“Got it wrong big time"
lessons from southern Africa
The BBC had the most astonishing story this morning regarding Botswana, a landlocked but diamond rich country in southern Africa. Few of us can find it on the map, much less know its Botswana Democratic Party has ruled since 1966. I taught a single Botswanan international officer a decade ago at the National War College, a man who courageously and calmly explained how HiV/AIDS was sweeping his fellow citizens but the nation was addressing it in a concerted campaign. The room was utterly silent as he spoke.
Botswana holds elections which the BDP regularly won, evidently fairly and peacefully, until the Umbrella for Democratic Change won the majority this week. Multiple political parties put themselves forward in each election cycle. This is called a functioning democracy, of course.
The almost incomprehensible part in late 2024 is that President Mokgweetsi Masisi responded to defeat by saying his BDP “got it wrong big time”. He conceded the election, then said “I will respectfully step aside and participate in a smooth transition process ahead of inauguration. I am proud of our democratic processes and I will respect the will of the people”, the latter of whom he advised to take a chill pill as they gather behind the incoming administration. Later, Masisi elaborated that he would do whatever he could to support his successor, Duma Boko.
Boko, for his part, argued that the election took Botswana to a “higher (democratic) level”.
Obviously, the transition is a process just underway but one that Botswanans are implementing.
In the current world of political campaigners across the globe frequently casting doubt on any losses (known or even potential) by accusing the opposition of cheating, this is truly a noteworthy event. Of course there is cheating that happens in some elections but evidence is that voter fraud in democratic nations occurs far less often than suggested by losing candidates. No, none—none—of us likes rejection—by voters, processes, or anyone else, but the election choice of someone else does not equate to vote fraud. There are winners and there are losers as human choose. Too many losers in too many elections are trying to rewrite results because they are not winners. Uh, no. That is not representative democracy anywhere.
Call me silly but if far more political figures worried about governing rather than extending their time in power, I suspect we would find a couple of things. First, there might be better outcomes for the publics around the world. No guarantee but certainly seems a plausible cause and effect to me. Second, there might well be fewer protests about election fraud since voters could decide based on results rather than increasingly frantic complaints about abstractions often difficult to find evidence to support, one way or the other. Third, political actions could lead us to a less cynical electorate falling prey to all sorts of nonsensical assertions about motives and inplausible courses of events.
Things could go wrong in Botswana, of course. Governing, especially in a democracy, is a process; has always been, is now, and will be forever. It is not a single moment such as an election, an inauguration, or transfer of a sash of power. But Botswana’s outgoing president is currently showing a remarkable presence of mind in leading his nation to the outcome the voters have chosen—and probably one that is easier in the long term for all.
What a refreshing idea too often forgotten of late in multiple places. But admitting the party actually made a mistake with its policies is the most laudable recognition of all. None of us—none—are superhuman and all misjudge at times. Actions indeed create consequences.
Thoughts about Botswana’s last couple of days? Reactions on accepting voting results? I welcome any and all of them so please, please chime in. This newsletter celebrates building civil, measured conversation as it’s never been intended to be my ideas alone. Please feel free to circulate this as I was deeply honored another reader circulated the column two days ago on the Maryland State House and Character in his William Larry’s Substack last night.
Thank you for your time and especially for the subscribers. You each matter.
Celebrate the autumn while you turn back the clocks in the United States tomorrow. Be well, vote, and be safe. FIN
Wycliffe Muia and Damnian Zane, “Botswana ruling party rejected after 58 years in power”, BBC.com, 1 November 2024, retrieved at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c238n5zr51yo
I totally get and agree with your thoughts on this. However (there is always going to be a "however" on this topic)... I just don't understand why we make voting harder than it has to be or should be. On the surface, it would seem to be a pretty straight-forward process. I'm no expert but my gut tells me that there are two big areas of "suspicion" that need to be fixed to restore full reliability and trust in the voting process .... at least at the Federal level: 1) any time human hands are involved, there is ample opportunity for error and/or outright fraud that is not party dependent. It can, and probably has, happened both ways over time. And 2) machines are equally open to error / fraud via cyber intrusions, calibration, functionality, etc. So where does that leave us? I don't have that answer.
I am firmly in the camp of one "ELIGIBLE" person, one vote. The States are all over the map (literally) with their voting rules and processes for State and local level voting which doesn't help. North Dakota doesn't even require voter registration. From USA.gov... you can vote in Federal elections if:
- you are a U.S. citizen
- you meet your State's residency requirements (this is another problem area State to State)
- you are 18 years old on or before Election day
- you are registered to vote by your State's voter registration deadline (except N. Dakota)
You can't vote in Federal elections if:
- you're a non-citizen
- you've been convicted of a felony (rules are different in each state - more ambiguity)
- you have a mental disability (rules vary by state - more ambiguity)
- you are a U.S. citizen residing in a U.S. territory (you can't vote in the Presidential election)
Not mentioned on the website but assumed that to vote, you must also be a living breathing person. Although there are documented cases of votes being cast from the great beyond.
As indicated, the various State rules impact this greatly and cause a lot of consternation. That, when added to the two areas of potential error / fraud combine to make what should be an easy thing very complicated and open to all sorts of accusations regarding validity.
I have always failed to understand why there is so much angst against having to show identification that proves you are a U.S. citizen and/or a valid voter registered in a specific area. I know this statement gets into all the arguments about those who aren't able to get identification, etc. which in-turn would preclude a valid U.S. citizen their chance to vote. However, if we're going to fix this mess, we need to draw a definitive line somewhere that's enforceable and immune to error and fraud.
While most of our Presidential transitions of power have been smooth and relatively uneventful (not unemotional) we have a history of not getting this perfectly correct. In 1860 / 1861, the transfer between President Buchanan to newly elected President Lincoln was anything but smooth. There were serious challenges to the validity of the Electoral College votes putting Lincoln in the seat. A month after the election, S. Carolina held a statewide convention and unanimously voted to secede from the Union. Six more Southern states followed. We know where that led.
In 1932 / 1933 President Hoover's transition to President F.D. Roosevelt was pretty ugly. Hoover reportedly "did everything in his power to stand in the way of Roosevelt's New Deal." Roosevelt refused to collaborate with Hoover after blaming Hoover for the Great Depression.
More recently, 2000 / 2001, President Clinton's transition to President George W. Bush began our more contested election results. Who will ever forget the "hanging chads" in Florida and numerous challenges to the election results by Al Gore even after he had conceded to Bush. It took the Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount and Gore eventually conceded...again. There were many reports (substantiated) of an angry Clinton staff who left the White House in shambles to include ripping phones out of the walls, defacing bathrooms and removing the letter "W" from White House computer keyboards. The General Accounting Office determined over $15K worth of damage was done.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/opinions/terrible-presidential-transitions-hurt-america-balcerski/index.html
And of course the Obama / Trump transition and Jan 6th issues. We haven't gotten any better. No, our elections are not pretty. And this one will be no different... and possibly worse. It may take bi-partisan engagement to the level of effort it took to draft our Constitution to fix this in some meaningful way if we really want to protect our democracy and free-voting process going forward. And we need to do it. For centuries, we've stood on that one principal to define us as a Nation and separate us from dictatorships across the world. How can we continue to push that message if our own house is in disorder? Purple-inked thumbs from formerly oppressed countries will mean nothing if we can't be that beacon of hope to those who have never experienced true freedom.