Botswana still has a role to play in regional elections

Correspondent | Friday February 28, 2014 15:42

The President has criticised SADC for not pointing out and acting on the irregularities that tainted last year’s Zimbabwe harmonised polls and accused the bloc of endorsing the election even though they were not fair. These comments have elicited mixed reactions from a lot of quarters but have not surprised me. This is typical of Khama, a retired army General who has introduced a far more combative approach to issues of foreign relations.

You will recall that following the much-contested presidential elections of 2008, Botswana denounced Mugabe as an illegitimate leader – while other SADC countries failed to take the Zimbabwean leader to task. Before the SADC initiated negotiations to resolve the Zimbabwean impasse began, Botswana refused to take part in a meeting that was to include Mugabe. Although Botswana’s position was understandable when we consider the issue of illegal immigrants from Zimbabwe, it is worth noting that political solutions have never come out of exclusive dialogue. As much as Botswana can make concerns about the flaw of the electoral process in Zimbabwe, the reality of the 2008 and 2013 outcomes is that SADC works on consensus, and no country can really go it alone. I can only urge the President to reconsider the position he has taken. First, it will appear that the country is adopting double standards as it has itself ignored previous reports by SADC observer missions, now we want to pretend that we listen better than other SADC countries.

Secondly, Botswana can do better by continuing to engage and working to influence its partners from within, not by abandoning the group. This will help to ensure the continued realisation of ‘free and fair’ democratic elections in the region. Five member states including Botswana, - South Africa, Malawi, Mozambique and Namibia - hold elections this year.

Botswana’s observer mission in Zimbabwe in the last elections did not ensure complete free and fair elections, but we cannot ignore the fact that its presence, and of other missions was important in securing freedom and fairness for voters. It can be debated that the observers were able to mitigate the potential for voter fraud and political violence, which had become synonymous with Zimbabwe elections.

President Khama, thanks to a team of electoral observers from Botswana, can be credited for sparking debate and conversation about Zimbabwe’s politics in the international arena when other regional leaders have cowered. Walking away from the problem isn’t a solution. President Khama must see SADC differently from the way he sees Botswana. Simply put, unlike in Botswana where his word is equated to the word of God, in SADC he is just one of the voices in a conversation. Botswana will always be a landlocked country and will have to cooperatel with its neighbours.

The challenges that are facing SADC as a regional body aren’t necessarily different from those faced by regionally integrated bodies. Take EU for example, when all were hard hit by recession, Germany that remained economically strong, never threatened to walk out.

What is the next SADC mechanism that Botswana will threaten to walk away from, the SADC Brigade? There is no doubt that this is an important year for the region and it is imperative that Botswana continues to play its role in regional politics. This is not the time to be making threats of non-participation.