On one side are defenders of the status quo who posit that the practises in place have served the country well and there is no need for review. They say if it ain't broke why fix it. This view seems to occupy the dominant plane because the case for political reform is yet to become a mainstream issue of national discourse. That possibly serves to explain why defenders of the status quo view it as a matter peripheral to more immediate and urgent concerns. But this analysis is flawed because Botswana has in the past introduced some reforms to its electoral and political systems even when nothing was broken. The most notable package of reforms came about in 1997 when presidential term limit was introduced and the voting age reduced to eighteen. As well as granting the external franchise, ballot papers were introduced and the IEC set up. It is useful to note that the reforms came on the back of agitation by some civil society formations and the opposition parties. But it can also be argued that the reforms saw the light of day because the country had to conform to trends in the geo politics of that period. Although Botswana had always been a rarity as one of only two functioning democracies, the country was not immune from the huge wave of democratisation that swept across the continent in the nineties. It was no longer enough for the country to say it was democratic because it periodically held free and fair elections. The quality of our democracy came under scrutiny and was benchmarked against the new kids on the block. Hence the reforms. On the part of the BDP, debate on reform was negligible and muted. That explains why it took something that amounted to a presidential fiat to put in place the reform package cited above. The only major reform initiative that was driven by debate in the party during the corresponding period was the introduction of presidential term limits. This particular matter had to be subjected to the decision of the party because it required an amendment to the BDP constitution. Although it is useful to unpack the key players in the last reform exercise, acknowledgement must be made that ultimately the governing party of the day deserves kudos for taking on board the views of the opposition as well as responding to emerging international trends. If the Ketumile Masire government were averse to reform, irrespective of where the calls were emanating, the changes would never have come. It is now ten years since that epochal time in the political life of our country. But still the thirst for reform has not been stated. The necessity for democratic validation remains because we can no longer claim to be the torchbearers of exemplary democratic practise. Various options for political reform are now being proposed. They include direct election of the president; party funding; review of first past the post, enactment of a Freedom of Information Act and scrapping nominated councillors and legislators. There is hardly any consensus on any one single issue. But a distinguishing factor between 1997 and today is the significant number of voices in the ruling party lobbying for some measures of reform. The effect is that voices of reform across the political spectrum are coalescing. This is a boon and must energise the reform lobby to bring about a meaningful conclusion to the debate. At the national council in April, President Mogae indicated that the BDP was opposed to direct election of the president because the method would concentrate too much power in the one hands of a single individual. The party was also opposed to a review of first past the post because variants of proportional representation tended to create instability and confusion. The more idealistic of us among the ranks had been wishing for a dramatic shift. Although I do not support direct election of the president, I have advocated for a hybrid of first past the post and proportional representation. But all was not lost because in his pronouncement on party funding, the President opened a window of opportunity for a breakthrough. His statement that the BDP is keeping an open mind on this particular issue so that it can be looked at in time for the 2009 general elections means the reform lobby must give impetus to its campaign. Robust debate must continue.
