Compare and contrast how the historical context in Botswana and Somalia influenced political outcomes.
Apply the concept of capacity in Botswana and Somalia.
Introduction
Why compare and contrast Botswana and Somalia when discussing the state? This selection provides an example of a Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD). As reviewed in Chapter 2, the MSSD requires comparativists to consider at least two cases that are similar in terms of underlying conditions (control variables), yet have an outcome of interest (the dependent variable) that differs. Botswana and Somalia have a number of geographic and historical circumstances in common, and yet the resulting political outcomes have been very different. The primary difference between these two countries is their form of legitimate authority.
The Republic of Botswana is located in Southern Africa, and it is a landlocked country. Botswana is bordered by South Africa to the south, Namibia to the northwest, and Zimbabwe to the northeast. Botswana has a long history, and is credited with perhaps being the "birthplace" of all modern humans dating back over 200,000 years. Much of what is known about the ancient Botswana region is derived from archeological and anthropological research, which has traced evidence of human civilization through ancient tools, cave drawings, and evidence of farming practices that existed through the region over time. Although there is robust evidence of the region’s population adopting agricultural practices and having tribal norms and values that were followed, the first actual written records of life in Botswana did not exist until the 1820s.
Botswana was one of many African countries affected by the Scramble for Africa, sometimes also called the Conquest of Africa, wherein Western European powers attempted to control and colonize all parts of Africa. The Scramble for Africa occurred between the years of 1880 to 1914, with countries like Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and Italy invading and colonizing much of Africa. Botswana was dominated by Britain. Under British rule, the region of Botswana was called the Bechuanaland Protectorate.
Part of the reason the region was called a protectorate was that Britain annexed, or took over, the region on the basis that they were "protecting" the main tribes from the Boers. The Boers were descendents of Dutch colonists in Southern Africa, and would frequently attempt to take over the territory of Botswana tribes. To protect their economic and military interests in Botswana, Britain permitted the Bechuanaland Protectorate to operate under its own leadership and rules, but supplied resources to protect the region from the Boers. A protectorate is defined as an area or nation that is managed, possessed, controlled, and protected by a different state. The area or nation is dependent in that it relies on the security provided by another state, but is still allowed, to some extent, to dictate its own local politics and activities.
At the beginning of the 20th century, more and more power started being shared with the various tribes and councils within Southern Africa. Various proclamations enabled tribal powers to have some level of power over how they conducted themselves. Nevertheless, it was not until 1964 that Britain allowed Botswana to declare its independence. Botswana was able to hold its first elections in 1966, following the creation of its own constitution in 1965.
Today, Botswana is considered Africa’s oldest and most stable democracy, though it is not without some issues (which will be discussed below). Botswana’s Constitution provides the supreme law of the law and the basis for rule. There are components of Botswana’s constitution that seek to protect the citizens of Botswana by providing for certain civil liberties. Civil liberties are individual rights that are protected by law to ensure the government does not unreasonably interfere (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly). Botswana is a parliamentary republic, which is a system of government where the executive branch is given its powers by the legislative branch. In Botswana’s case, the president serves as both the head of state and head of government, and is elected by, and held accountable by, Botswana’s Parliament.
Although Botswana has three branches of government with defined powers according to their constitution, and even though free and fair elections do occur, there is some question as to the true level of freedom within Botswana. The Freedom in the World Index categorizes Botswana’s democracy as free, but a number of global indexes for democracy, including the Democracy Index, categorize Botswana as having a flawed democracy. (Chapter 4 will discuss the various manifestations of democracy worldwide in detail, but it is worth noting that not all democracies qualify as fully democratic. Instead, analysts measure democracy on a spectrum based on multiple characteristics. One such characteristic is whether a democracy has more than one political power that is able to reasonably vie for power.)
One area of concern among some analysts is Botswana’s party system. Botswana has been dominated by single party rule since independence, which may be an indication that there is a lack of fair competition. A second area of concern relates to perceived threats to Botswana’s freedom of speech and freedom of press. A third cautionary issue is how Botswana’s government treats migrants, refugees, and the LGBTQIA+ community; all of these groups face constant discrimination under the law.
While Botswana’s current situation shows a number of democratic flaws, Botswana still has one of the oldest, most stable democracies in Africa. In addition, according to most indexes, Botswana is one of the least corrupt democracies in Africa, earning it the nickname of the "African Exception." Why has Botswana been reasonably successful in comparison to other African states?
One explanation is cultural. At the time of Botswana’s independence in the mid-1960s, life for the people of Botswana was fairly traditional and undisturbed. There was a clear changing of the seasons, which led to predictable crops and management of agriculture. As agriculture was the dominant economic activity of the time, life in Botswana was relatively stable. In addition, prior to the move to formal independence vis-a-vis the creation of a government and the adoption of a constitution, the loose agreements with Britain within the protectorate structure allowed the region to operate with its own leaders within tribes. The people of Botswana therefore had experience with a hierarchical power dynamic where tribal decisions were based on the consensus and agreement of the tribes, a type of informal democracy. The combination of experience in a power hierarchy and the tradition of gathering consent of the people may have contributed to the successful adoption of a democratic form of government. A saying in Setswana seems to capture this sentiment prior to the adoption of a constitution: "Kgosi ke Kgosi ka batho," meaning "A chief is a chief by the will of the people" (Lewis, 2020).
