A lot has been said about how the Constitution of Botswana needs serious and wholesale reviews. In the wake of the Golemolemo Motswaledi and President Khama saga has, it is claimed, this review is called for.

They singled out Presidential immunity, automatic succession and Specially Elected Members of Parliament and in addition they want the provision on the nomination of councillors scrapped from the Local Government Act. This first part of my letter will deal with specifically presidential succession.
Though I totally believe that if a system or even part or the whole constitution does not serve the purpose it set to serve at the begging must be reviewed I have serious problems with the real reasons and intentions calling for such actions. This is especially if the cries are not coupled by good and noble alternatives. What I have always cherished as a coach and trainer of parliamentary debate system is that the viability of an idea will depend on the alternative offered. Debating questions of policy requires a carefully planned alternative. The big question is about whether this task of reviewing the Constitution should or should not be taken. The first basic issue in analysing a question of policy is to ascertain whether there is a serious problem or need that requires a change from current policy? If the majority of the people feel that there is a great need to review the Constitution then the need will be ascertained. The only way of making sure that everybody agrees is to call for a referendum so that the reviews are owned by everybody, not just a few especially the other group of elites who want power for themselves. The second basic issue in analysing a question of policy is to ascertain whether there is a problem with the current policy, do those calling for a change have a plan to solve the problem? The third basic issue in analysing a question of policy is that will the new plan solve the problem? Will it create new and more serious problems? Will we see power now being divided by the top few or even the little man or woman will be empowered. Will the new power disempower the very people that it set to empower? The burden of proof therefore lies with those calling for the Constitutional reviews to prove beyond doubt that a change from the current policy is necessary and will benefit the whole country. All these issues have not been realised.
Having a few people calling for the reviews is not good enough. Instead of calling for the reviews I would recommend a call for a referendum to try to ascertain whether the whole country feels the same way. The referendum should also be coupled with a very compact education plan that will enable the common people to make a well informed decision. To make matters worse those calling for the reviews are not even advocating for any plan that could be put in the public domain for scrutiny. The only things they are heard saying is “we need constitutional reviews”, “our constitution is outdated”, and “the President has too much powers”. They are not telling us who will get the powers that the President enjoys and how will these powers be distributed or whether he should remain with the powers as long as he is directly elected by the people.
For me scrapping all the provisions that they are calling for will not be the panacea for our democracy. What is important is what will replace them. Will the replacement be ideal and more democratic than the so-called provisions? That is my main concern. This takes me to the history of our Constitution and how it was reviewed. It is very important to note that before the 1998 review succession to the presidency was covered in Section 35 of the Constitution. The Constitution stated that on the death of the President or resignation, the vice president did not automatically succeed to the office. Parliament had to elect a new President within seven days.  If the office became vacant, the National Assembly had to meet by the seventh day after such vacancy. Candidates for president had to be nominated by 10 or more members of the National Assembly prior to the assembly’s. This therefore, makes a little difference if we compare this with the current setup. Whether one person or 10 people elect the President the people where not evolved. The parliament cannot claim that they had the prerogative to choose on behave of the people. This system also causes much uncertainty because a country may go for days without a head of state. This could not only result in uncertainty but also chaos and instability. Thus my big worry is what is next? Will we see Parliament replacing the President in closing a successor? Will we see what happened at the beginning when the President was elected by the Parliament? I believe that when Parliament chooses or endorses the vice-president they are fully aware that in case the President becomes unfit or incapacitated to perform his roles the vice president is subjected to a limited democratic process. If the vice-president has won a constituency and has been endorsed by the Parliament does it not therefore mean that they are also endorsing him as President if he were to replace the President?
A great many scholars and researchers have shown that Botswana leaders cherished democratic principles as compared to their colleagues in other parts of Africa. Form the point of view of a liberal democrat it is obvious that automatic succession is not democratic but copying wholesale liberal democratic principles normally brings a lot of political instability to a country. From conflicts ravaging Africa because of presidential transitions it is obvious that Africa is not ready for presidential elections no matter how democratic they are.

The detractors of presidential succession fail to acknowledge that though the system is not fully democratic it has brought a lot of stability to the country. The certainty of who the President will be brings a lot of stability unlike in other African countries where we see that almost after every presidential election there is chaos. To them the ideals of Western liberal democracy are the only sure way of finding out if Botswana is a model for African countries. Their ideas do not take into consideration the influence of the Tswana traditional succession system and how it did not allow for a gap and uncertainty in the chieftainship lineage. In addition, these debates have spent more time on the idea and aspirations of a liberal democracy but of course paid little attention to the political stability that might have been a result of the system. The smooth transition between Botswana leaders should, to a large degree, be attributed to the leadership certainty that presidential succession brought to the country. A lot of literature has shown that though the presidential race is democratic in the liberal sense it has shown to be very vulnerable to instability. This is why Botswana does not need constitutional reviews that are sentimental but reviews that have the best interests of the country at the core of their hearts - the people who understand what direct presidential elections entail.
So instead of scrapping automatic succession we should improve it by making sure that the President from the beginning runs with his vice-president. The people should be able to vote the president knowing very well that his vice-president will take over from him when he retires. This would be more democratic because the voter would be voting for both the present and next president. This system will make the automatic succession more democratic and locally brewed according to our local conditions. The system will also scrap out the so-called endorsement of the vice-president by the Parliament. The people would have endorsed the team directly from the elections. All parties contesting the elections must make the voter know well in the campaign who their vice-president will be. The whole suspense thing is probably the big thing that causes fear of a turnover of government.  This would of course bring questions of whether the vice-president should be a Member of Parliament (MP) or not as the Constitution dictates. If the current set up prevails the question is what happens when he/she loses elections? Will we see the same thing that lead Seretse Khama pushing a constitutional review that later scrapped out the article that required the President to win a parliamentary seat following Quett Masire’s loss to Seepapitso? The great challenge therefore facing our MPs is not making blanket statements but specifically telling the people how they would make the reforms and what the reforms would entail.
Therefore instead of calling for the scrapping of the presidential automatic succession because it is not democratic why then not make it more democratic. We should not blindly make a wholesale carbon copy of Western ideas based on their trajectory. I also concur with Cyril Obi who claims that while accepting that democracy is a universal value that is good for everyone, it should be recognised that local conditions and realities have a place in modifying, contextualising and particularising the universal. He also notes that the present forms of neo-liberal democracy being promoted on the continent as a part of hegemonic universal global project, while providing a legitimising pretext for African elites to capture and retain power, disempowers and offers the majority of the people no real change. Consequently real change will only come when the majority of the people are empowered by the reforms not change that is meant to benefit a few, the so-called democratic elites. Finally we can change and change and change the Constitution but if the country has weak democratic institutions and a very weak civil society no real change will happen. Enhancing and given democratic institutions power to act as checks and balances of government will consolidate our democracy better that calling for these specific reviews.
Babo Pele Ramando
Box 13
Gaborone

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment

Email Name		Comment smaller | bigger
		Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage. Add Comment Preview