The case for gender mainstreaming Botswana's privatisation process

Abstract

Botswana embarked on privatisation in 2000 but the programme is yet to be implemented. The objectives of privatisation are to promote citizen economic empowerment and to benefit all. Admittedly, these are well-intended objectives. However, we pose a question: ‘How are these objectives going to be achieved?’ To answer this question, this paper audits the Privatisation Policy of Botswana and Privatisation Master Plan to assess the extent to which they are gender inclusive, and concludes that they are gender blind and do not address the gender dimensions of privatisation. The paper also reviews secondary data such as poverty maps and concludes that women suffer socio-economic disenfranchisement and would not equally benefit from privatisation. In addition, women would disproportionately suffer its adverse effects. For privatisation to produce fair outcomes, there is a need to make it gender inclusive. Making it gender inclusive would ensure the participation and empowerment of socio-economic minorities such as women.

Keywords:

• privatisation
• gender mainstreaming
• popular participation
• citizen economic empowerment
• Botswana

1. Introduction

Privatisation, in its modern sense, has become a dominant public policy discourse in the past 30 years (Hawkins, 2010). It has been adopted in communist, socialist and capitalist countries, in developed and developing countries, and in democracies and dictatorships alike (Savas, 2000). In fact, ‘it is no longer a partisan or ideological issue, but a pragmatic and increasingly routine approach to governing and to managing public services’ (2010:1730). However, even though privatisation only became a common developmental public discourse after World War II, as supported by the ideas of Peter Drucker (1968) and given impetus by Reagonomics and Thatcherite economics in the 1980s (Botlhale, 2012), it is old as humanity. Written records of the practice were found in ancient Greece (Means, 2001), the Roman Republic (Sobel, 1999) and during the Ch'in dynasty in the 1500s (Means, 2001). The practice has thus endured over time and became institutionalised due to public-sector reforms, particularly, the New Public Management (NPM) that is rooted in neo-liberalism and neo-managerialism. As the NPM became globalised, so did privatisation. Since public-sector reforms are fluid, NPM has been supplanted by public-sector reforms such as New Public Service (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000) and New Public Governance (Osborne, 2006, 2009). In spite of these changes, privatisation still endures and is at the moment a dominant global public policy discourse.

Due to its global reach, privatisation has been adopted in the developing world, particularly in Africa. It found fertile ground in Africa largely due to the continent's bloated and inefficient public sectors (Botlhale, 2012). In the 1980s, due to the imposition of Structural Adjustment Policies, African governments scaled back their public sectors. However, some countries such as Botswana adopted privatisation as part of their broader public-sector reforms (Botlhale, 2012). Privatisation, like any public programme, is meant to benefit the citizens through either participation or citizen economic empowerment (CEE). For privatisation to benefit the citizens, its design is vital. Given existent gender inequities, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, privatisation often results in unequal outcomes. To ensure equal outcomes, privatisation must be made gender inclusive.

Botswana embarked on privatisation in 2000, but the programme is yet to be implemented. The country is therefore likely to avoid the pitfalls of a gender-blind privatisation programme. The aim of this paper is to interrogate the privatisation programme in Botswana and offer an alternative road to privatisation. Privatisation in Botswana is supposed to be implemented for the benefit of all and to promote CEE. Hence, the all-important question is whether the outcome will fit the intention. This paper is organised as follows. Firstly, it reviews the literature on privatisation, and gives some background information on the evolution of privatisation in Botswana. Secondly, it discusses the legal-institutional framework in which privatisation is undertaken in Botswana. Thirdly, it argues the case for the popular participation and economic empowerment of citizens in the process of privatisation as intended by the government. The paper then discusses the non-gender inclusiveness of privatisation and proposes making privatisation in Botswana gender inclusive. Finally, the paper recommends a gender mainstreaming monitoring and evaluation framework.

