President Duma Boko faces high expectations to address Botswana’s deep-rooted governance issues – including and especially the nation’s powerful presidency – which he has personally witnessed and experienced firsthand throughout his career as a lawyer. With him at the helm now, all eyes will be on him to see if the new President and his Umbrella for Democratic Change will push for meaningful reforms, and to what extent
GAZETTE REPORTERS
“Botswana faces a dire situation. A brisk survey of all the relevant facts reveals a painful reality: a discredited judiciary destitute of any integrity; compromised and powerless oversight institutions; an ineffectual legislature devoid of any independence and long divorced from its constitutional duty of legislating for the order and good governance of the country; a rabid, uncontrollable President, perched above the Constitution, defined by an insatiable lust for wealth and power; greed and corruption run amok; a collapsing economy; a disempowered and battered citizenry; hopes raised in 2019, hopes dashed in the period that followed; generalised disenchantment. This is the raw reality. The country is on a perilous course,” wrote President Duma Boko in the preface to the Umbrella for Democratic Change’s (UDC) 2024 manifesto.
GAZETTE reporters reflect on Duma Boko’s promise for a better Botswana amid prevailing challenges and further spotlight the weaknesses that undermine accountability and democratic integrity in the country that the UDC will have to grapple with.
On 30 October, Batswana flocked to polling stations nationwide in what would become a historic election, marking the end of the Botswana Democratic Party’s (BDP) uninterrupted 58-year rule. With this victory, the country’s political power has plunged into uncharted territory as the opposition, for the first time, holds the reins. Now, with the electoral dust settling, the question on everyone’s mind is: What’s next?
For many, the UDC’s promises struck a resonant chord, highlighting long-standing grievances over issues like economic hardship, accountability and the lack of robust oversight mechanisms. Will the UDC deliver?
Author and political scholar Murray Edelman, in The Symbolic Uses of Politics, theorises that campaign rhetoric is often more symbolic than practical because it is designed to mobilise emotional responses rather than represent entirely feasible policies.
Populist rhetoric, especially, is notorious for stoking voter sentiment with promises of rapid change, even though the reality of governance often renders these ambitions challenging to achieve.
History indeed has shown that the gap between political pledges and implementation is frequently vast as newly elected governments often encounter factors like budget limitations, legislative gridlock, or bureaucratic inertia, making it difficult to fulfill campaign promises once in office.
For the UDC, a party promising to strengthen institutional checks and balances, it will certainly be harder to make sweeping changes within a short space of time as expected, unlike in what pertains in less constrained systems, where leaders may have more freedom to implement promises, for better or worse.
Reflecting on these limits, former President Ketumile Masire once remarked that he could have achieved much more in office if he had operated as a dictator, highlighting the difficulties that leaders face when working within a tightly regulated democracy.
Below we highlight critical areas for the UDC where governance and oversight in Botswana face significant challenges, exposing weaknesses that hinder effective accountability and democratic integrity.
The problem of strongmen rule, weak institutions
Botswana’s core issue lies in the dominance of strong leaders over weak institutions. For decades, the presidency has wielded significant power, often overshadowing the very institutions meant to check and balance governance. Political observers have long warned that this imbalance undermines democratic accountability as strongmen prioritise personal or party agendas, leaving oversight bodies, the judiciary, and legislative institutions, weakened or compromised.
Without strengthening these institutions to operate independently and robustly, the country remains vulnerable to governance that is more personality-driven than policy-driven, jeopardising true democratic stability. It is worth noting that the UDC itself must remain accountable. Political observers warn that it must resist the very temptations of power that they criticised in the previous administration.
The President and unrestrained powers
Despite being regarded as one of Africa’s most successful multi-party democracies, Botswana’s political system includes practices and laws that are inherently undemocratic. For instance, the Constitution grants the President unrestrained powers, allowing him to make numerous decisions without input from other branches of government.
He holds direct authority over all law enforcement agencies, the information and broadcasting sector, the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crimes, and the public service. Additionally, the President appoints the Vice President and all cabinet members, and has the authority to select six Specially Elected Members of Parliament (SEMPs).
According to former Minister David Magang, “this provision was originally meant to usher in minority and disenfranchised communities like BaSarwa and women but is now being abused”.
Moreover, the Constitution states that the President is also the appointing authority for High Court judges, appoints the Chief Executive Officer of the IEC and decides the day of the general elections. He also signs death warrants and can pardon prisoners sentenced to death as shall be demonstrated in the succeeding sections.
Important to note is also that the Immigration Act (1991) gives the President absolute powers to declare a person a prohibited immigrant. And once that has happened, such a person or people will not have recourse to the courts. According to the provisions of the Act, any person declared to be a prohibited immigrant does not have the right to be heard before or after such a declaration. Specifically, the Act provided that “…no court shall question the adequacy of the grounds for any such declaration.”
President Duma Boko, who is a lawyer by profession, was part of the defence team in the Professor Kenneth Good case and was agitated by this law. Will he move swiftly to scrap it?
A bloated Office of the President
In recent years, Botswana’s Office of the President has grown significantly, raising concerns about its efficiency, transparency and drain on public resources. Once a streamlined centre of government coordination, the office has ballooned with numerous departments, advisors and support staff, making it one of the most resource-intensive institutions in the country.
This bloating of the Office of the President has drawn criticism, with many questioning whether such expansion serves the public interest or merely consolidates presidential power.
