Scientific advice, adaptive management, and public policy
Opinions
Crafting scientifically enlightened management interventions that address environmental and socioeconomic challenges can be treacherous terrain. To do both, it sometimes isn't enough to simply lay the evidence before the public in a dispassionate way.
At times, one has to assume the role of an advocate and use the tricks of the trade. But it is well-advised to maintain respectable distance from professional advocates who, like some politicians, are paid to exercise their passion and persuasion on behalf of clients or courses in which they may not privately believe. Rather, science-based discourse, procedure, and delivery offers tremendous potential in repositioning adaptive management as a useful framework in guiding public policy design, implementation, and review in Botswana and the developing world.
Scientific and technological advances are the bedrock for socio-economic development and progress. Science is a venerable way of knowledge acquisition and application. In the mainstream mode, science is a formalised protocol of accumulating factual knowledge and understanding of practical natural phenomena.
Properly pursued, the process seeks sequential observations, controlled experiments, and staged management actions that distinguish among alternative possibilities, progressively zeroing in on a better understanding of the phenomenon or problem under interrogation. We may think of understanding as what we use in order to adequately apply our wisdom and our knowledge in guiding our actions. Understanding is more often used to try to alter an outcome than to repeat or perpetuate it.
That’s why psychologists and psychiatrists try to understand the minds of poachers, passion killers, murderers, and rapists, why social historians try to understand tribalism and genocide, and why medics try to understand the causes of disease. In their respective fields, these professionals do not seek to justify poaching, passion killings, murder, rape, genocide and illness. Instead, they seek to use their understanding of an intricate train of causes so as to modify or interrupt the chain. Management, governance, and administration should thrive on similar principles and approaches.
As benevolent custodians of the truth, scientists are supposed to reinforce existing paradigms of management by increasing the precision and efficiency of data collection rather than merely testing questions that may overturn policy. Scientists accumulate knowledge that may be called upon for policy formulation; they should have the various pieces ready if needed.
Scientists must announce crises through alerting society of the failures and dangers of past, perceived, and existing policy on challenges such as biodiversity changes, human-wildlife conflict, HIV/AIDS, alcohol use and abuse, poverty alleviation and eradication, deteriorating moral fabric, etc. Scientists should systematically interrogate and integrate the requisite knowledge, if and when solicited so as to advise policy reform. They should also use their knowledge and experience to contribute towards new, evidence- or science-based policy with the intention of better and adaptive management.
Generally, adaptive management incorporates research into strategic action. Specifically, it is the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn from coordinated experience. Adaptive management is good management, but not all good management is adaptive management. Adaptive management requires common sense, but that is not a licence to just try whatever crosses, or appeals to, the mind.
Instead, adaptive management requires a scientific approach to challenges through testing hypotheses and systematically trying different actions to achieve a desired outcome. It is not however, a random trial-and-error process as reported in lay terminology. Instead, it first involves conceptualising the problem at hand, then developing a specific set of testable hypotheses carefully crafted from existing theory, aligned with what actions might be undertaken to explain those phenomena.
These actions are then implemented and results thereof actually rigorously monitored to gauge how they compare with predictions. The key here is to develop an understanding of not only which actions work and which do not, but also how and why. Adaptation is about taking action to improve delivery based on the results of past or existing monitoring regimes. If actions do not achieve the expected results, the likelihood is that; a) actions were poorly executed, b) conditions of application have changed, c) monitoring was sloppy, or d) some other permutation of the above.
But the sad reality in Botswana is that we are having some policies and legislation supported by the grossest of superstitions, suspicions, and other degrees and expressions of ignorance and religiosity, especially those attempts reportedly aimed at correcting environmental problems and societal discord. And it is some celebrated professionals, experts, and consultants who are supplying government and the public with latently terminal advice on how to behave into the future.
It becomes worrisome when experts deliberately manipulate and dupe government and the public that misinformation, mediocrity, dishonesty, deceit, and coercion are sustainable premises for successful policy delivery. We need formal peer review that helps reassure the consuming public that the policies advanced are founded on sound scientific footing. Once we abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once we start arranging the truth in media briefings and other consultative fora, then anything is possible.
In one context, we might accomplish some mobilization against some environmental and socioeconomic challenges, but in another context, we court disaster. The danger is always there, if we subvert science to extreme partisan and business ends. As humans, scientists are not quite impartial, but science should be impartial. That is why it is so important for the future of science in Botswana that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly and defended.
In one sense, the practice is that, with a trendy name and purported objective, with a strong policy position and an impassioned and aggressive public campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak policy thesis will be masqueraded as scientific gospel. Thereafter, any criticism becomes beside the point. Such is how bad science is used at times to promote what some people would consider good policy. Uncertainties in scientific evidence are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for consultants to invariably propose and support policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron or commissioning institution.