2. Literature review and theoretical framework

The body of literature on privatisation is very extensive, so it is not feasible to cover everything that has been written on privatisation. One can thus only discuss the broad strokes of the subject. Privatisation is a fluid concept (see e.g. Weizsacker et al., 2005; Kosar, 2006) and therefore poses difficulties of definition. Savas (1987:1) says that ‘as a process, privatisation denotes reducing the roles of government, while increasing those of the private sector, in activities or asset ownership’. Privatisation is implemented through different modalities; for example, asset sale, contracting out, deregulation, franchise, grants and subsidies, public–private partnerships, service shedding, volunteerism, and vouchers (Chi & Jasper, 1998; Graham, 2003). In the mainstream literature, privatisation is believed to lead to efficiency (Sheshinski & López-Calva, 2003), to reduce government costs (Butler, 1985; Savas, 1982) and to reduce the size and effects of government (see Peters, 1996; Wallin, 1997). Similarly, Savas (1987:228), one of its foremost proponents, holds that it ‘is the key to both limited and better government: limited in size, scope, and power relative to society's other institutions’. Nonetheless, there are dissenters such as Becker (1988), Stiglitz (2002), Weizsacker et al. (2005) and Willner (2003) who, among other things, claim that privatisation is associated with huge socio-economic costs such as job losses, wage cuts and high consumer prices. Ultimately, the impact of privatisation is difficult to measure (African Studies Centre, 2005) and different evaluative studies are inconclusive (for an evaluation of privatisation in Africa, see Guseth, 2001; Parker & Kirkpatrick, 2003; African Studies Centre, 2005).

Despite the divided opinion on the effects of privatisation, it is a public policy of choice in the twenty-first century. In 1979 Margret Thatcher introduced it in the United Kingdom, and Ronald Reagan soon after did the same in the USA. Thereafter, the privatisation discourse spread to the rest of the world. Privatisation was adopted in the developing countries in the 1980s, largely due to the imposition of the Structural Adjustment Polices. Privatisation was also adopted by the former members of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in 1991. So, like public-sector reforms such as the NPM and its antecedents, the New Public Service and New Public Governance, privatisation is here to stay. It also seems as though budget cuts necessitated by the effects of the global economic crisis will ensure that privatisation's place in public policy is firmly secured.

For privatisation to benefit all members of society, there must be efforts to make it gender inclusive considering that there are gender inequities in the society. Failure to do so would result in a situation where women do not benefit equally from privatisation. The tendency has been that when privatisation is introduced, there are no efforts to make it inclusive – resulting in women losing out and disproportionately suffering its negative effects, as various studies have demonstrated. Such studies are documented in case studies; for example, Argentina (Geldstein, 1997), Canada (Stinson, 2012), Chile (de Mesa and Montecinos, 1999), South Africa (Samson, 2003, 2010), Turkey (Gunluk-Senesen & Akduran, 2006) and Zambia (Mwale-Yerokun, 2003). Hence, programme design is vital for fair outcomes.

3. The genesis of privatisation in Botswana

Unlike other African countries, privatisation was not foisted onto Botswana through Structural Adjustment Programmes. Instead, the programme was part of public-sector reforms that began in the early 1990s, particularly after president Ketumile Masire visited Singapore in 1992 and brought with him the Work Improvement Teams programme. At the same time, there was concern that loss-making state-owned enterprises (SoEs) were a drain on the government coffers. At the same time, withdrawal of funding by donors such as the Swedish International Development Agency and the Norwegian Agency for Development created the impetus for privatisation as the state could not afford to prop up loss-making SoEs. Hence, a decision was taken to introduce privatisation through the Privatisation Policy of 2000. After the approval of the policy, the Public Enterprises Evaluation and Privatisation Agency (PEEPA) was established in 2001. PEEPA undertook a major review of the operations and activities of SoEs, including examining opportunities for private-sector participation in the activities of the Central Government departments and local authorities (PEEPA, 2004). The outcome provided the basis for the establishment of the Privatisation Master Plan (PMP) I, whose primary objective was to draw up an action plan for privatisation.

