This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

021433Z May 05

ACTION AF-00    

INFO  LOG-00   NP-00    AID-00   AMAD-00  CIAE-00  INL-00   DODE-00  
      PERC-00  DS-00    EB-00    VC-00    H-00     TEDE-00  INR-00   
      IO-00    LAB-01   L-00     VCE-00   NRC-00   NSAE-00  OES-00   
      OIC-00   NIMA-00  PA-00    GIWI-00  PRS-00   P-00     FMPC-00  
      SP-00    IRM-00   SSO-00   SS-00    STR-00   TRSE-00  DSCC-00  
      PRM-00   DRL-00   G-00     SAS-00   SWCI-00    /001W
                  ------------------E81042  021449Z /38    
FM AMEMBASSY GABORONE
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2038
INFO SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
NSC WASHDC
HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE

C O N F I D E N T I A L  GABORONE 000600 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
DEPT FOR AF/S DIFFILY 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/01/2015 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV BC
SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FALLS SHORT OF TRIBAL 
EQUALITY 
 
REF: A. GABORONE 56 
 
     ¶B. GABORONE 162 
 
Classified By: AMBASSADOR JOSEPH HUGGINS FOR REASONS 1.4 B AND D 
 
¶1. (C)  Summary:  The GOB has proposed a so-called "tribal 
neutrality" bill that would amend Botswana's constitution 
to broaden representation in the House of Chiefs, the 
largely symbolic second chamber of parliament through which 
traditional leaders advise the National Assembly.  Well over 
a decade in coming, the amendment would do little to 
establish 
parity of status among various ethnic groups in that body. 
One controversial provision of the bill would empower the 
President to appoint five new members to the House of Chiefs. 
 
The amendment would also eliminate a clause that allowed the 
state to grant special access to "defined areas" for the San, 
on which the First People of the Kalahari has based its 
challenge to the GOB of their relocation from the Central 
Kalahari Game Reserve.  This bill reflects two hallmarks of 
the ruling Botswana Democratic Party's approach to 
governance: 
promoting Botswana as a modern democracy based in part on the 
assimilation of marginalized communities into the mainstream 
of society and preserving and extending the power of the 
executive.  End Summary. 
 
------------------------------ 
17 YEARS COMING, 90 DAYS TO GO 
------------------------------ 
 
¶2. (U)  Botswana's National Assembly is considering a 
constitutional amendment nominally aimed at establishing 
"tribal neutrality" regarding representation of Botswana's 
various tribes in the House of Chiefs, the largely symbolic 
second chamber of parliament that advises the National 
Assembly.  The context of the issue is the historical 
status of the Setswana-speaking clusters -- the Bamangwato, 
the Bangwaketse, the Bakwena, the Bakgatla, the Batlokwa, 
the Bamalete, the Barolong, and the Batawana -- whom the 
British colonizers recognized as having paramount chiefs. 
First raised in Parliament in 1988, the proposal to make the 
constitution "tribally neutral" was the subject of a 
Presidential (Balopi) Commission in 2000, the report of 
which generated a number of recommendations that inform the 
current amendment bill.  Having completed a third reading in 
the National Assembly, the bill has entered a ninety-day 
waiting period for the purpose of further consultation. 
After ninety days, the bill will come before parliament 
again, at which time parliament could make amendments before 
voting on it. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
EXPANDED REPRESENTATION IN HOUSE OF CHIEFS 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶3. (U)  The central provision of the bill would more than 
double the size of the House of Chiefs to 35 seats.  The bill 
would retain the ex-officio seats for the eight so-called 
"major" Tswana tribes and four members from Chobe, Ghanzi, 
Kgalagadi and the Northeast who are elected by the 
traditional 
leaders in each area.  It would add up to twenty members to 
be 
elected by an electoral college consisting of traditional 
leaders in each of twenty regions around the country and five 
members appointed by the President. 
 
¶4. (U)  While this change is likely to increase 
representation 
of non-Tswana groups in the House of Chiefs, that outcome is 
not 
guaranteed.  Each of the twenty regions includes communities 
with 
various tribal affiliations, some Tswana and some not. 
Currently, 
when communities elect a headman, he must be approved by the 
paramount chief (a Tswana) over that area before he becomes 
eligible for a salary.  These paid headmen would constitute 
the 
electoral college in each region, chaired by a "senior 
government 
official appointed by the Minister responsible for local 
government", which would elect a representative to the House 
of 
Chiefs.  In contrast, the paramount chiefs of the eight 
dominant 
Tswana tribes are guaranteed seats in the House of Chiefs 
 
SIPDIS 
although 
 
 
their constituencies are also ethnically diverse. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
HOUSE OF CHIEFS REJECTS PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶5. (C)  After deliberations on the amendment bill, the House 
of 
Chiefs rejected the provision allowing the President to 
appoint 
five new members.  In a conversation with PolOff, Chairman of 
the 
House of Chiefs Kgosi Seepapitso expressed his colleagues' 
"suspicion" when they discovered the addition of this 
provision 
to the bill.  (This provision was not in the previous 
incarnation 
of the bill which died when the President dissolved the 
eighth 
parliament in preparation for elections in October 2004.) 
Kgosi 
Seepapitso feared that the President would use this power to 
reward partisan cronies in the same way that he used 
nominations 
for specially elected Members of Parliament and appointments 
to 
local councils (REF A). 
 
