Botswana’s Political Shake-Up: What the Ruling Party’s Historic Loss Means for Democracy in SADC
Former President Masisi (Sunday Standard).
By Tendekai Mawokomatanda ‘27
On October 30, 2024, Botswana held its highly anticipated general elections, a pivotal moment for the nation as it voted for local councilors, members of parliament, and its next president. Incumbent President Mokgweetsi Masisi of the Botswana Democratic Party faced a fierce challenge from Duma Boko of the Umbrella for Democratic Change. In 2019, Masisi narrowly escaped defeat, marking the closest the ruling party has come to losing power since Botswana's independence in 1966.
This year, however, the youth of Botswana, often the target of political promises, mobilized in unprecedented numbers. Their energy and determination resulted in a seismic shift within the parliament, leading to Masisi’s downfall. Duma Boko’s victory was not just a win—it was a resounding statement heralding a peaceful transition of power. For the first time in the country’s history, the Botswana Democratic Party has lost its hold on leadership.
Supporters of the winning candidate for president in Botswana cheering on October 31 at a counting center in Gaborone, the capital (Monirul Bhuiyan/Agence France-Presse).
This landmark election marks a watershed moment for Botswana, igniting hopes for profound change and signaling a new era in the nation’s political landscape. But how does this relate to the Southern African Development Community (SADC), a regional bloc dedicated to fostering economic cooperation, political stability, and sustainable development across Southern Africa? To answer this, it is crucial to first consider the historical context of Botswana's political development.
Former President Masisi (center) arrives at Robert Gabriel Mugabe Airport in Harare, Zimbabwe to attend the annual SADC summit. He is greeted by the current SADC Chair, President Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe (left), and Zimbabwe's Minister of Higher Education, Amon Murwira (right) (Bulawayo 24 News).
Unlike similar countries in the SADC like South Africa, Mozambique, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Botswana did not have to go through a bloody war to gain its independence. Instead, Botswana’s path to freedom in 1966 was characterized by peaceful negotiations and a relatively smooth transition from colonial rule to self-governance. Botswana received its independence from British colonial authority through diplomatic discussions, largely facilitated by local leaders who advocated for a nonviolent approach. This emphasis on dialogue and consensus-building laid the groundwork for Botswana’s subsequent political stability and democratic governance, distinguishing it as a beacon of peace in a region often marred by conflict.
This peaceful transition also fostered a sense of national unity among the diverse ethnic groups within Botswana, contributing to a cohesive national identity. With a commitment to democratic principles and good governance, the newly independent nation established institutions that prioritized political participation and accountability. As a result, Botswana emerged as one of Africa’s most stable democracies, often cited as a model for good governance and economic development, which continues to influence its role within the SADC.
Botswana’s newly-elected President Duma Boko delivers his acceptance speech at the Mass Media Complex in Gaborone on November 1 (Gulf Times).
In a stark contrast to Botswana’s peaceful journey to independence, countries like South Africa, Mozambique, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) endured protracted and violent struggles against colonial and oppressive regimes. South Africa’s fight for freedom was marked by decades of institutionalized apartheid, where the white minority government enforced racial segregation and discrimination. The African National Congress (ANC), along with other liberation movements, engaged in both armed resistance and mass protests against the oppressive system. The struggle, which included significant events such as the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 and the Soweto Uprising in 1976, culminated in a long, arduous transition to democracy that was only fully realized with Nelson Mandela’s election as the first black president in 1994. The scars of this violent history remain deeply embedded in South African society, influencing its ongoing efforts to address racial inequalities and social injustices.
1976 Soweto Uprising Demonstrators protesting the South African government’s plans to impose the Afrikaans language as a medium of instruction in schools for Black students, Soweto, South Africa, June 16, 1976 (Britannica).
Similarly, Mozambique and Angola faced grueling wars of liberation against Portuguese colonial rule that lasted for over a decade. In Mozambique, the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO) waged a guerrilla war against the colonial government from 1964 until independence in 1975. This struggle was fraught with violence and disruption, leading to significant loss of life and destruction. Following independence, Mozambique fell into a civil war that lasted until 1992, fueled by political rivalries and external intervention. Angola’s path to independence was similarly tumultuous, with the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), and the National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA) embroiled in a bitter conflict for control. After gaining independence in 1975, Angola spiraled into a protracted civil war that continued for nearly three decades, resulting in immense human suffering and dislocation. The legacies of these wars have had lasting effects on the political and social landscapes of these nations, complicating their journeys toward stability and democratic governance in the years that followed.
Portuguese troops on patrol in Angola (STF/AFP—Getty Images).
The political systems currently in place in Botswana stand in stark contrast to those of other SADC countries that experienced violent struggles for independence, such as Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Botswana’s peaceful transition to independence allowed for the establishment of democratic institutions rooted in principles of accountability, transparency, and civic participation. The Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), which has been in power since independence, has maintained a relatively stable political environment characterized by free and fair elections, a robust civil society, and an independent judiciary. This foundation has fostered an inclusive political culture where citizens feel empowered to participate in governance without fear of repression. The country’s commitment to democracy is further reflected in its regular electoral processes, high voter turnout, and a constitution that guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms.