Despite the adoption of PMP I in 2004, the pace of privatisation has been slow and has not been entirely successful, as evidenced by the failed privatisation of Air Botswana in June 2007 (BOPA, 2007). Thus, privatisation is yet to be fully implemented. However, to give effect to the government's intention to speed up privatisation, PEEPA held a stakeholders' consultative workshop on 19 September 2011 to discuss the draft PMP II (2012–17) (BOPA, 2011).

4. Legal-institutional framework of privatisation

Privatisation in Botswana is grounded in two legal instruments: the Privatisation Policy of Botswana, and PMP II (2012–17). These are now discussed.

4.1 Privatisation Policy of Botswana

The Privatisation Policy is a product of extensive nationwide consultations by a Task Force that prepared the policy's draft White Paper in 1998 (PEEPA, 2009). The policy is thus the framework for privatisation in Botswana, where privatisation is regarded as the means to enforce market discipline and promote efficient allocation and use of economic resources (RoB, 2000). While the Policy acknowledges that reasons for privatisation differ from one country to another, it holds that ‘the objectives of privatisation have often been very similar’ (RoB, 2000:8). These include some of the following: promoting competition, improving efficiency and increasing productivity of enterprises; increasing direct citizen participation in the ownership of national assets; and accelerating the rate of economic growth by stimulating entrepreneurship and investment (RoB, 2000:8). Privatisation is built on nine principles, of which a critical one states that ‘privatisation will be conducted for the benefit of all, not for the privileged few’ (RoB, 2000:9). In addition, the policy addresses issues of CEE. Drawing from Vision 2016 (Botswana's 1997–2016 roadmap) – that, inter alia, states ‘there is a challenge to find concrete strategies to ensure citizen empowerment, and to maximise the participation of citizen owned companies in the economy’ (RoB, 2000:10) – the Policy intends to address same. The Policy thus states that deliberate action will be taken to effectuate CEE through the following: the promotion of shareholding by citizens in share offerings of public enterprises; the use of pension and other funds (e.g. unit trusts) to buy shares for the benefit of members; special access to shares by management and employees of privatised entities; and special advice and assistance in organising employee and management buyouts (RoB, 2000:10).

4.2 Privatisation Master Plan II (2012–17)

PMP II is premised on objectives that advised the first PMP I (2005–11). But circumstances have changed since 2005 to necessitate that PMP I be reviewed, hence PMP II. Some of the changes include: the alignment of the privatisation programme with sector objectives as outlined in the National Development Plan 10 (2010/11–15/16) and Vision 2016 Pillars (these are operating tools of Vision 2016, Botswana's strategy to propel its socio-economic and political development into a competitive, winning and prosperous nation by 2016); the need to align the overall privatisation reform with the Economic Diversification Drive; and the need to reduce the size of the public service and also improve the performance of the SoEs (PEEPA, 2011). PMP II states that the implementation of the privatisation programme will be guided by the principles of the Privatisation Policy of Botswana, which is the founding legal document. These principles are: transparency, equity, safe-guarding employee interests and, importantly, ensuring that the process benefits all equally. Relatedly, PMP II is based on five strategies, one of which is ‘ensuring promotion and participation of citizens and citizen businesses in the economy and promoting foreign direct investment flow’ (PEEPA, 2011:10). The privatisation programme thus also tries to effect the Citizen Economic Empowerment Policy through, amongst others, ‘promoting share-holding by citizens in share offerings of public enterprises’ (PEEPA, 2011:44). In addition, PEEPA is in the process of developing guidelines that will facilitate the meaningful participation of citizens in privatisation transactions (PEEPA, 2011).

Just like the Privatisation Policy, PMP II intends to ensure that privatisation is conducted for the promotion of CEE and for the benefit of all. Admittedly, while these are well-intended objectives, the question is whether the plan supports these objectives. In terms of gender inclusiveness, the plan does not state how different groups would be enabled to equally participate in privatisation and thus be empowered. It is apparent that different groups would be affected differently by privatisation. Thus, this necessitates that both the Privatisation Policy of Botswana and PMP II be gender aware and explicitly state how different groups would participate in privatisation. Given the prevailing gender inequities, socio-economic minorities such as women are likely to be spectators in the privatisation process unless gender-sensitive issues of participation and CEE are addressed.

