W ith the year 2007 being the final year in office for President Festus Mogae with Ian Khama waiting in line to take over the reigns, Botswana found herself gripped by an undercurrent of anxiety and uncertainty over the probability of impending transitional consequences come March 2008. A socio-political atmosphere characterised by abundant speculation and persistent doubt that did not often exclude fear prevailed. At the heart of these whisperings were questions like: • would Mogae’s power handover signal an end to civilian rule as Botswana had come to know it? • would it mean the beginning of military rule draped in democratic robes? • would it herald an era of an overtly repressive regime? The rushed nature in which the Intelligence and Security Services Bill was enacted exacerbated the situation and caused a stir particularly within the media fraternity and in politico-academic circles. Media-Government Relationship While the African Media Barometer: Botswana 2007 report records that the Government of Botswana had become more receptive to ideas from the private media, there were a number of instances where relations between the Government and the fourth estate became rather tense. The first was when MISA and the Botswana Civil Society Coalition for Zimbabwe (BOCISCOZ) proactively pressurised the Government to engage Zimbabwe in talks on account of the latter’s crises. There was some stress, but the Botswana Government subsequently succumbed to the pressure and issued “a very strong statement” and even convened an emergency meeting to deliberate on the issue. Secondly, the Ministry of Labour and Home Affairs decided to blacklist some foreign journalists, academics, and rights activists from Australia, the United States, and Canada allegedly on account of their addressing the Central Kalahari Game Reserve issue in their speeches or writings. Subsequent to this incidence the state media was instructed not to publish anything on or by Survival International without a freshly crafted response from the government. The incidents are thus an example of censorship and intimidation of media practitioners by the government. They also showed intolerance of criticism by the media, especially if the media activists happened to be of foreign origin. The introduction of the Intelligence and Security Services Act further strained the media-government relationship. Should this piece of legislation be abused, the media would be among some of the sectors at the receiving end. MISA, the civil society, and other watchdog organisations in the country waged a futile struggle to resist this law; their main concern being that the law was being enacted “without accountability mechanisms and access to information legislation”. Legislative Environment The Intelligence and Security Services Act is one of the most controversial media laws to be passed by Botswana’s National Assembly. While the importance of, and need for comprehensive security legislation is acknowledged, it is feared that the law has loopholes, which could be easily abused as the bill was rushed through Parliament without proper consultation. The law vests a lot of power to the Head of State, which factor stands in conflict with the ideals of democracy. It is anticipated that the violation of democratic rights might become Botswana’s new tune for the future because of the hurried enactment of this law. Opposition parties, media So This Is Democracy? 2007 -22- Media Institute of Southern Africa