Next, there is organised marginalisation, discrimination, and isolation of those scientists who sound technical and procedural deficiencies to policy formulation and review, and the characterization of those scientists as “academics”, “outsiders”, and "sceptics" – suspect individuals with suspect motives, reactionaries, or simply anti-establishment nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though citizen scientists are uncomfortable about how scientific protocols are being trampled. Is this what science has become? Hopefullynot. But this is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by citizen scientists to reconcile science and public policy, and also aggressively separate science from politics. Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics.
The connection between scientific evidence and public policy has regrettably become elusively elastic in Botswana. Several hypotheses help explain this observation; a) the complacency of the citizen scientific profession, b) the lack of good science education among the public; c) the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy, and d) because of civil society’s failure as independent assessors of evidence.
When distinguished institutions no longer differentiate between factual content and institutional opinion, but rather mix both freely in press statements and workshops, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard? We should strive for broad education about science, and about its methods and uncertainties. But we should do this precisely because it will promote wide and engaged debate, and airing of worries and precautions, not under any delusion that such a scientifically literate society will be a passive consumer.
Especially in the early stages, questioning, dissent, and dissident opinion are hugely useful. It is important that consensus is not reached too early least it inhibits important lines of investigation. That initial resistance or opposition is a fundamental characteristic of human nature. It is quite valid because it accords the progenitors and the public critical opportunity to reconsider and interrogate procedures and the prevailing evidence. Sharing ignorance is important in gaining confidence from the public.
True to its practical expression, science will provide no miracles, but science can do a lot to ameliorate the dislocations that are gaining currency in Botswana as it has delivered for the developed world. While much of science deals with things that are indeed well understood, many of the topics that engage public attention in Botswana lie at or beyond the frontiers of what is currently known.
Regrettably, the fair majority of current science advice to government policy-makers is routine, grounded on tired and fairly plodded areas of science. Here, public expectations – “tell us the facts” are the order of the day. In this instance, it is necessary to understand that science is as much – or more – a way of asking illuminating questions, as it is a collection of tidy and certain answers. There are areas of science where, for all practical purposes, certain answers can be given, while uncertainty looms in other areas. This needs to be taken in sobriety.
The key to credibility lies in soliciting inputs from a wide range of stakeholders and in being open and sincere about the process, institutions, and people involved. This amounts to a matter of accountability: both the policy-makers and the advisers have to be accountable – ultimately to the public – for the advice given and the use made of it. What is clear, however, is that on environmental and socio-economic challenges, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out.
The primary role of the scientist is not to determine which risks are worth taking, or deciding what choices we should take, but the scientist must be involved in indicating what the possible choices, constraints, and possibilities are. Policy-makers have to know what they can expect from scientific advisers. There is much that science does not know, otherwise research would be redundant! Policy issues arise in areas of scientific ignorance as well as scientific knowledge.
But the uncertainty and controversy that can characterise science at the limits of current knowledge do not mean that science has nothing to contribute or that all ‘scientific’ opinions are equally plausible. Although there will be cases where the science is inconclusive and experts agree only that further research is needed, established scientific knowledge should often be able to set boundaries to the uncertainty and thus provide a guide to advised and reserved action.
Science is about exploring and discovering new things rather than deciding how, or even if, these things should be used. It is the role of society as a whole to decide how the new knowledge discovered by science should be used. In the end, the debates on scientific matters are not just about science. They involve not just our rational minds but also aspirations, emotions, and experiences of the greater public.
Kabajan Sam KAUNDA is a Nature Detective: People & Wildlife
Senior Lecturer & Research Coordinator: Wildlife Ecology & Conservation
Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Botswana
News
The case for Botswana to ratify the ACDEG
The Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) is the most comprehensive dataset measuring African governance performance through a wide range of 81 indicators under the categories of Security & Rule of law, Participation, Rights & Inclusion, Foundations of Economic Opportunity, and Human Development. It employs scores, expressed out of 100, which quantify a country’s performance for each governance measure and ranks, out of 54, in relation to the 54 African countries.
The 2022 IIAG Overall Governance score is 68.1 and ranks Botswana at number 5 in Africa. In 2019 Botswana was ranked 2nd with an overall score of 73.3. That is a sharp decline. The best-performing countries are Mauritius, Seychelles, Tunisia, and Cabo Verde, in that order. A glance at the categories shows that Botswana is in third place in Africa on the Security and Rule of law; ninth in the Participation, Rights & Inclusion Category – indicating a shrinking participatory environment; eighth for Foundations of Economic Opportunity category; and fifth in the Human Development category.