5. The case for popular participation and citizen economic empowerment

Both popular participation and CEE are desirable public goods (see World Bank, 1996; Cornwall & Gaventa, 2001; Cornwall, 2008; GoB, 2011). This is particularly true in democracies; and given that Botswana professes to be a democracy, the country is expected to promote these socially-desirable goods through public programmes such as privatisation. Thus, it is gratifying to note that, amongst other policy tools, the government intends to use the privatisation programme to effectuate this twin ideal of popular participation and CEE. What is the argument for this twin ideal?

Participation is a disputed concept that presents problems of definition (Arnstein, 1969; Day, 1977; Wolfe, 1982; Oakley, 1991). This paper uses Sidorenko's (2006:1) definition, which views participation as ‘a process of taking part in different spheres of societal life: political, economic, social, cultural and others’. Citizen participation in public affairs is an age-old practice, and Roberts (2004) holds that written records of its practice are traceable to Greek city-states. Regarding pre-colonial Africa, there is little written record on the origins of participation in different regions (Botlhale, 2010). Nonetheless, there existed various fora through which citizens participated in public life, be it political, economic, social or cultural. For example, in pre-colonial Botswana, which was a decentralised political society, various chiefs exercised authority over small areas. The kgotla (a village parliament) served as a forum where the village people met to participate in public life. The kgotla has endured over time and is a primary consultative forum, and, notably, President Ian Khama extensively uses it (see Khama, 2010).

It is apparent from the foregoing that the practice of citizen's participation in public life has been part of Tswana life for many years. Importantly, this practice pre-dates colonialism, and modern Botswana has built on the kgotla principles to enable citizens to participate in public life. Since participation entails taking part in different spheres of societal life, (Sidorenko, 2006), this is more compelling in matters of the economy where bread-and-butter issues are discussed. This is particularly true when the frontiers of the state are being scaled back through programmes such as privatisation, which can result in job losses. To mitigate the effects of privatisation, it is imperative that there be strategies that would enable citizens to participate in the privatisation project by taking over privatised services. Hence, it is imperative that the privatisation strategy be designed to enable groups that ordinarily suffer economic discrimination (e.g. women) to meaningfully participate in and benefit from privatisation.

5.1 Citizen economic empowerment

Since the 1990s, the term ‘citizen economic empowerment’ has become part of the mainstream public discourse in Botswana (see Gergis, 1999; GoB, 2011). CEE in Botswana is ‘understood to mean a set of policies or programmes designed to benefit a specific segment of the society; the Batswana’ (Gergis, 1999:2). Similarly, when former president Festus Mogae defined CEE in July 1999, he stated that it was ‘ … a process by which each Motswana has to utilise Botswana's national resources to improve his/her living standard by his/her own effort’ (BOPA, 1999:1). CEE found its way into public discourse as early as 1982 when then Minister of Finance and Development Planning, the late Peter Mmusi, chaired a presidential commission on economic opportunities. Among others, the commission recommended that citizens be brought into the mainstream of the economy. Despite the Mmusi-led commission calling for CEE, no concrete follow-up ensued. However, the issue re-entered public discourse when President Festus Mogae officially opened a National Conference on Citizen Economic Empowerment on 5 July 1999 (BOPA, 1999). Remarkably, he stated that ‘the demand for citizen economic empowerment was legitimate and should be pursued vigorously without fear or apology’ (199:1). In addition, he stated that Batswana should be ‘in the driving seat of the country's socio-economic transformation and not be passive and bemused spectators’ (199:1).

Despite a long-standing consensus on the usefulness of CEE, a CEE policy was only approved on 10 August 2012 (see BOPA, 2012; GoB, 2012). The Citizen Economic Empowerment Policy can potentially empower the citizens. However, given existing gender inequities, minority groups are likely to be passive spectators of privatisation. There is therefore a need for the government to make a deliberate effort to make the privatisation programme to be as inclusive as possible to enable all citizens to participate in the privatisation initiative, so that men and women benefit equitably. We therefore need to ask whether the Privatisation Policy and PMP II adequately address the gender dimensions of participation and CEE issues.

