International Affairs — Africa Botswana, Mauritius Touted As Successful Exceptions by Larry Luxner Other than their location in sub-Saharan Africa, Botswana and Mauritius have seemingly little in common. With only 1.3 million inhabitants populating its 233,000 square miles of territory, Texas-size Botswana is one of the emptiest countries on Earth. The landlocked nation is blessed with diamonds, copper, nickel and gold — but cursed with one of the world’s highest AIDS infection rates. Mauritius, on the other hand, has no natural resources to speak of. Its 1.2 million people are jammed into an island slightly larger than Frederick County, Md., making it the 10th most densely populated country in the world. Botswana’s population is highly homogenous, with the Tswana people comprising the clear majority — unlike Mauritius, whose people are descended from French and Dutch settlers, Indian indentured servants, African slaves and Chinese traders. What links these two disparate African nations together is their uncommon success on a continent “scarred by political repression and economic underdevelopment,” according to the Washington-based Cato Institute. “In 2007, Freedom House certified both countries as free, and the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World report found that Botswana and Mauritius had the two freest economies in Africa,” said a Cato report. “According to the World Bank, the two also have — along with Seychelles — Africa’s highest per-capita incomes. What explains that success? Why did the institutions of freedom take root in Botswana and Mauritius, while failing to do so in most other African countries?” To answer these questions, the Cato Institute’s Marian Tupy moderated an event titled “Botswana and Mauritius: African Success Stories” featuring both countries’ ambassadors to the United States. Lapologang Caesar Lekoa, who has represented Botswana here in Washington since 2002, says his nation’s journey to prosperity started more than 40 years ago. “Botswana was resource-poor, underdeveloped, with no physical infrastructure, a per-capita income of only $70 and a donor-funded budget. Three years after independence, our first president, the late Sir Seretse Khama, described Botswana as a country faced with a problem of under-development of classic proportions,” the ambassador said. “Today, Botswana’s per-capita income exceeds $5,000, the country provides free, quality education and health care for all its people, and together with Mauritius, it is the only other country to graduate from a lower level of development to a higher one in the U.N. classification index.” Lekoa also noted that Botswana “has consistently received the highest possible sovereign credit ratings from international rating agencies. According to Transparency International, Botswana is the least corrupt country in Africa, and is graded higher than all the G8 [Group of Eight] countries in the area of political stability by the World Bank.” The situation in Botswana sharply contrasts with that of its troubled neighbor, Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe continues to maintain his iron grip on power after winning an uncontested presidential run-off election in late June that much of the world dismissed as a sham. Despite the unprecedented international condemnation, many African leaders have been reluctant to come down on Mugabe, in part for fear that the spotlight will be cast one their own lackluster democratic credentials — except for Botswana. Botswana’s government has taken a hard-line stance against Mugabe’s 28-year-rule by calling for his country to be suspended from the African Union and the Southern African Development Community, joining other world leaders in denouncing Mugabe’s recent victory as illegitimate. Perhaps it’s no surprise that Botswana has been one of the few African nations to rebuke Zimbabwe given its history of political freedom. Lekoa attributes Botswana’s “rare African success story” to tolerance, pragmatism, the idea of leaders as servants of the people, consensus, and a sense of inclusiveness. “We believe that all of our citizens can make a contribution to national development, irrespective of political affiliation or station in life,” said Lekoa. “The former president of Botswana, Sir Quett Masire, observed that in deciding on important matters such as national symbols, the whole nation was consulted. Thus, our national anthem was created by the founder of an opposition party. The colors and design of the flag were proposed by a former colonial officer. This would have been unthinkable in many countries then, and even now. “Many people believe that our pragmatism was an instinctive reaction of our earlier suffering, uncertainty and hardship in a poor and drought-stricken country,” he continued. “National choices were therefore made on the basis of what worked, not what ideological label was attached to it. This saw Botswana choose market capitalism at independence, when many African countries opted for central planning in order to assert national control over resources in the post-independence era.” Indeed, unlike many of its neighbors, Lekoa says Botswana was never attracted to the idea of a one-party state. “For people already espousing ethics such as political tolerance, inclusiveness and consensus, political pluralism would seem was a more natural option than anything else,” he said. “So the ‘necessity’ of a one-party system, justified by many countries in the 1960s on the basis of national unity or nation-building, did not appear so imperative in the case of Botswana.” More important, he added, “non-pluralistic options were deemed incapable of delivering on the practical needs of the people. Socialism or state capitalism was not considered a viable tool in that regard.” Next Page

Would you like to become a WashDiplomat sponsor?