The 2022 IIAG comes to a sweeping conclusion: Governments are less accountable and transparent in 2021 than at any time over the last ten years; Higher GDP does not necessarily indicate better governance; rule of law has weakened in the last five years; Democratic backsliding in Africa has accelerated since 2018; Major restrictions on freedom of association and assembly since 2012. Botswana is no exception to these conclusions. In fact, a look at the 10-year trend shows a major challenge. While Botswana remains in the top 5 of the best-performing countries in Africa, there are signs of decline, especially in the categories of Human Development and Security & Rule of law.
I start with this picture to show that Botswana is no longer the poster child for democracy, good governance, and commitment to the rule of law that it once was. In fact, to use the term used in the IIAG, Botswana is experiencing a “democratic backsliding.”
The 2021 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) had Botswana at 55/ 100, the lowest ever score recorded by Botswana dethroning Botswana as Africa’s least corrupt country to a distant third place, where it was in 2019 with a CPI of 61/100. (A score closer to zero denotes the worst corrupt and a score closer to 100 indicates the least corrupt country). The concern here is that while other African states are advancing in their transparency and accountability indexes, Botswana is backsliding.
The Transitional National Development Plan lists participatory democracy, the rule of law, transparency, and accountability, as key “deliverables,” if you may call those deliverables. If indeed Botswana is committed to these principles, she must ratify the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance (ACDEG).
The African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance is the African Union’s principal policy document for advancing democratic governance in African Union member states. The ACDEG embodies the continent’s commitment to a democratic agenda and set the standards upon which countries agreed to be held accountable. The Charter was adopted in 2007 and came into force a decade ago, in 2012.
Article 2 of the Charter details its objectives among others as to a) Promote adherence, by each State Party, to the universal values and principles of democracy and respect for human rights; b) Promote and protect the independence of the judiciary; c) Promote the establishment of the necessary conditions to foster citizen participation, transparency, access to information, freedom of the press and accountability in the management of public affairs; d) Promote gender balance and equality in the governance and development processes.
The Charter emphasizes certain principles through which member states must uphold: Citizen Participation, Accountable Institutions, Respect for Human Rights, Adherence to the principles of the Rule of Law, Respect for the supremacy of the constitution and constitutional order, Entrenchment of democratic Principles, Separation of Powers, Respect for the Judiciary, Independence and impartiality of electoral bodies, best practice in the management of elections. These are among the top issues that Batswana have been calling for, that they be entrenched in the new Constitution.
The ACDEG is a revolutionary document. Article 3 of the ACDEG, sets guidance on the principles that must guide the implementation of the Charter among them: Effective participation of citizens in democratic and development processes and in the governance of public affairs; Promotion of a system of government that is representative; Holding of regular, transparent, free and fair elections; Separation of powers; Promotion of gender equality in public and private institutions and others.
Batswana have been calling for laws that make it mandatory for citizen participation in public affairs, more so, such calls have been amplified in the just-ended “consultative process” into the review of the Constitution of Botswana. Many scholars, academics, and Batswana, in general, have consistently made calls for a constitution that provides for clear separation of powers to prevent concentration of power in one branch, in Botswana’s case, the Executive, and provide for effective checks and balances. Other countries, like Kenya, have laws that promote gender equality in public and private institutions inscribed in their constitutions. The ACDEG could be a useful advocacy tool for the promotion of gender equality.
Perhaps more relevant to Botswana’s situation now is Article 10 of the Charter. Given how the constitutional review process unfolded, the numerous procedural mistakes and omissions, the lack of genuine consultations, the Charter principles could have provided a direction, if Botswana was party to the Charter. “State Parties shall ensure that the process of amendment or revision of their constitution reposes on national consensus, obtained, if need be, through referendum,” reads part of Article 10, giving clear clarity, that the Constitution belong to the people.
With the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance in hand, ratified, and also given the many shortfalls in the current constitution, Batswana can have a tool in hand, not only to hold the government accountable but also a tool for measuring aspirations and shortfalls of our governance institutional framework.
Botswana has not signed, nor has it acceded or ratified the ACDEG. The time to ratify the ACDEG is now. Our Movement, Motheo O Mosha Society, with support from the Democracy Works Foundation and The Charter Project Africa, will run a campaign to promote, popularise and advocate for the ratification of the Charter (#RatifytheCharter Campaign). The initiative is co-founded by the European Union. The Campaign is implemented with the support of our sister organizations: Global Shapers Community – Gaborone Hub, #FamilyMeetingBW, Botswana Center for Public Integrity, Black Roots Organization, Economic Development Forum, Molao-Matters, WoTech Foundation, University of Botswana Political Science Society, Young Minds Africa and Branding Akosua.
