Democracy under siege: Government refuses reforms
Dithapelo Keorapetse | Friday February 24, 2017 16:54
However, a democracy can also regress before consolidating. Samuel Huntington contends that democracy consolidates when the opposition wins and the governing party loses and cede power in a smooth transition. Others think that if there is no exchange of power, at least the polity should have strong and developed democratic institutions.
Botswana has made history by being the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa to retain multiparty-democratic system since independence. Whilst the region experienced undemocratic alternatives such as dictatorships, one-party states and kleptocracies, the country’s liberal democratic record remained unbroken. However, as the saying goes, in the land of the blind one-eyed man is king.
When subjected to more profound yardsticks of democracy the country’s democracy is not without blemishes. The Constitution empowers the President to decide alone. He alone appoints judges acting on the advice of five people he has appointed (Chief Justice, Judge President of Appeals Court, Attorney General, Chairman of Public Service Commission and any person he likes) and he can refuse a name recommended to him. He can dissolve Parliament at any time for any reason and set election date.
This week’s answers provided by the Presidency in Parliament prove further that not only is the country’s democracy is flawed, but there is no commitment at the very top level to democratise. The Minister in the Presidency was asked if he would consider causing amendments to the electoral laws as efforts towards free, fair and credible elections. He was asked if he is amenable to empowering the electoral management body to independently appoint its CEO (titled Secretary).
The current practice is that this Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) CEO is appointed by the President alone. The minister was also asked to empower the IEC to have the power to issue a writ of elections including for by-elections. He refused. A plea was also made for the minister to consider stating the election date in the Constitution so as to remove the President from the process.
The minister was also unmoved on this one. This question was asked against the backdrop of the perceived lack of independence by the IEC and the involvement of the president who is also a political player. In R v Sussex Justices, it was held that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. This principle is applicable here; it is not enough for the IEC to say they are administratively independent and take no instructions, they currently very much appear not to be independent.
The IEC has been complaining about voter apathy; that they are not reaching their targets of registered voters and voters who actually turn up to vote. Some of the impediments to voter participation is the use of Omang or national identity card as the only acceptable identification document. Some people are turned back because their national identity cards have expired.
The question to the minister was whether other documents such as passport and drivers licenses can be used in the event a voter cannot produce their Omang or the card has expired so as to enhance participation and safeguard this right especially that the suggested documents have ID numbers and photos. The minister refused saying perhaps in the future when ICT has improved in government. The adult suffrage is a key political right guaranteed by the constitution and must be protected. A mere expired ID or lost ID shouldn’t disenfranchise a voter especially when they can produce a driver’s license or passport which bears an ID number and has a picture.
This week again, the minister was asked when he became aware of the calls to introduce public funding of political parties and specifically to state whether this will be in place for 2019 general elections. The minister was honest that the issue has been a subject of debate for a longtime. However, he argued that there is no money to fund this good idea.
The minister cannot appreciate the fact that democracy is expensive and should be funded. It’s ironic that pet projects which have been found to be unsustainable by economists are funded year in year out but the state cannot invest in democracy. The reason for refusal is simple, the ruling party benefits from the status quo; big business fund it in exchange for lucrative government contracts.
The Presidency was asked if it consulted the Leader of Opposition (LOO) on the latest appointment of the Ombudsman. The answer provided was that he was consulted because he was written two letters. However, the LOO was not meaningfully consulted.
He was written a letter to inform him that a candidate has been identified. He sought further particulars including who this candidate competed against. He was informed that the candidate is promoted in a normal process in the public service. When the LOO sought more information, the appointment was done before the President could finish with the process of consulting the LOO. Is this a meaningful consultation?
The Minister responsible for justice was asked about the system of appointment of justices of the high court and court of appeal and the lack of transparency of the process. He was specifically asked if he is amenable to making the composition of the JSC more representative, that is, diluting the executive influence and making the process more transparent. His answer was the usual arrogance that everything is fine. Few days later, Justice Abednego Tafa ruled that the process of appointing Court of Appeal justices is unconstitutional, that the President was wrong to prescribe the number of justices and renewing their contracts.
It has been a while since Parliament was told that it cannot consider the proposed Freedom of Information Bill brought by an MP because the Government is bringing a similar Bill. Nothing has been done so far; when asked about this, the minister sought to reassure Parliament that Cabinet approval is being sought on drafting of the Bill.
When asked about declaration of assets and liabilities, the minister said the Bill will be presented this winter session. He pointed in the same answer that there is no intention to enact a law on insider trading as there is a provision for same in the Corruption and Economic Crime Act. He seem not to be bothered by the inadequacy of this provision.
All things considered, there is no commitment by the government to improve the country’s democracy to a point of consolidation. It is ok for the ruling party to frustrate efforts for democratisation because such improvements may accelerate their removal from power and or make them accountable to oversight institutions; they instead prefer to be remain in power and be accountable to themselves. The government refuses to reform and it would seem, reforms can only come with a change of government.