Botswana: A Development-Oriented Gate-Keeping state - A Reply to Ian Taylor

Abstract

I am delighted that my article ‘Botswana: a development-oriented gate-keeping state’ has instigated a debate with such a distinguished scholar as Ian Taylor. While post-independence Botswana is well known for economic growth, social development, and a maturing formal democracy, how we understand and interpret the drivers and substance of this success story has become increasingly controversial. I believe that instead of being content with Botswana's present achievements it is justifiable to ask: What is required for the country to erase poverty, develop its rural areas, achieve a diversified and sustainable economy and society, and become a high-income country characterized by modern economic growth, inclusive of social welfare and full political freedoms? It is in relation to such ambitions that it is imperative to understand the development potential of the existing state structure. I claim that with the present state structure there is significant risk that Botswana will stagnate rather than develop further, especially considering the possibility that the country will run out of profitable mineral deposits in the future and the militarization of politics that some argue is taking place under President Ian Khama.1 Given this, I argue that if the country is to continue and improve its development trajectory, structural change will be necessary. The facts of Botswana's post-1966 development have been presented in a rich body of literature and I do not believe that the controversy here is about the reliability of the facts. Instead, it is the interpretation of them and what inferences are to be drawn from them that is being discussed. This is far from a simple exercise in the sense that Botswana may not be a clear-cut case of any state model. Even Taylor himself writes that ‘Botswana is an example of a state that has pursued certain policies … [which have led] … what might be regarded as a developmental state to emerge’.2 Despite this slippery description, Taylor reaches the conclusion that Botswana must be regarded as a developmental state. Reflecting on Taylor's arguments, it is clear to me that our disagreement is rooted in the different ways that political scientists and economic historians interpret evidence. Our different emphasis on socio-political development as against economic development means that we reach contradictory conclusions. This seems to hold true for how we understand and define both the developmental and the gate-keeping state. In this reply I will try to elaborate my argument further with the aim of, if not convincing, then at least clarifying why I claim that Botswana's state structure fits better with the notion of a gate-keeping state concept than with developmental state theory.