Loading
“Iwill respectfullyBDPUDCBDPBDPGDPBDPYour browser does not support the element. step aside,” said the man who lost an election, “and participate in a smooth transition process.” The speed with which President Mokgweetsi Masisi conceded defeat on November 1st was striking—all the more so given that his Botswana Democratic Party () had ruled this diamond-rich southern African country for six decades, ever since independence from Britain in 1966.On November 4th Mr Masisi was officially replaced by Duma Boko (pictured), a Harvard-educated lawyer, whose Umbrella for Democratic Change () was the first party to defeat the , after 13 attempts. Mr Boko praised his predecessor for the smooth transition. “Botswana today sends a message to the whole world and says, democracy is alive here,” he declared. It was a striking contrast with nearby Mozambique, where police have been shooting at anti-government protesters since October 24th, when Frelimo, an equally long-serving ruling party, claimed victory in elections observers say were rigged.Although always ruled by the same party until now, Botswana is not a one-party state. Voters freely chose the time and again, largely because its record was pretty good. At independence, Botswana was poor as well as landlocked, and had been described by one colonial official as “a useless piece of territory” (he was unaware of the diamonds). But the elites who took power governed reasonably well. Unlike most African countries, it has never had a coup or military rule.Sensible governance has fostered economic growth. The dividends from Botswana’s diamonds have been used fairly wisely, which is unusual in countries that find mineral wealth before their institutions have matured. Diamond dollars have been poured into clinics, schools and a rainy-day fund for Botswana’s 2.5m people. It has had a long, mutually beneficial partnership with De Beers, a global diamond firm. Its per person has increased 80-fold since 1966, and at more than $7,200 is now among the highest on the sub-Saharan African mainland.Yet Botswana does not sparkle as brightly as it used to. The price of natural diamonds, which make up more than 80% of exports, has slumped by about 30% over the past three years. Covid-19 hit tourism, the second-largest source of foreign earnings. The knock-on effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine hurt a country heavily dependent on food imports. Botswana’s model may have run out of steam, even as its efforts to turn natural wealth into human capital are worryingly incomplete.Mr Masisi made some bad moves. Most Botswanans considered his government somewhat corrupt, a worrying shift for a fairly clean country. He interfered in courts’ independence and in areas reserved for traditional leaders. Many disliked his chumminess with the autocratic government in next-door Zimbabwe.Most important, he was seen to be doing little about the country’s underlying economic weaknesses. Both unemployment, the most important issue for voters, and inequality are almost as high as in South Africa, its neighbour to the south. Although the diamond wealth has not been stolen, Botswana has struggled to develop the sort of “value-added” industries, such as cutting, polishing and jewellery-making, that would have created jobs.The ’s defeat is also evidence of an anti-incumbent trend in African politics that echoes similar trends elsewhere. In May the African National Congress, hitherto South Africa’s hegemonic party, lost its parliamentary majority for the first time, requiring it to govern in a coalition. Incumbents may also lose elections in Namibia and Ghana later this year.Because sub-Saharan Africa has a rapidly growing population, with 15m people entering the labour force annually, every election is about jobs. The votes in Namibia, on November 27th, and Ghana, on December 7th, will be no exception. One message from Botswana is that incumbents that rely on the past, rather than looking to the future, will take a kicking. The other is that democracy offers a chance for a reset—if the people in power let it work.