In contrast, nations like Zimbabwe and Mozambique, shaped by the legacies of their violent liberation struggles, have faced significant challenges in cultivating democratic systems. In Zimbabwe, the ruling party, ZANU-PF, has employed various tactics to consolidate power, including electoral manipulation, suppression of dissent, and intimidation of political opponents. This has resulted in a political climate fraught with fear and uncertainty, severely limiting the scope for genuine democratic engagement. Similarly, Mozambique’s government has struggled with issues of governance and corruption, often relying on authoritarian measures to maintain control over the population. These strategies have stifled political pluralism and marginalized opposition voices, creating an environment where citizens may be hesitant to express dissent or participate fully in the political process. Consequently, while Botswana has made strides toward a vibrant democracy, its SADC counterparts, born out of conflict, grapple with entrenched systems that hinder the development of truly democratic governance.
Supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change party (MDC) of Nelson Chamisa react as they block a street in Harare, Zimbabwe, August 1, 2018 (REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko).
So How Will Botswana’s Ruling Party’s Loss Change SADC Elections?
At first glance, one might think that a single election result in a country like Botswana wouldn’t send ripples across the region, but the reality is quite different. The peaceful transition of power in Botswana, a country long viewed as a stable democracy, may offer a blueprint for change in neighboring nations that have been struggling with authoritarian regimes and human rights violations.
The BDP’s loss isn’t just about a change in leadership; it’s a clear signal that the citizens of Botswana are demanding more accountability and responsiveness from their leaders. This shift in power may inspire similar movements in other SADC countries, especially where people are frustrated with corrupt and oppressive governments. The youth vote in Botswana was particularly decisive, showcasing the potential for collective action and political engagement among younger generations. This newfound enthusiasm for democratic participation could motivate opposition parties in countries like Zimbabwe and Mozambique to galvanize their own bases, demonstrating that change is indeed possible even in long-standing political systems.
In terms of regional influence, Botswana’s transition could prompt discussions around electoral reform and democratic governance within the SADC. Countries that have faced election rigging and political repression, like Zimbabwe, may find inspiration in Botswana’s example. Observers from these nations are likely to pay attention to how the peaceful transfer of power is managed and whether it leads to substantive changes in governance. If Botswana’s new leaders prioritize democratic values and good governance, they could serve as a powerful example for other SADC nations, encouraging them to adopt similar reforms that emphasize free and fair elections, transparency, and civic engagement.
Presidential meeting between President Masisi and President Mnangagwa (The Voice BW).
One of the most significant aspects of Botswana’s new political reality is the potential for regional advocacy against human rights abuses in neighboring countries. With a leadership that prioritizes democratic norms, Botswana could become a key player in promoting human rights initiatives within the SADC. This could involve pushing for greater accountability in nations where authoritarian practices have become the norm. For instance, if the new administration in Botswana takes a strong stance against human rights violations in Zimbabwe, it may encourage other member states to join in and collectively apply pressure on oppressive regimes. By championing these issues, Botswana can leverage its status as a stable democracy to advocate for changes that promote justice and human rights across the region.
The ripple effects of Botswana’s electoral outcome could also inspire grassroots movements and civil society organizations throughout the SADC. Organizations that work to defend democracy and human rights often struggle against authoritarian regimes that resist change. However, the narrative of a peaceful transition in Botswana could reignite hope and motivation for activists in countries where dissent is often met with severe backlash. Increased collaboration between these groups could create a more unified front, pushing for democratic reforms and human rights protections across borders.
That said, while the potential for influence and positive change exists, it is important to acknowledge the significant challenges ahead. Authoritarian governments in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, for instance, have deeply entrenched power structures that resist external pressure. It’s likely these governments could respond to Botswana’s new political reality with increased repression, using state mechanisms to stifle dissent and maintain control. The environment of fear and intimidation could hinder the ability of opposition parties and civil society groups to mobilize effectively, dampening the enthusiasm that might arise from Botswana’s transition.
Protesters hold a PODEMOS flag during a nationwide strike to protest the provisional results of an October 9 election, in Maputo, Mozambique on October 21 (Siphiwe Sibeko/REUTERS).
Moreover, regional political dynamics and economic conditions will play a crucial role in shaping these outcomes. Many SADC countries are grappling with severe economic challenges, which may overshadow political aspirations. In such situations, citizens might prioritize immediate economic concerns over pursuing political reforms, complicating efforts to galvanize public support for democratic movements. External factors, including international support and funding, will also influence the trajectory of these struggles for democracy. The commitment of foreign donors and their willingness to support democratic initiatives can either bolster or hinder the momentum of political movements across the region.
Trade openness and non-income poverty in Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries: A panel Autoregressive Distributive Lag (ARDL) analysis (Gonese et al.).
While Botswana’s ruling party losing elections may not instantly transform the political landscape of SADC, the implications of this shift could be profound. The peaceful transition of power represents not just a change in leadership but also an opportunity for renewed discussions about democracy, accountability, and human rights in the region. The actions and policies of Botswana’s new government will be critical in determining whether this momentum translates into meaningful change in neighboring countries.