6. Gender and privatisation

Inarguably, no macro policy is gender neutral; that is, policies affect different groups across the gender divide differently (see e.g. World Bank, 1995; Gunluk-Senesen & Akduran, 2006; Nallari & Griffith, 2011). Gender refers ‘to the social attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female and the relationships between women and men and girls and boys … ’ (Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, 2001:1). Gender is different from sex; sex refers to the biological differences between men and women (Garrett, 1987). However, in common parlance, the two terms are often confused. As much as there is profit in delineating the difference between the two concepts, they are related and the nature of their relationship generates unresolved and everlasting debates among sociologists and others (Garrett, 1987). Relatedly, gender does not denote a homogeneous group; within a particular gender group, there are different subgroups. Thus, macro policies would have different impacts on different subgroups (Were & Kiringai, 2002). For example, a protectionist trade policy may benefit low-skilled urban women through increased employment opportunities while discriminating against women in the agriculture sector (Were & Kiringai, 2002).

There is a gender of macro policies, and therefore policies advantage some groups and disadvantage others. In this regard, gender inequality often manifests itself in the form of macro policies that are not gender inclusive. Therefore, gender neutral macro policies ‘have tremendous implications for women's employment, poverty, social burden and ultimate societal well-being (Were & Kiringai, 2002:iv). Similarly, privatisation – a macro policy – is not gender neutral because it affects different groups differently. Groups that already suffer economic disenfranchisement, particularly women, are most likely to disproportionately suffer the effects of privatisation. Confirmedly, there are some case studies on privatisation's effects on women (e.g. Cornhiel, 1997; Geldstein, 1997; Izumi, 1999; Bernhardt & Dresser, 2002; Were & Kiringai, 2002; Samson, 2003, 2010; Gunluk-Senesen & Akduran, 2006; Englert & Daley, 2008; Stinson, 2012). There is a consensus that privatisation has uneven negative consequences on women's job opportunities, access to social and health services, land, water, property, and so forth.

This paper argues that macro policies such as the Privatisation Policy of Botswana are not inclusive; they affect different groups differently. Women, in particular, suffer socio-economic exclusion. Economic resources are not shared equally between males and females in Botswana (Botlhale, 2011a). Thus, the latter fare badly when it comes to resource allocation, as indicated by phenomena such as feminised poverty (Jefferies & Kelly, 1999; Osei-Hwedie, 2004) and unemployment (CSO, 2008a; MFDP, 2010; Statistics Botswana, 2011). Also, according to the latest Labour Force Survey (2005/06), of the 248 812 citizens who are unemployed, women constitute 155 417 (or 62.5%) (CSO, 2008b). Given that females suffer socio-economic disenfranchisement, as the cited statistics attest, it follows that they would not equally benefit from privatisation and would be passive spectators of the programme. In addition, they are likely to disproportionately suffer its adverse effects such as salary/wage cuts and job losses. Thus, affirmative action in implementing the privatisation programme is justified if it is to benefit all.

There are many macroeconomic indicators that show how females tend to disproportionately suffer economic exclusion in Botswana. Some macroeconomic indicators are discussed below to illustrate this point. It is such exclusion that puts them on a wrong footing in terms of equally participating and benefiting from public programmes such as privatisation. The Human Development Reports, published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), illustrate the point made above. Botswana was one of the poorest countries in the world at independence in September 1966 (Tsie 1998; Acemoglu et al., 2003). However, the discovery and mining of minerals, particularly diamonds, enabled her to graduate into the ranks of middle-income countries in 1992 (Mmegi, 2006). Thus, her development indicators have grown over time. For example, between 1980 and 2012, Botswana's Human Development Index (HDI) rose by 2.7% annually from 0.449 to 0.634 (UNDP, 2013). According to the 2013 HDI rankings, the country was ranked number 119 out of 187 countries with comparable data. Despite high HDI scores and HDI rankings, there are challenges on indicators such as the Gender Inequality Index (GII). The GII has been declining over time (see UNDP, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). To cite the 2013 Human Development Report, Botswana recorded a GII value of 0.485 (UNDP, 2013). In addition, the Global Gender Gap reports tell a similar story (World Economic Forum, 2013). To illustrate, as per the 2013 Global Gender Gap report, Botswana was ranked 85 out of 136 countries with a Global Gender Gap of 0.6752. This did not favourably compare with the 2012 report, when the country was ranked 77 out of 132 countries with a Global Gender Gap of 0.6744 (World Economic Forum, 2013). Overall, these poor GIIs suggest that females are marginalised.

