Why The President Is So Powerful

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton. Botswana: a country that boasts the values of its freedoms and the creation of a system that is not stifling upon the abilities of its people to challenge their government and hold it accountable. Where you can find the leader of opposition openly disputing a position held by the president. What could go wrong? Walk with me as we take a look at the executive powers held by the president and what they mean. Let us look at the immunity that he receives from the constitution, the power afforded to him by the state of emergency (SOE), and the organizations that are run by him – organizations that should be independent. Finally, let us look at how Botswana’s legislation gives the president autocratic powers. 

The President’s Executive Powers as Stipulated by the Constitution: How They Undermine Democracy and Afford the President Excessive Discretion

According to section 47 of the Constitution of Botswana, the president is set to appoint various officials to positions listed in the constitution, the most significant being the cabinet ministers and justices of the Court of Appeal. That means at his helm is the ability to place people that choose to agree and conform to any proposed policy, and then within the judiciary, the power to justify each decision made. Mind you, all of this is included in the constitution that, in Botswana, is binding on all laws. While some may argue that the leading opposition has a shadow government that holds each ministry accountable, they can only do so much as debate it out in parliament, which supposes that the checking system of the opposition in Botswana is reduced to a mere opinion. There generally are no criteria that can be set by the people as to how, who, and why a person should be appointed to some of the most important offices in the state.

The Immunity the President of the State Receives from the Constitution and How It Affects the State at Large

Section 41 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Botswana states that, ‘‘Whilst any person holds or performs the functions of the office of president, no criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him or her in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him or her either in his or her official capacity or in his or her private capacity’’. Besides the fact that the president is very much able to stand outside the line and impede citizens’ rights because of this section in the constitution, it is also important to note that this section is applicable beyond his capacity as president. Put simply, it gives the president the position of someone who makes no mistake and if he does so, the constitution is forgiving of that fact – simply because he holds the office of president. This supposes that legality is only inherent to the people of the state with the exception of their leader and Commander in Chief. Imagine the amount of wrong that is forgiven by this provision. Corruption, murder, the list continues. What’s even more shocking is that all of this is allowed while the people aren’t even given the chance to impeach the president in the case that there is an obstruction of social justice on his side. In layman’s terms, he is invincible.

The Power Afforded to the President by the State of Emergency (SOE) Act

Section 17(1) of the Constitution states that the president may, at any time, declare that a state of public emergency exists. This means that in cases of national crises, the president of the republic is given sole discretionary powers to dictate the way forward. While it may seem proper to let the leader of state take the guiding role, we should look at the implications of such a provision awarded by the constitution. Note that in Africa, a declaration of a state of public emergency is usually associated with civil wars and military rule. In essence, once a president declares a state of public emergency, on the face of it, they could do a number of things that they are not allowed to do under normal circumstances. Parliament is not allowed to sit during this period unless they are voting on extending the state of emergency. Unfortunately, by nature, this allows the president to take full discretion over Botswana’s resources and any other decisions regarding the country, which, whether or not the president was elected by the people, is too much power to be awarded to an individual.

The Organizations Run by the President That Should Be Independent, as They Affect the Country on a Large Scale

In Botswana, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS), the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC), the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA), as well as the office of the Ombudsman, are all under the discretion of the president, but have a completely larger obligation of serving the people of the state by holding everyone, including the leaders of the country accountable for their actions. How then, could this obligation be fully fledged if these organisations are under the watching eye of the office of the President, who they also have to investigate and scrutinize. The position they are placed in somewhat annuls their role and intention because there is no actual reason they should be under the president in any circumstance.

How Botswana’s Legislation Grants the President Autocratic Powers

The executive powers held by the president allow him to place affiliations on people in the most demanding offices across Botswana. As a result, decision-making is often muted by efforts from these individuals to maintain their affiliations with the president. The immunity he receives from the constitution allows him to be a “legal criminal,” not bound by the constitution, which is supposed to be our supreme law. The power afforded to him by the state of emergency (SOE) gives him the power of a dictator for a stipulated period of time, and if in the wrong hands, it can be weaponized against the state. Finally, the organisations that should be independent, those that owe the people the service of protecting us from an abuse of power, are the very same organisations that are run by him. Therefore, the constitution gives the president absolute powers, although we are in a democratic state.

As the country is currently pushing the notion of a constitutional review, I am of the personal belief that the powers of the president should be neutralised so that we do not risk giving absolute power to the president, forgetting to humanise him, his duty, and his potential to make mistakes that can affect the country as a whole.