Ratifying the Charter would reaffirm Botswana’s commitment to upholding strong democratic values, and respect for constitutionalism, and promote the rule of law and political accountability. Join us in calling the Government of Botswana to #RatifyTheCharter.
*Morena MONGANJA is the Chairperson of Motheo O Mosha society; a grassroots movement advocating for a new Constitution for Botswana. Contact: socialcontractbw@gmail.com or WhatsApp 77 469 362.
Opinions
The Taiwan Question: China ramps up military exercises to rebuff US provocations
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosis visit to Taiwan has violated the One-China policy, and caused the escalation of tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Experts and political observers across the spectra agree that Pelosis actions and subsequent pronouncements by US President Joe Biden gave impetus to an already simmering tension in the Taiwan Strait, provoking China to strengthen its legitimate hold on the Taiwan Strait waters, which the US and Taiwan deem as international waters.
Pelosis visit to Chinas Taiwan region has been heavily criticised across the globe, with China arguing that this is a serious violation of the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US Joint Communiqus. In response to this reckless move which seriously undermined China’s sovereignty, and interfered in China’s internal affairs, the expectation is for China to give a firm response. Pelosi visit violated the commitments made by the U.S. side, and seriously jeopardized peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
To give context to Chinas position over Taiwan region, the history behind gives us perspective. It is also important to note that the history between China and Taiwan is well documented and the US has always recognized it.
The Peoples Republic of China recognises Taiwan as its territory. It has always been the case even before the Nationalist Republic of China government fled to the previously Japanese-ruled Island after losing the civil war on the mainland in 1949. According to literature that threat was contained for decades first with a military alliance between the US and the ROC on Taiwan, and after Washington switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1979 by the US One China policy, which acknowledges Beijings position that Taiwan is part of One China. Effectively, Taiwans administration was transferred to the Republic of China from Japan after the Second World War in 1945, along with the split between the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) as a consequence of the Chinese Civil War. Disregarding this history, as the US is attempting to do, will surely initiate some defence reaction on the side of China to affirm its sovereignty.
However, this history was undermined since Taiwan claimed to democratise in the 1990s and China has grown ever more belligerent. Furthermore, it is well documented that the Biden administration, following the Trump presidency, has made subtle changes in the way it deals with Taipei, such as loosening restrictions on US officials meeting Taiwanese officials this should make China uneasy. And while the White House continues to say it does not support Taiwanese independence, Bidens words and actions are parallel to this pledge because he has warned China that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan another statement that has provoked China.
Pelosi, in her private space, would know that her actions amount to provocation of China. This act of aggression by the USA seriously undermines the virtues of sovereignty and territorial integrity which has a huge potential to destabilize not only the Taiwan Strait but the whole of the Asia- Pacific region. The Americans know very well that their provocative behavior is deliberately invoking the spirit of separatism masqueraded as Taiwan independence. The US is misled to think that by supporting separatism of Taiwan from China that would give them an edge over China in a geopolitics. This is what one Chinese diplomat said this week: The critical point is if every country put their One-China policy into practice with sincerity, with no compromise, is going to guarantee the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Therefore, it was in the wake of US House speaker Nancy Pelosis visit to Taiwan, that China, in a natural response revealed plans for unprecedented military exercises near the island, prompting fears of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait and the entire Asia-Pacific region. The world community must promote and foster peace, this may be achieved when international laws are respected. It may also happen when nations respect the sovereignty of another. China may be in a better space because it is well capacitated to stake its territorial integrity, what about a small nation, if this happens to it?
As to why military exercises by Beijing; it is an expected response because China was provoked by the actions of Pelosi. To fortify this position, Chinese President, Xi signed a legal basis for Chinas Peoples Liberation Army to safeguard Chinas national sovereignty, security and development interests. The legal basis will also allow military missions around disaster relief, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. In addition the legal changes would allow troops to prevent spillover effects of regional instabilities from affecting China, secure vital transport routes for strategic materials like oil, or safeguard Chinas overseas investments, projects and personnel. It then follows that President Xis administration cannot afford to look weak under a US provocation. President Xi must protector Chinas sovereignty and territorial integrity, of which Taiwan is a central part. Beijing is very clear on One-China Policy, and expects all world players to recognize and respect it.
The Peoples Liberation Army has made it clear that it has firepower that covers all of Taiwan, and it can strike wherever it wants. This sentiments have been attributed to Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the PLA Navy Research Institute. Zheng further said, We got really close to Taiwan. We encircled Taiwan. And we demonstrated that we can effectively stop intervention by foreign forces. This is a strong reaction from China to warn the US against provocation and violation of the One-China Policy.
