On cover: Degree of Master of Philosophy in Political Management. / Thesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2004. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Before a country can have democracy a consolidated democracy, democracy is a prerequisite. The term democracy can be traced back to ancient Greece and the studies of the consolidation of democracy dates since the transition of the seventies. The notion of democratic consolidation has been defined by authors as a process of making new democracies secure, deepening institutions and liberties and making them immune against the threat of authoritarian regression. But authors have also found that there are socioeconomic conditions favourable to consolidation such as sufficient affluence. This study compares Botswana and South Africa's democracy, the reason being to find out which is the most consolidated and why? To compare these two countries' democracies, the study focuses on the following; affluence, institutions suitable for democracy, free and fair elections and electoral systems. There are similarities and differences between these countries. They share British parliamentary traditions. Both practice multiparty elections but neither experienced turnovers, for example; Botswana started practicing from 1965 until now, while South Africa started in 1994. The major institutional difference is the electoral system. Their ratings in the human development indexes are declining, but South Africa scores better. The other major difference is in their Freedom House ratings, where South Africa's rating is better than Botswana's. The issue of HIV/AIDS infections remains a big problem for these countries. To what extent this would impact on democracy is uncertain as little research of this kind has been done. In concluding this study, it is explicitly stated that these countries are free electoral democracies but not consolidated yet, because they have not passed Huntington's "two turnover test", and their socio-economic conditions are also problematic. At this stage, however South Africa is slightly better off for the reasons cited above. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Demokrasie is "n voorvereiste vir "n gekonsolideerde demokrasie. Hoewel die term demokrasie sy oorsprong het by die antieke Grieke dateer studies oor die konsolidasie van demokrasieë slegs terug na die sewentigerjare van die 20ste eeu. Demokratiese konsolidasie verwys na die proses waarvolgens nuwe demokrasieë na hul aanvanklike vestiging teen die gevaar van outoritêre verval beveilig word deur die daarstelling van demokratiese instellings en vryhede. Navorsing het bevind dat sekere sosio-ekonomiese faktore of omstandighede soos byvoorbeeld voldoende ekonomiese voorspoed die konsolidasie van jong demokrasieë bevorder. Die studie behels "n vergelyking van die demokrasieë van Suid-Afrika en Botswana ten opsigte van hulle graad van demokratiese konsolidasie en die redes daarvoor. Die studie fokus in die verband op aspekte soos: ekonomiese voorspoed, die demokratiese aard van hulle instellings, vrye en regverdige verkiesings en hulle kiesstelsels. Daar is beide ooreenkomste en verskille tussen die twee state. Beide is gesetel in die Britse parlementêre stelsel. Beide gebruik sedert hulle vestiging as demokrasieë veelparty vekiesings - Botswana sedert 1965 en Suid-Afrika sedert 1994. Die belangrikste institusionele verskil is in hulle kiesstelsels geleë. Hoewel die lande se klassifikasies beide in die indekse sowel as die verslae oor menslike ontwikkeling daal, vaar Suid-Afrika steeds beter as Botswana. Die duidelikste verskil is ten opsigte van hulle Freedom House klassifikasie. Die kwessie van MIVjVIGS-infeksies bly steeds "n belangrike probleem vir beide state. Vanweë die gebrek aan navorsing in die verband is dit onseker in watter mate die VIGS-kwessie demokrasie in die lande in die toekoms gaan beinvloed. Die gevolgtrekking van die tesis is dat hoewel beide state vrye demokrasieë is hulle nog nie as gekonsolideerde demokrasieë geklassifiseer kan word nie. Die gevolgtrekking is hoofsaaklik gebaseer op hulle problematiese sosioekonomiese omstandighede en die feit dat hulle nog nie Huntington se /I two turnover test" geslaag het nie. Suid-Afrika is egter op grond van die redes wat hierbo aangevoer is, tans beter as Botswana daaraan toe.

Thesis (MA (Political Science))--University of Stellenbosch, 2006. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Botswana and Mauritius have been operating as stable, multi-party democracies since their independence, in 1966 and 1968 respectively. It is unclear, however, which country is the most consolidated democracy. Therefore, this study compares Botswana and Mauritius, using specific criteria as developed by writers such as Huntington (1991), Linz and Stepan (1996), Przeworski (1996) and Schedler (1998 and 2001) to determine which country is the most consolidated democracy. The criteria used to determine the most consolidated democracy, can broadly be subdivided as follows. Firstly, institutions impacting on democratic consolidation, and the presence of these institutions in Botswana and Mauritius will be studied, such as the rule of law; whether the respective countries are characterised by a system of Presidentialism or Parliamentarianism; the electoral system used; whether elections are competitive, free and fair, and whether these elections resulted in a peaceful change in political power; the presence of a usable state bureaucracy; and lastly, the rankings by Freedom House will be used to determine to what extent citizen political and civil rights are protected and guaranteed. Secondly, the socio-economic factors impacting on the erosion or deepening of democratic consolidation will be studied, with the focus on trends since independence. These factors include the existence of an economic society; per capita income; economic growth and inflation; as well as inequality reduction within the respective countries. Lastly, the social conditions influencing democratic consolidation will also be studied, such as ethnic homogeneity or heterogeneity; the prevalence and size of the middle class as influenced by urbanization and adult literacy; and lastly, the prevalence and role of civil society. Botswana and Mauritius were compared using the above criteria. This study comes to the conclusion that Mauritius is the most consolidated democracy. The following findings support the conclusion that Mauritius is the most consolidated democracy. Mauritius is a rechtsstaat, whilst Botswana is not. In Mauritius, there is a distinction between the position of Head of State and Head of Government, in contrast to the extensive power given to the President in Botswana. There is no single dominant party in Mauritius, whilst the political sphere in Botswana is characterised by the dominance of the BDP since independence. The FPTP electoral system in Mauritius is supplemented by the BLS, in an effort to ensure sufficient representation to minority groups in the National Assembly, whilst Botswana only uses the FPTP electoral system. Elections in Mauritius are considered to be competitive, free and fair, whilst the fairness of Botswana’s elections, given the electoral system, have been questioned. Mauritius also passes Huntington’s Two Turnover test, as there have been three changes in political power, whilst the BDP in Botswana have won every election since independence. Mauritius’ position on the HDI is much better than the position of Botswana, and the consociational compromises agreed upon in Mauritius resulted in a social environment which assists democratic consolidation. Lastly, Mauritius is also characterised by a lively civil society, whilst civil society in Botswana is considered to be a-political and weak.