¶6. (C)  Kgosi Seepapitso admitted that the Government can 
"take 
or leave" the advice of the chiefs, but asserted that they 
leave 
it "at their peril."  Chiefs, he said, can mobilize their 
constituents against politicians who have defied their 
wishes. 
If the amendment passes and the chiefs disapprove of the 
President's appointments to the House, a new rift could 
emerge 
in the foundation of the Botswana Democratic Party's power 
base, 
alienating some traditional leaders from the ruling party. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
ELIMINATING SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR THE SAN 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (U)  One of the most controversial aspects of the 
constitutional 
amendment bill is its deletion of Section 14, Subsection 3, 
Paragraph C.  This clause granted the Government the right to 
restrict entry to and residence within "defined areas" for 
"persons 
who are not Bushmen" in order to ensure "the protection or 
well- 
being of the Bushmen."  (Note: Many now consider 'Bushmen' a 
pejorative term.  The words 'San' or 'Basarwa' are generally 
used 
instead.  End Note.)  First People of the Kalahari, a San 
organization, released a statement criticizing the 
Government's 
intention to amend the constitution by removing a clause upon 
which 
its legal challenge of their relocation from the Central 
Kalahari 
Game Reserve (CKGR) is based (REF B).  The Government has 
been at pains 
to emphasize that the repeal of Section 14.3.C would not be 
retroactive 
and, therefore, would not impact the outcome of their case. 
Furthermore, the Government argued that it never established 
defined 
areas in which only San could reside.  (Note:  Non-San, 
particularly 
Bakgaladi, lived within the CKGR and no law or regulation 
limited 
access to the CKGR exclusively to the San.  End Note.) 
 
¶8. (U)  The Government interpreted Section 14.3.C as 
discriminatory and 
contrary to national unity.  A contact at the Office of the 
President 
indicated that in addition to its objection to the term 
"Bushmen", the 
GOB found the special treatment of a specific group 
discriminatory to 
all other Batswana.  The Government cannot limit the access 
of San or 
any other citizens from any other region in order to 
safeguard the 
interests of its existing residents, he observed, so why do 
 
 
so for the 
San?  By eliminating this clause, he concluded, the GOB 
intended to 
uphold the principle of tribal equality.  According to the 
GOB, Section 
14.3.C reflected a concept of protection contrary to its 
policy of 
integrating remote area dwellers into the rest of society. 
 
------------------------------ 
OPPOSITION, NGOS NOT SATISFIED 
------------------------------ 
 
¶9. (U)  Opposition politicians and human rights organizations 
have 
denounced the bill as failing to address the problem of 
tribal 
inequality.  RETENG, a Botswana NGO that has championed the 
rights of 
minority ethnic groups, pointed out that the bill does 
nothing to 
address the lack of mother-tongue education, communal group 
land 
rights, or Government recognition of chiefs for non-Tswana 
minorities.  An April 18 press release by Ditshwanelo, the 
Botswana 
Center for Human Rights, lamented that the amendment ignored 
the 
existence of racial discrimination against the San.  The 
Chair of 
the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 
expressed its view that the bill fails to accord equal 
representation 
for ethnic groups which are subordinate to a dominant tribe. 
Government Ministers have acknowledged that this bill is 
"imperfect" 
but describe it as a viable compromise that represents a step 
in the 
right direction. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶10. (SBU)  Expansion of the House of Chiefs is a welcome 
development 
insofar as it is likely to increase representation of 
minorities in 
that body.  The amendment bill does not change the fact, 
however, that 
certain tribes (the eight Tswana tribes) are guaranteed a 
seat in the 
House and others (non-Tswana tribes) are not. 
 
¶11. (SBU)  Contrary to allegations by Survival International, 
the 
proposed amendment would not subvert or circumvent the 
judicial 
process with regard to the case of the First People of the 
Kalahari 
against the GOB.  Since Section 14.3.C was part of the 
constitution 
when the relocation occurred, the judges will evaluate 
whether that 
policy violated the constitution as it existed at that time. 
Moreover, this clause did not guarantee the San access to the 
CKGR. 
It did, however, imply the need for the Government to protect 
the 
interests of this marginalized minority by securing their 
access to 
land.  Repealing this clause signifies the Government's 
rejection 
of the argument that preserving the rights of the San 
requires the 
recognition of the CKGR as a San homeland.  Instead, it 
reflects the 
Government's proclaimed strategy of overcoming poverty among 
the San 
by assimilating them into the mainstream of Botswana society 
rather 
than insulating them geographically, economically and 
culturally. 
HUGGINS 
 
 
NNNN