Another explanation is resource-based. The British lacked interests in Botswana's geographical resources. Britain had been interested in other locations within Africa, so many other countries in Africa were exploited for their resources. Interestingly, Botswana was largely left alone. It has been said that a government official in Botswana quipped, ”The British left us with nothing!” He then paused, thoughtfully, and added, “On the other hand, the British left us with nothing” (Lewis, 2020). For democratic development, it may have been helpful that the British left Botswana alone, allowing the state to largely develop its own institutions and governmental practices. This helped Botswana transition from previous practices with, relative to other countries, a higher level of ease.
Full Country Name: Somalia, Federal Republic of Somalia
Head(s) of State: President, Prime Minister
Government: Federal parliamentary republic
Official Languages: Somali, Arabic
Economic System: Informal
Location: Eastern Africa
Capital: Mogadishu
Total land size: 246,201 sq miles
Population: 15,893,219
GDP: $5.218 billion
GDP per capita: $348
Currency: Somali Shilling
Somalia is a country located in Eastern Africa, the Horn of Africa, and bordered by Kenya, Ethiopia, and Djibouti. Like Botswana, Somalia has a long history. In fact, Somalia is thought to have been settled by the first human beings (homo sapiens) on the planet, who are thought to have emerged roughly 300,000 years ago. Archaeological digs have unearthed pyramids, tombs, ancient cities, tools, burial grounds, homes, and walls. Over time, the land that is now Somalia was affected by various civilizations and outside influences given its location for trade. Somalia was a stopping point that enabled profitable trade to occur between what is now the Middle East, connecting trading pathways with India and China. In the 9th century, Islam was introduced to the region of present-day Somalia by Muslims fleeing persecution. Over time, Islam grew to be the main religion of Somalia.
Somalia, like Botswana, was a target within the Scramble for Africa, though the influence of colonial powers differed in Somalia. Botswana had been under British control, while Somalia was partially dominated by Britain, and partially dominated by Italy. The two colonial powers fought for control over Somali territory, to the detriment of the Somalians. In World War I, Italy, which had turned fascist under the rule of Benito Mussolini, sought to annex Ethiopia. Italian troops, along with some Somali troops, were able to take back parts of Somalia formerly dominated by the British. Years later, during World War II, Britain was able to successfully take back its former Somali territory, as well as those parts that were held by Italian forces. The battle between Britain and Italy to dominate Somalia often put the Somalians in difficult positions where they had to side with one or the other.
After years of dispute in the international community, including between Britain and Italy, Somalia formed the Somali Republic in 1961. A referendum was put forth for the people to accept a constitution, which would set the foundations for their own government. Unfortunately, most Somalians were not allowed to participate in the voting for the new constitution. A president and prime Minister were put into place, but their positions were not the product of voting. In 1969, the President Abdirashid Ali Shermarke was assassinated during a military coup d'état. The leader of the military at that time, Major General Mohamed Siad Barre, initiated the coup, became the leader of the Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC), and controlled the country. The country became an authoritarian regime, with the SRC dissolving the legislature and the judiciary, and suspending the constitution. For a time under this control, the SRC renamed Somalia, the Somali Democratic Republic, though there was no constitution nor any democratic institutions. In 1976, Mohamed Siad Barre disbanded the SRC and formed the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party. Barre’s administration was a communist regime that attempted to wed the Islamic traditions of the region with socialist ideas of equality.
Regardless of the lofty goals of Major General Barre, decades of military rule left the Somalian people restless and disillusioned. In 1991, in the face of increasingly authoritarian rules, Barre’s rule came to an end through the combined efforts of different clans who opposed Barre’s rule. Together, the clans were able to oust Barre. The northern part of the country, previously occupied by Britain, declared independence from the rest of Somalia, though it has never been recognized as independent by the global community. The rest of Somalia became a power vacuum; a civil war began where the clans that had ousted Barre fought for dominance. During the civil war, many political scientists began calling Somalia a failed state because there was no dominant authority able to reign supreme. Instead, the region was dominated by many groups vying for authority, but no group was able to gain longstanding legitimacy or create durable political institutions.
In 2000, the Transitional National Government (TNG) was established, and Abdiqasim Salad Hassan was selected to be the president. Ideally, this government was put in place to help Somalia transition to a formal and legitimate government authority, but this time period remained unstable. For example, the prime minister’s office turned over four times within the first three years of the TNG’s establishment. Finally, in 2012, the Federal Government of Somalia was formed, which has been the most permanent central government authority in place since 1991. This government utilizes a federal parliamentary republic, though it is not a democracy and Freedom House categorizes Somalia as "not free." The civil war that began in 1991 has not ended, and internal disputes still wreak disastrous consequences on the Somalian people. The federal government lacks widespread support, there is constant political infighting, and massive corruption exists. The government is also inefficient, unable to collect taxes, unable to stimulate economic productivity, and operates on an insufficient government budget. When considering the impact of all of these factors combined with ongoing drought conditions, millions of Somalians have been displaced.
Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): Internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Somalia. These individuals are displaced largely because of the ongoing civil war, but also as a consequence of drought. (Source:Somaliland Drought, by Oxfam East Africa is licensed underCC BY 2.0)
Although both Botswana and Somalia were deeply affected by the Scramble for Africa, one of the key differences may have been the way in which the colonial governments left the respective regions. While the British largely left Botswana to its own devices, Somalia did not have the same luck. Instead, Somalia was initially dominated partly by Italy and partly by Britain. In time, Somalia was also affected by World War I and World War II in ways that Botswana was not. The persistent disruptions and foreign interventions faced by Somalia left it fragile. Lacking the pre-existing conditions that Botswana benefited from--for instance, its relatively seamless transition to democratic institutions and the benefit of Britain leaving without further resource exploitation--and having suffered from a number of internal and external issues, Somalia continues to struggle.
