BOTSWANA INTRODUCTION Access to information, or the right to information, is a critical element of any functioning democracy. It serves as a safeguard against corruption and impunity amongst elected officials and also empowers citizens to demand important information relevant to their daily lives. Although Botswana currently enjoys a reputation as one of the most democratic countries in Africa, access to information is by no means guaranteed. Transparency, consultation and accountability are just some of the attributes that have always found resonance in Botswana’s traditional participatory democracy, which predates independence, achieved in 1966. Like many other oppressive governments, the government of Botswana has increasingly shown traits of secrecy in its operations. Contrary to the traditional style of leadership where decisions were made by leaders (Chiefs), who encouraged public engagement, the new form of government we have adopted under the banner of democracy has failed to engage the public in decisionmaking and restricts public access to information. Leaders in the traditional system were born into office, not elected, but the structures allowed the public to have an input on issues affecting them with representation at different levels. The arrangement had entrenched systems of checks and balances that ultimately made Chiefs accountable to the people over whom they ruled. The Chief frequently shared his thoughts with his people and always sought their input and guidance before making far-reaching decisions through Kgotla meetings (public gatherings). We have since witnessed the collapse of these structures between independence and now, as the old system of ruling was completely reformed. Under the current decision-making and information sharing structures all powers now lie within the Office of the President, which oversees the entire system under the authority of the President. Initially, efforts were made to enable citizens to participate in decision-making through different forums that allowed them to hold their leaders accountable. Such arrangements continued long into independence, with Presidents always allowing for public consultation, albeit to varying degrees. As our independence matured and different Presidents came and went, we witnessed the silent death of such structures at the hands of the government in power. However, it appears that these open and transparent practices from the Bogosi era (where tribal leaders were the highest authority) have not found their way into Botswana’s modern form of government, and there have been growing complaints that government has been making important decisions without public consultation. This low degree of engagement has been widely criticised, with critics arguing that it has reduced the role of the public in decisionmaking, as ‘rubber stamping’ decisions are made solely by those in power. This has led to numerous complaints that government only releases the information it wants the public to know about. 10 Critics within this country have repeatedly cried foul against State media, which they label ‘government propaganda machinery’, used by the ruling elite to control public perception. The absence of independent reporting in the State media houses has denied citizens their right to access factual information and balanced reports, as coverage and control is held by those in power. The enactment of the Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority Act 2012 and the Public Service Act 2010 confirmed the government’s intentions to restrict and control the flow of information. This monopoly of information has also weakened the country’s democracy in many ways. Critics claim that without the sufficient provision of information, citizens have routinely been unable to make informed decisions on critical issues that affect not just their lives but also the direction of the country, as well as the national public discourse. This new form of government has long been condemned for a lack of political will to combat corruption, particularly in light of the perceived lack of independence of organisations like the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC). These issues have created a breeding ground for corrupt officials and proliferate injustice. Oversight institutions like the DCEC and the judicial system have failed to work efficiently to prosecute several high ranking officials who have been accused of foul play on many occasions. We have recently witnessed a case involving a top security agent where government machinery is using all of its powers to prevent justice from taking its course. It was revealed in the previous survey that the Directorate of Intelligence and Security was the most secretive organisation and that such institutions with undefined powers may pose a danger to our democracy. RATIONALE AND RESEARCH PARAMETERS This year’s study focused on eight ministries with the aim of assessing the degree to which they are accessible and responsive to the public’s demand for information. The survey was conducted between the 18th of June and the 11th of July 2014. The study indicates how transparent each ministry is by using prescribed tools to measure the level of responsiveness for each chosen ministry within a given time frame. The following government institutions were surveyed: 1. Ministry of Lands and Housing 2. Ministry of Infrastructure, Science and Technology 3. Ministry of Labour and Home Affairs 4. Ministry of Education and Skills Development 5. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation 6. Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism 7. Ministry of Youth Sports and Culture 8. Ministry of Local Government