The financial burden of this expansive presidential office is a growing concern. As the office grows, so do its demands on the national budget, diverting resources from critical areas like healthcare, education and infrastructure. Public servants, civil society, and opposition figures have raised alarm over the costs associated with maintaining this increasingly complex office structure, calling it a misuse of taxpayer funds, particularly in a time of economic strain.
Reforming the Office of the President is increasingly seen as essential to Botswana’s democratic health. Many experts have been advocating for a leaner, more focused presidential office that defers to other government institutions and agencies, preserving their independence and strengthening accountability across the government.
Dominance of the executive over legislative and judicial branches
One of the problematic issues in Botswana has been upholding the doctrine of separation of powers, which requires a clear distinction between three independent arms of government: the Executive, the Legislature (or Parliament) and the Judiciary.
In practice, this has been interpreted to mean: the same person should not belong to more than one of the three arms of government; one arm should not usurp or encroach upon the power of another arm; and one arm should not exercise the functions of another.
Historically, five reasons have been cited for ensuring that the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary remain separate: the rule of law, accountability, common interest, efficiency, and balance of interests. Concerns have been that the Executive bosses over other arms of government, hence it will be interesting to see how the UDC tackles this elephant in the room.
Reformation of DIS
The Directorate of Intelligence and Security Service (DISS) was established in 2008 following enactment of the Intelligence and Security Services Act 2007 and amid lamentations over the absence of oversight mechanisms coupled with concerns around excessive powers conferred upon the Director General.
According to Lesego Tsholofelo, an Intelligence and Security expert, such a cold reception and the subsequent negative publicity have dogged the agency ever since. Concerns centre around the agency’s broad mandate and significant autonomy which had the potential to enable it to operate with limited oversight, and engage in political surveillance and the suppression of dissent, he posits. Since its operation, the DISS’s activities have generated widespread fear among government officials and the public.
In 2018, former cabinet member, Advocate Sadique Kebonang, told the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that almost all cabinet ministers feared DISS. In 2019, news emerged that DISS was allegedly plotting to tamper with the database of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) under the pretext that it was susceptible to hacking.
This incident raised alarm about the potential manipulation of electoral processes implied. Several UN Special Rapporteurs on Arbitrary Detention reports, including the 2022 report, have highlighted that DISS has powers to arrest with or without a warrant.
Another concern is the lack of oversight and financial transparency at the organisation. The PAC learned in 2021 that DISS had never been audited since its establishment in 2008. Moreover, the tribunal responsible for hearing cases of abuse against DISS has not been functional and operated without a secretariat.
A recent high court ruling warned and advised that an unchecked DISS may create a dictatorship. According to the judge, allowing DISS to seize citizen’s properties without court warrants was unlawful and a blemish on the rule of law.
But inspite of all these, including harassment of journalists, the agency has not shown any appetite or potential to reform under its current and former director. Will the UDC keep its promise of disbanding or reforming the agency? Only time will tell.
Presidency’s continued grip on state media
While independent media exists, the government dominates most of the media landscape through state television, two radio stations and its newspaper, the Daily News. State media rarely criticises the government and often favours the ruling party, a bias confirmed by the Ombudsman in 2017.
The 1986 National Security Act restricts publication of information related to national security and limits access to information. There is no freedom of information legislation in Botswana, leaving the public without access to government documents. According to the 2007 US State Department report on human rights in Botswana, government journalists often practised self-censorship.
In 2017, the Office of the Ombudsman issued its statutory report following an investigation into political party coverage on Botswana Television (Btv) and its maladministration. The report revealed that Btv had failed to meet its public obligations by not providing fair and equal coverage to opposition parties.
In response to these findings, the Ombudsman recommended that Btv be regulated by legislation to establish an independent body similar to South Africa’s South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and the UK’s British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). According to the African Media Barometer, Btv functions effectively as a government organ without legislation to ensure its editorial independence from political influence. Will the UDC liberalise the state media by turning it into public broadcast media?
Centralisation of power
The Botswana presidency maintains a firm grip on key state institutions through the centralisation of power. This has raised significant concerns about the weakening of democratic principles and the rise of authoritarian governance. The President appoints the heads of several critical agencies, including the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crimes (DCEC), the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General, the Ombudsman, the IEC Chief Executive Officer, judges and magistrates of the courts, and all the heads of law enforcement agencies.
Concerns are that this practice undermines the independence of these agencies, making it difficult for them to hold power to account when necessary, as observed by several think tanks and experts. Concerns are also that the President’s authority to appoint these heads ensures that the agencies align with the Executive’s interests, potentially shielding allies from scrutiny.
Additionally, Botswana’s Parliament is dominated by the Executive, rendering the legislative body largely ineffective in its oversight function.
Another problem relates to corruption and the effectiveness of the corruption-busting agency. Proposals to grant security of tenure to certain appointees, like the DCEC director, have been outrightly rejected by the presidency for years. Recent records show that the agency has had five directors in five years-2017 to 2024. In South Africa, security of tenure for such institutions has been illuminated and concretised through a constitutional court judgment.
All eyes will be on the UDC to see how it tackles these longstanding concerns. In the end, President Boko faces high expectations to address the country’s deep-rooted governance issues, which he has personally witnessed and experienced firsthand throughout his legal career.
A seasoned lawyer, he has long encountered the limitations of Botswana’s judiciary, weak oversight bodies, and a political system that lacks accountability and independence. Now at the helm, all eyes will be on him to see if he will push for meaningful reforms, and to what extent.