From debate to digital warfare: Botswana’s crisis of democratic discourse
THOMAS NKHOMA | Monday December 15, 2025 06:38
Botswana is increasingly exhibiting early symptoms of an information cold war, a subtle but pervasive conflict unfolding within the digital public sphere. The transition from nearly six decades of uninterrupted Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) rule to a new administration has not only altered the political landscape but also destabilised the epistemic foundations on which national discourse depends. Social media spaces have become saturated with competing narratives, accusations and counter-accusations that circulate with little regard for verification. Such fragmentation of the information environment is not merely a cultural or technological trend. In essence, it represents a deeper rupture in Botswana’s democratic communication ecology.
The proliferation of digital platforms has effectively democratised the ability to publish. Every citizen now possesses the communicative power once reserved for professionally trained journalists and editors. Yet this expansion of participation has occurred without a parallel strengthening of information literacy, verification norms or institutional trust. As a result, the country finds itself navigating an increasingly polarised and emotionally charged digital landscape in which claims are judged less by their accuracy than by their alignment with pre-existing political loyalties. The epistemic function of the public sphere - that is, its capacity to generate shared understanding - has begun to weaken.
One can observe this dynamic in everyday online interactions. A single post containing unverified claims can spread rapidly, amplified by emotional responses rather than evidence. Attempts at correction are often met with suspicion, dismissed as partisan or politically motivated. What is emerging is not simply the circulation of misinformation but the normalisation of epistemic hostility: a refusal to engage with alternative interpretations, however grounded they may be. In such an environment, dialogue becomes difficult while democratic deliberation is replaced by discursive combat.
This development is exacerbated by the participation of individuals who occupy public office. In many democracies, leadership functions as a stabilising force in moments of uncertainty. However, Botswana is witnessing an increasing number of senior officials entering digital debates with the same immediacy, emotion, and partisanship as ordinary citizens. When institutional actors contribute to reactionary and often speculative exchanges online, the distinction between verified institutional communication and personal opinion becomes increasingly blurred. This blurring undermines the credibility of public institutions and contributes to a climate in which citizens struggle to identify authoritative sources of information.
Botswana is by no means unique in confronting these challenges. Comparative cases from the region and the broader international community illustrate how rapidly digital misinformation can erode democratic norms. Countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe continue to grapple with ways in which online rumours and disinformation can translate into real-world tensions and violence.
The 2024 general elections in South Africa were accompanied by what observers describe as coordinated disinformation campaigns online, using fake accounts, bots, manipulated content and possibly synthetic media. One widely noted incident was the circulation of a deepfake video claiming to show a foreign endorsement for a political party, a video shared on social media shortly before the vote and widely disseminated. In the United States, the proliferation of conspiratorial narratives and the delegitimisation of established news organisations contributed to public unrest, culminating in the January 6 Capitol attack, an event that scholars widely describe as the result of epistemic collapse. These examples highlight the broader pattern in which information disorders threaten the institutional integrity of even long-standing democracies.
In Botswana’s case, the consequences are already visible in the manner in which journalists have been positioned as scapegoats for the nation’s information crisis. Genuine reporters working under increasing public scrutiny are routinely accused of spreading misinformation, even when problematic content originates from anonymous social media accounts or private messaging groups. Such scapegoating is dangerous.
Academic literature on democratic backsliding consistently notes that delegitimising the media is a precursor to institutional weakening. Once the press is portrayed as an adversary rather than a democratic institution, citizens become easier to mobilise against it, and governments find justification to restrict or intimidate the journalistic profession. For a country that positions itself as a defender of human rights, good governance and democratic ideals, the normalisation of hostility towards journalists poses a significant institutional risk.
Botswana’s information disorder is not solely the product of bad actors or intentional manipulation. It reflects structural transformations in how information is produced, consumed and circulated. Digital platforms reward speed, emotion and virality, not accuracy or context. The algorithms governing information flow tend to elevate content that provokes strong reactions, thereby amplifying polarisation. At the same time, the historical stability of Botswana’s political system created expectations of consensus that digital fragmentation is now disrupting. The shift from a dominant-party system to a more contested political order means that citizens, institutions and political actors are adjusting to a new communicative reality in which competing narratives are inevitable. The challenge lies in ensuring that these narratives coexist within a framework of evidence-based reasoning rather than descending into mutual delegitimisation.
What ultimately emerges from this moment is a broader question about the direction of Botswana’s democracy. The country must decide whether its digital public sphere will evolve into a space that supports informed deliberation or remain a battleground for epistemic dominance. Preserving democratic integrity requires strengthening media literacy across society, enhancing the professional capacity of journalists and cultivating political leadership that models responsible communication. Equally important is the need to rebuild trust in public institutions, not through public relations campaigns but through transparency, accountability and consistent fact-based engagement.
Fortunately, Botswana is not yet in crisis, but it is inching towards a precarious threshold. Democracies rarely collapse suddenly. More often, they erode subtly through the gradual decay of shared truth. If citizens cease to agree on basic facts, governance becomes reactionary and conflict-prone. If journalists continue to be weaponised as objects of public mistrust, the critical watchdog function of the media weakens. If leaders communicate impulsively rather than institutionally, authority diminishes. And if the digital public sphere remains governed by outrage rather than reason, democratic institutions will struggle to survive the rising tide of epistemic fragmentation.
Consequently, Botswana stands at a crossroads. The ability to publish has never been more widespread. The responsibility to use that power wisely has never been more urgent. Whether Botswana moves towards a more informed, resilient democracy or drifts further into narrative conflict will depend on how seriously the country confronts the information cold war now unfolding in plain sight.
*Thomas Thos Nkhoma is MISA-Botswana chairperson