping’s administration has further centralised authority, strengthening control over the military and police. The Communist Party’s governance model leverages the military as an instrument of state policy, enforcing party directives both domestically and abroad. This tight control over security forces has fuelled concerns about political repression, human rights abuses, and the erosion of freedom.
Botswana’s Unique Situation
Botswana’s new security framework represents a departure from the civilian-controlled model that it has maintained since independence. By concentrating military and police powers under the President, Botswana risks undermining its democratic legacy.
The nation’s police and military have historically enjoyed reputations for professionalism and independence. Centralising control over these forces under a single office, however, may weaken the checks and balances that have safeguarded the country’s democracy and stability.
For Botswana, this change could have profound implications for its political and social landscape. Centralised control over the security apparatus can lead to overreach, repression, and the curtailing of civil liberties – outcomes observed in many countries with militarised governance structures.
This departure from tradition is particularly concerning in a nation that prides itself in democracy, transparency, and limited executive power.
Potential justifications
Botswana’s leaders may argue that centralising control over national security is a strategic decision aimed at enhancing security amid regional instability. Located in Southern Africa, Botswana faces potential threats from neighbouring nations dealing with crime, cross-border terrorism, and political turmoil.
By consolidating security under the President, the government could improve decision-making efficiency, allowing swift responses to emerging threats. However, Botswana’s political landscape has been remarkably stable, with low crime rates and a relatively peaceful society. This stability raises questions about the necessity of such centralised control.
Botswana’s approach to governance has generally fostered public confidence, and some citizens may see this change as a deviation from the country’s commitment to transparency and democracy.
What’s at stake?
At stake is Botswana’s status as a leading democracy in Africa. Centralising security oversight reduces transparency and limits the checks and balances that have maintained Botswana’s stability for decades. By assuming control over national defence, internal security, and law enforcement, the President now holds significant authority across multiple domains of governance. This concentration of power could make it challenging for opposition voices to organise and speak out without fear of repression.
Botswana’s reputation as a democratic role model in Africa is also on the line. Other nations have long viewed Botswana as a peaceful, transparent state that respects democratic values. Moving towards a more militarised governance model could diminish Botswana’s standing on the global stage and undermine the principles that have made it a regional leader.
Conclusion
Botswana’s decision to place control over its security forces directly under the President represents a turning point in its political history. While the government may justify this centralisation as a security measure, it also raises concerns about Botswana’s democratic future. Comparing Botswana’s new governance approach with countries like Egypt, Turkey, and Russia demonstrates that concentrated control over security forces can lead to authoritarianism and diminished civil liberties.
As Botswana navigates this change, it must remain committed to its foundational values of democracy, peace, and stability. The nation’s identity as a leader in democratic governance is a precious asset, and safeguarding it will require a careful balance between national security and maintaining the principles that have defined Botswana since independence.