Who failed Botswana — The technocrats or the system?
Lewanika Timothy | Thursday June 26, 2025 11:14
There is a Maasai proverb that says, “Don’t let the belly make you useless.”
Given the current economic crunch, one might wonder if Botswana grew drowsy from a prolonged diamond feast. For years, the country enjoyed consistent economic growth powered by its mineral wealth. But now, as the diamond windfall wanes and debt piles up, the reality of an underprepared economy has come crashing in. It seems Botswana is waking up — only to find itself in freefall, with no recovery in sight.
Speaking to accounting officers in Gaborone recently, Botswana’s 6th President, Duma Boko, did not mince his words. He fired a direct salvo at the technocrats within government, essentially blaming them for allowing the country to decay under their watch.
In Boko’s view, the nation’s best minds, ensconced in government offices, should have had the foresight and economic wherewithal to make hay while the sun shined to build a resilient, diverse economy before the boom faded.
“This country shouldn’t be in debt, but we kept thinking diamonds would keep coming. We must admit that we have failed. It’s a mea culpa.”
Boko’s frustration is not without basis. There is no doubt that decision-makers in government have been complicit in the economic freefall. Yet, his critique only scratches the surface. What is strikingly clear is that these technocrats have operated within a policy and fiscal framework that encourages the unproductive use of capital.
The national budget is a good place to trace the roots of this dysfunction. Year after year, the bulk of government spending goes toward recurrent expenditure which is essentially, the cost of keeping the state machinery running.
This includes the public wage bill, free healthcare, education, and the maintenance of government infrastructure. For the 2025-2026 financial year, total expenditure and net lending are estimated at P97.6 billion, of which a staggering P72.6 billion is allocated to recurrent spending.
This means over 76% of government resources are consumed by operations, leaving precious little room for strategic investment or innovation.
This pattern reveals a deeper structural issue that Botswana’s government is simply too large relative to the size of its population and economy.
As Boko rightly points out, why should a nation of 2.4 million people require a government so expansive that it eats up nearly 80% of its budget just to stay afloat?
International institutions like the IMF and World Bank have long raised this red flag. These bodies guided by principles rooted in the so-called Washington Consensus have consistently recommended downsizing government, liberalising state-owned sectors, and enhancing private-sector participation.
Boko, however, rejects these recommendations as misguided and even dangerous. He dismisses neoliberal economics and its faith in deregulation and minimal state intervention as “ideological nonsense”.
“So all the conventional theories you have read from books of neoliberal economics; forget that nonsense, it doesn’t work,” he declared before the accounting officers. “The Washington Consensus is absolute nonsense. It doesn’t work. It has never worked. I don’t care what economic school of thought you learnt from.”
Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on free trade, privatization, and limited government, stands in stark contrast to Boko’s political philosophy. As leader of the Botswana National Front (BNF), a party rooted in socialist ideals, Boko favours a model where the state plays an active role in redistributing wealth and mitigating the inequalities spawned by capitalism. His proposals, such as increased support for pensioners, tertiary students, and a broader array of welfare programmes, align with social democratic traditions seen in parts of Europe.
But while social democracy has worked in high-income countries with large tax bases, Botswana may lack the fiscal capacity to sustain such an approach. Unlike the Nordic countries, which can afford generous social spending through high levels of taxation and productivity, Botswana’s welfare policies often amount to spending without the necessary income generation to match.
Welfare in Botswana has increasingly become a bottomless pit, with little to no strategy on how the government will replenish what it spends. And as the fiscal strain deepens, social policies risk becoming politically convenient band-aids rather than economically sound investments.
Here lies the paradox. On one hand, reducing government’s size and scaling back welfare spending may curb the budget deficit but could also trigger social unrest and increase inequality.
On the other hand, expanding social programmes to combat poverty and exclusion without expanding the economy only deepens the fiscal hole. Either path requires a careful balancing act – one that neither technocrats nor politicians have successfully managed.
At the heart of the issue is not merely a flawed policy or a faulty budget, but a deeper cultural and political problem. Over the years, Botswana has nurtured a culture of entitlement. Citizens increasingly view the state as a provider of goods rather than as a facilitator of opportunity.
Government assistance once meant to uplift and empower has become an expectation, even a right. In contrast to many Western societies, where citizens see themselves as active contributors to national development, many in Botswana see themselves as beneficiaries of a state that owes them a living.
This mindset is however not accdidental. It is the product of decades of sluggish governance, where natural resources filled the public purse and insulated the economy from the realities of production and competition. As mineral revenues decline and the fiscal landscape tightens, that social contract is beginning to crack.
So, who failed Botswana the technocrats or the system? The answer is BOTH. Technocrats have indeed failed to be bold, imaginative, and assertive in shaping a post-diamond future. But they did so within a system that normalised waste, institutionalised complacency, and punished disruption. A system that inflates bureaucracy, rewards political loyalty over merit, and views innovation with suspicion.
The greater failure, then, lies in how Botswana has designed its political economy. A system that was fit for a diamond boom but not for economic transformation. A system that treated prosperity as a given, not something to be built and protected. A system that made short-term consumption easier than long-term planning.