Beijings military exercises will certainly shake Taiwans confidence in the sources of its economic and political survival. The potential for an effective blockade threatens the air and shipping routes that support Taiwans central role in global technology supply chains. Should a humanitarian situation arise in Taiwan, the blame would squarely be on the US.
As Chinas military exercises along the Taiwan Strait progress and grow, it remains that the decision by Nancy Pelosi to visit Chinas Taiwan region gravely undermined peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and sent a wrong signal to Taiwan independence separatist forces. This then speaks to international conventions, as the UN Secretary-General Antnio Guterres explicitly stressed that the UN remains committed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. The centerpiece is the one-China principle, namely, there is but one China in the world, the government of the Peoples Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is a part of China. It must be noted that the US and the US-led NATO countries have selectively applied international law, this has been going on unabated. There is a plethora of actions that have collapsed several states after they were attacked under the pretext of the so-called possession of weapons of mass destruction illuminating them as threats – and sometimes even without any valid reason. to blatantly launch military strikes and even unleash wars on sovereign countrie
Opinions
Internal party-democracy under pressure
British novelist, W. Somerset Maugham once opined: If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.
The truism in these words cannot be underestimated, especially when contextualizing against the political developments in Botswana. We have become a nation that does not value democracy, yet nothing represent freedom more than democracy. In fact, we desire, and value winning power or clinging to power more than anything else, even if it harms the democratic credentials of our political institutions. This is happening across political parties ruling and opposition.
As far as democracy is concerned, we are regressing. We are becoming worse-off than we were in the past. If not arrested, Botswana will lose its status as among few democratic nations in the Africa. Ironically, Botswana was the first country in Africa to embrace democracy, and has held elections every five years without fail since independence.
We were once viewed as the shining example of Africa. Those accolades are not worth it any more. Young democracies such as South Africa, with strong institutions, deserves to be exalted. Botswana has lost faith in democracy, and we will pay a price for it. It is a slippery slope to dictatorship, which will bring among other excess, assault on civil liberties and human rights violations.
Former President, Festus Mogae once stated that Botswanas democracy will only become authentic, when a different party, other than the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) wins elections, and when the President of such party is not from Serowe.
Although many may not publicly care to admit, Mogaes assertion is true. BDP has over the years projected itself as a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of democracy, but the moment its stay in power became threatened and uncertain, it started behaving in a manner that is at variance with democratic values.This has been happening over the years now, and the situation is getting worse by the day.
Recently, the BDP party leadership has been preaching compromise and consensus candidates for 2024 general elections. Essentially, the leadership has lost faith in theBulela Ditswedispensation, which has been used to selected party candidates for council and parliament since 2003. The leadership is discouraging democracy because they believe primary elections threaten party unity. It is a strange assertion indeed.
Bulela Ditswewas an enrichment of internal party democracy in the sense that it replaced the previous method of selection of candidates known as Committee of 18, in which a branch committee made of 18 people endorsed the representatives. While it is true that political contest can divide, the ruling party should be investing in political education and strengthening in its primary elections processes. Democracy does not come cheap or easy, but it is valuable.
Any unity that we desire so much at the expense of democracy is not true unity. Like W. Somerset Maugham said, democracy would be lost in the process, and ultimately, even the unity that was desired would eventually be lost too. Any solution that sacrifice democracy would not bring any results in the long run, except misery.
We have seen that also in opposition ranks. The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) recently indicated that its incumbent Members of Parliament (MPs) should not be challenged for their seats. While BDP is sacrificing democracy to stay in power, UDC is sacrificing democracy to win power. It is a scary reality given the fact that both parties ruling and opposition have embraced this position and believe democracy is the hindrance to their political ambitions.
These current reality points to one thing; our political parties have lost faith in democracy. They desire power more than, the purpose of power itself. It is also a crisis of leadership across the political divide, where we have seen dissenting views being met with persecution. We have seen perverting of political process endorsed by those in echelons of power to manipulate political outcomes in their favour.
Democracy should not be optional, it should be mandatory. Any leader proposing curtailing of democracy should be viewed with suspicion, and his adventures should be rejected before it is too late. Members of political parties, as subscribers of democracy, should collectively rise to the occasion to save their democracy from self-interest that is becoming prevalent among Botswana political parties.
The so-called compromise candidates, only benefits the leadership because it creates comforts for them. But for members, and for the nation, it is causing damage by reversing the gains that have been made over the years. We should reject leaders who only preach democracy in word, but are hesitant to practice it.