If true, this would merely extend a pattern that has persisted for the past 58 years under Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) rule. A key factor in this dynamic has been the ruling party's historically large parliamentary majority, which allowed it to push through legislation by sheer weight of numbers. Last week's allegations by two UDC Members of Parliament, claiming they were threatened by the President and a Cabinet minister, may seem trivial at first glance. However, they highlight a serious concern — the potential erosion of parliamentary independence. Additionally, these claims could signal emerging divisions within the ruling party’s parliamentary caucus, possibly along constituent party lines. In a parliamentary democracy like Botswana, the separation of powers is crucial in ensuring good governance, accountability, and the rule of law. While the Executive (government), Legislature (Parliament), and Judiciary are distinct arms of the State, there is an inherent overlap between the Executive and the Legislature, particularly because Cabinet ministers are drawn from Parliament.
However, this overlap should not undermine the fundamental principle that Parliament must function independently to check and balance the executive. Ruling party Members of Parliament (MPs) have a dual role: they are both representatives of their party and representatives of their constituents. While it is natural for them to support the government’s policies, they must also uphold their constitutional duties, which include legislating. MPs should debate and pass laws that serve the national interest, not just the ruling party’s agenda. While party loyalty is expected, MPs must ensure that the legislation is sound, constitutional, and considers diverse perspectives, including those of the opposition and the public. MPs should also be cognizant of their other role, namely, oversight over the executive. Even ruling party MPs have a duty to scrutinise government actions, expenditures, and policies. They must ask tough questions in parliamentary committees and plenary sessions, ensuring that the Executive remains accountable to the people. Blindly defending the Executive without critical engagement undermines Parliament’s role as a watchdog. MPs should also be reminded that they are there to represent their constituents. MPs serve all their constituents, not just ruling party supporters. They must advocate for the interests and concerns of their communities, even if these concerns require holding the executive accountable. Constituents expect their MPs to be their voice, not just the government’s mouthpiece.
What should then happen to uphold separation of powers which is the pillar of a democratic order where there are checks and balances on all arms of State? There must be independence in debate and decision-making. Ruling party MPs should exercise independent judgment when debating government policies and laws. While they may support the Executive, their first duty is to serve the nation and their voters. The Executive should respect the role of opposition and minority voices. A healthy democracy requires meaningful engagement with opposition parties. Majoritarian rule should not be used to silence dissenting views. Committees, debates, and policy discussions should allow space for alternative perspectives. Parliamentary committees must function effectively. The ruling party should be commended for allowing opposition MPs to chair some of the portfolio committees, something that was anathema during the BDP reign. Committees play a key role in oversight and must not be dominated by ruling party MPs seeking to shield the government. Committee chairs should be independent-minded, and ruling party MPs must take their oversight roles seriously. The Speaker—and, to a lesser extent, the parliamentary leadership—must remain neutral. There is no doubt that the current Speaker, youthful Dithapelo Keorapetse, has brought a refreshing change to parliament. Thus far, he has demonstrated fairness and impartiality, much like his predecessor, Phandu Skelemani, who also sought to uphold these principles. As Speaker, Keorapetse must ensure that parliamentary rules are adhered to and that MPs do not conduct themselves as though they are part of the Executive. It is unacceptable for a non-cabinet MP to rise in parliament and declare, “This is what we are saying as the government of the day,” a practice that has become increasingly common in the current legislature. During the debate on the budget appropriation bill, this week, in response to an Opposition MP’s remarks, a ruling party legislator stated, “The honourable member is wrong to say that the BDP was better than our government.” Meanwhile, another MP, who is not a cabinet minister, declared, “It is our intention as the UDC government to...” And these types of remarks are recurring. The Speaker must call such MPs to order, as they are not part of the executive but are instead meant to provide oversight over it. MPs must behave in an ethical conduct and in the national interest resisting undue pressure from the executive to pass laws without proper scrutiny. They should be able to question policies, even if they come from their own party, when such policies are not in the best interest of the people.
Executive capture is dangerous. If ruling party MPs act merely as an extension of the executive, parliament becomes a rubber stamp instead of a check on government power. This weakens democracy, reduces transparency, and limits accountability. The previous concerns about executive capture should serve as a warning, and the new parliament must work to prevent this from happening again. Ruling party MPs should strike a balance between party loyalty and their duty to the country. They are not government spokespersons—they are lawmakers and representatives of the people. While they may support the government, they must ensure that their primary allegiance is to the democratic principles of accountability, oversight, and public interest. By doing so, they will strengthen—not weaken—the democratic foundation of Botswana.
