The Global South is currently facing a wide-ranging series of crises, including the catastrophic effects of climate change which have ravaged Pakistan with deadly floods, man-made food insecurity across Africa, and energy shortages among the poorest. These compounding emergencies have left the poorest 40 percent of the global population with less income while worsening global inequality.
Addressing the developing world’s ongoing problems requires innovative, unorthodox approaches. Learning from the countries that have seen the most success in development can bring to light important lessons for others. One of these successful countries is Botswana. Investigating a specific country like Botswana can reveal its nuanced history and warn us about what lessons to take from it, especially considering that policies which work in certain contexts may fail in others.
With its excellent economic growth record bringing it from one of the poorest to the richest countries in Africa per capita alongside its consistent maintenance of democracy since independence, Botswana has been labelled as an ‘exceptional’, and even ‘miraculous’ African country on a continent chastised for its corrupt and incompetent governments. What accounts for this?
Exceptional growth in Botswana has emerged thanks to political leadership with long-term visions for development rather than short-term personal greed, combined with political institutions which insulate policymakers from the corruptive effects of special interests. However, the elite’s power relies on a weak democracy which fortifies the ruling party, a media environment which stifles opposition, and an inactive civil society. Furthermore, development beyond simple growth metrics is seriously lacking. Clearly, a careful analysis of Botswana diminishes its ‘rosy’ image and emboldens a critical yet serious consideration of its lessons.
Botswana’s colonial period began in 1885 when the country, then known then as Bechuanaland, was ruled as a protectorate under British control. Implementing its policy of ‘indirect rule’, the British allowed a degree of local autonomy for the Tswana chiefs to rule over their lands. However, this system was quickly abandoned for an increasingly direct form of rule. Chiefs were assigned councilors by the colonial bureaucracy to be consulted with, the finances of tribes came under bureaucratic control, and direct elections were introduced for local councils. The modern state was beginning to form.
Botswana gained its independence from the United Kingdom in 1966. As it remained a largely agricultural economy based on cattle, the country continued to be impoverished and had almost no paved roads or secondary schools. However, it did have a developed bureaucracy and consolidated political elite, formed by the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) led by the country’s first president, Seretse Khama. Utilizing a broad political settlement between itself, the cattle elite, the tribal elite, and the rural citizenry, the state consolidated power over the decades into its own hands.
Quickly into independence, diamonds were discovered in Botswana’s territory. Knowing it could make positive use of these resources for development, the state established a state-run corporation that would partner with De Beers, a South African diamond firm, to aid in diamond extraction. The deal would see the mass majority of profits land in the hands of the Botswana government, aiding in weaning off revenues from foreign aid and funding massive projects in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other social services. It is primarily due to the resource extraction sector that Botswana’s growth snowballed.
However, Botswana’s ‘democracy’ does not resemble those seen in Canada, the United States, or even other democracies in Africa like Ghana or Kenya. In Botswana, politics is dominated by presidentialism, wherein the president wields extreme discretionary power over policy alongside his bureaucracy. There is little regional autonomy, with the central government wielding the most power. The BDP as a party has never lost a national election and routinely dominates local elections. The electoral rules routinely allocate an outrageously disproportionate share of seats in legislatures. Civil society is extremely weak, only emerging at all in recent years, while women remain marginalized in both political and civil society even with recent reforms. The private media faces routine barriers to free operation while state-run media dominates the information landscape.
Industrial policy by Botswana’s government, which aimed to diversify its economy away from diamond mining and agriculture towards value-added manufacturing, has largely failed. Industrial policy, being a strategic effort by the state to encourage economic transformation, often from agriculture to manufacturing or from low-value to high-value production, is usually achieved through subsidies–giving grants, low-interest loans, or other kinds of special support. Historically, successful industrial policy has taken the form of export promotion–firms are given export targets that, if met, allow them to continue receiving subsidies. Problematically, Botswana’s government set employment targets instead while putting a cap on subsidies for each firm at five years. This created a perverse incentive for new, unproductive firms to pop up under state support and then shut down after subsidies were removed. The economy remains dangerously reliant on resource extraction, with diamond polishing as one of only a few industrial sectors to expand.
Botswana’s success is clear when looking at economic growth alone. However, a broader context reveals rampant economic inequality, weak democracy and civil society, an over-reliance on diamond extraction, and a widespread HIV epidemic. It embodies a kind of development incompatible with more progressive, equality-minded, ecological, and democratic forms of contemporary development. Other countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia have achieved rapid growth in the 21st century thanks to forms of governance closer to Botswana but have thrown out important democratic and civil rights.
It is important to highlight the reality of Botswana’s development record. The media and public figures routinely platform a false image of the country and empower a party and set of leadership which has failed to adapt to new, progressive calls for development, democracy, and popular participation. Leaders across the developing world should keep in mind that growth above all else should not be the goal – rather, inclusive and sustainable development must be the target.
Edited by Emma Benoudiz
William Gilbert is in his fourth year at McGill University, pursuing a B.A. Joint Honors in Political Science and International Development. He is a staff writer for Catalyst. He is particularly interested in structural transformation for economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa.