Botswana’s foreign policy and IR theory

The treatment of Botswana’s foreign policy in literature

Literature on Botswana’s foreign policy was dominated by neo-realist perceptions which posited Botswana as a “client”, “captive” or “hostage” state to apartheid South Africa (Halpern, 1965; Dale, 1976: 69; Dale, 1987; Taylor, 1997: 77). Botswana suffered from internal and external vulnerabilities that threatened its survival, including a small population, low gross domestic product per capita, and merely a small mobile police force to defend the territory against external threats (Black, Mugyenyi, & Swatuk, 1988: 64-66). With the fall of apartheid South Africa, there was a great level of uncertainty about the implications for Botswana’s external relations, with authors such as Claus and Weimer (1991) postulating on the role of Botswana in the changing landscape of Southern Africa. Their article is construed in a particularly neo-liberal temperament, conceiving of threats and opportunities that Botswana would need to grapple with if it was toparticipate in the reform and effective functioning of the then Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) (Claus & Weimer, 1991: 332).

Some of this older literature implicitly describes Botswana’s foreign relations in constructivist terms. Henderson (1974), in seeking to assess foreign policy options for Gaborone, notes that Botswana, while cognisant of its vulnerabilities, manipulated its external environment in its favour and asserted its independence (1974: 49). Claus and Weimer also make reference to Botswana’s exceptional negotiation skills in relation to transnational enterprises as well as the draconian apartheid government, which yielded outcomes that were favourable to its interests at the time (1991: 325). In more recent literature, Osei-Hwedie and Mokhawa (2014) analyse how the individual traits of the first four presidents of Botswana have shaped the foreign policies of these leaders.⁶ Malila and Molebatsi (2014) also consider the role that Ian Khama’s orientation has played in shaping what the authors refer to as an ethical foreign policy.

Botswana’s foreign policy principles

In order to arrive at an analysis of Botswana’s foreign policy orientation, a brief comment is necessary about its internal political and social milieu as forged by consecutive ruling elites throughout the country’s histoiy. In the eyes of the world, Botswana consistently positioned itself as a key success stoiy as one of the oldest and most peaceful democracies on the continent. The orientation of the people of Botswana has consistently been in favour of liberal democratic ideals, from as early as the first general election that saw the Bechuanaland Democratic Party sweep aside socialist and Pan-African elements in a landslide victory (Parsons, 2008). Botswana’s domestic landscape has generally been characterised by liberal democratic ideals, underpinned by multiparty contestation, the respect for civil liberties and human rights, the promotion of the rule of law, a largely independent press and a limitation of terms to presidential tenure (Sklar, 1989: 267). Botswana was an exemplary beacon of liberal democratic ideals at a time when the rest of the continent was plagued by one-party dictatorships, lifetime presidencies, suppression of political opponents and freedoms, a lack of accountability, transparency and the rule of law and personalisation of state political and economic capital (Nnoli, 1989: 266). The Batswana have continually accentuated their belief in the above democratic order. According to an Afrobarometer survey in 2016 (Afrobarometer, 2016), eight in ten Batswana claim to understand the term democracy; and two-thirds of the country prefer it to alternative forms of government, also rejecting non-democratic alternatives. The Batswana were also found to view democracy in its liberal and procedural conception, accentuating the elements outlined above (Lekalake, 2016: 2).

These principles filtered into the country’s foreign policy objectives as noted by the Democratic Coalition Project (2002: 1):

Botswana frequently has drawn on the prestige and capital it has acquired as a regional model of stability and democratic governance to exercise diplomatic leadership ... [and has] used a range of policy tools to express its disapproval of violations of democratic governance.

It is here suggested that throughout its post-colonial history, Botswana’s foreign policy has resolutely remained wedded to a number of principles. The principles of Botswana’s foreign policy in this regard stem from a statement delivered by the first president, Seretse Khama, to the Botswana Democratic Party Congress on 28 March 1970 in Molepolole. The tenets include (1) the promotion of democratic ideals, the establishment of relations with democratic countries and peaceful resolution of conflicts; (2) unity and equitable development with as many countries as possible; (3) self-reliance and the reduction of external aid as well as the promotion of regional and bilateral cooperation; and (4) domestic territorial integrity, good neighbourliness and the promotion of sovereignty of nations (Legum, 1973: 179-181).

These principles have in subsequent administrations led by Masire, Mogae and Ian Khama formed the foundation of Botswana’s internal social identity and helped project its foreign policy posture. As elucidated below, Seretse Khama (president from 1966-1980) pioneered the approach of pragmatism tempered with principle. He did this by positioning Botswana as a multiracial liberal democracy whose territorial security was threatened by tyrannical and immoral elements of white minority rale in the region. For his part, President Masire (1980-1998) followed the same foreign policy goals as his predecessor, accentuating the elements of Botswana’s territorial security, economic development through international collaboration and continuing advancement of liberal democratic ideals. After the advent of South African democracy in 1994, Masire’s foreign policy approach focused on the promotion and protection of human rights and the rale of law and good governance. He saw this preoccupation as necessary for the socio-economic well-being of the country and the overall stability of the Southern African region. Moreover, Masire’s administration participated in a number of peacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone, Mozambique and Somalia as part of Botswana’s overall orientation towards collective regional development, as a means of achieving the above principles (Osei-Hwedie & Mokhawa, 2014: 9-10).

Festus Mogae (president of Botswana from 1998-2008) followed a policy that was grounded in the pursuit of economic development and sought deeper regional integration through the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). Mogae worked tirelessly to attract foreign investment and routinely sought to cultivate relationships through official visits and direct participation in international conferences. While Mogae traded on Botswana’s image as a democratic showcase for emulation by others in the region, he remained preoccupied with the attainment of foreign economic goals amidst regional stability. To him, stability was more pressing than the public rebuke of tyrannical and illiberal elements. For example, Mogae acquiesced to SADC’s collective position of silent diplomacy towards Zimbabwe (Democratic Coalition Project, 2002).

Ian Khama (president of Botswana 2008-2018) had a different orientation to his predecessors. As seen below, President Khama adopted an activist foreign policy predicated upon public rather than private diplomatic engagements. Ian Khama’s government accentuated the promotion of liberal democratic ideals and placed less emphasis on the promotion of sovereignty. He was highly critical of counter-constitutional changes in elected governments, electoral irregularities, human rights abuses and reversals in the rule of law (Malila & Molebatsi, 2014: 12-15).

The appearance of this apparent variance within Botswana’s long-established foreign policy record can be understood as "flexible and concrete actions by leaders who are pragmatic in responding to situations as they evolve” (Osei-Hwedie & Mokhawa, 2014: 6). In the main, however, it does not detract from the consistent thread of principles projected to the outside from the country’s own internal social identity. Gaborone consistently positioned itself first and foremost as an advocate for liberal democratic ideals. Gaborone also followed a pragmatic approach underpinned by the identification of economic development needs, the strategic search for international cooperation partners and the respect for the sovereignty of nations. This is the context against which principled pragmatism operated.