Gender inequality manifests in feminised poverty. Feminised poverty means that women are over-represented among the poor (Pearce, 1978; Moghadam, 2005; Chant, 2006). Thus, poverty is gendered in Botswana (Siphambe, 2003; Malope, 2005; Nthomang & Botlhale, 2012). It is more prevalent in female-headed households than in male-headed households (Kossoudji & Mueller, 1983; Mookodi, 2000). The 2001 population and housing census showed that 50 929 male and 15 189 female household heads owned cattle respectively (CSO, 2001). Since cattle are a major form of capital accumulation in Botswana, those who do not possess cattle are necessarily asset-poor. Similarly, the phenomenon of feminised poverty has been proved by other studies – such as that on the poverty incidence carried out by Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis (BIDPA) in 2008, which concluded that women were disproportionately poor (Keoreng, 2009). Also, according to CSO (2008a), in 2002/03 the poverty headcount index was higher for female-headed households (33%) than for male-headed households (27.6%). Hence, out of the total poor, female-headed households accounted for 54% while male-headed counterparts accounted for 46% (CSO, 2008a). Finally, according to the latest poverty map from 2008, Botswana has one of the highest percentages of female-headed households in the world (46%) and they are poorer than their male counterparts: 34% live below the poverty line, compared with 27% of male-headed households (CSO, 2008c). As a result of poverty, women disproportionately contract HIV infections (UNDP, 2000; Preece, 2001). Related to the problem discussed above, women are traditionally assigned the roles of home-based caregiving to the sick, particularly HIV-positive patients (Botlhale, 2011a). Thus, privatisation – whose effects, among others, include job losses – is likely to put pressure on family resources and this would adversely affect female home-based caregivers.

In 2011 the government signalled its intention to restore fiscal balances in 2012 and beyond (MFDP, 2011a). The same sentiments were repeated at the 2011 revenue pitso (public meeting) on 8 December (MFDP, 2011b). True to his word, when the 2012/13 Budget Speech was read on 1 April, the Finance Minister not only balanced the budget but also forecast a modest surplus of P1.15 billion (Matambo, 2012). In order to post a budget surplus, expenditure management measures would be implemented, the most important being expenditure cuts and reduction of the public-sector wage bill by 5% over the next three years (Matambo, 2012). Botswana is a member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and therefore the latter undertakes Article IV Consultations to assess the country's economic health and forestall future financial problems (Botlhale, 2011b). Thus, after the IMF conducted the 2012 Consultations, it commended Botswana for its sound macroeconomic policies, but warned against high government expenditure (IMF, 2012a, 2012b). They thus recommended expenditure cuts and, given the fact that the government is likely to heed its advice, such expenditure cuts, plus privatisation (which entails job cuts), will exact unequal pressure on disadvantaged constituencies such as women (see Stinson, 2012).

The preceding survey of the literature is meant to demonstrate the fact that females in Botswana disproportionately suffer economic disenfranchisement, a phenomenon that puts them at a disadvantage. Thus, all things being equal, women are unlikely to have equal participation in privatisation as their male counterparts. However, one must appreciate interventions that are meant to bridge the gender divide, such as the Gender Equality Policy (adopted in 1996) and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (ratified in 1996). However, the above interventions have not resulted in a situation where women and men occupy the same socio-economic position. This is despite official pronouncements that Botswana has made significant strides on the gender cause. To illustrate, during the commemoration of Women's Day on 8 March 2010, then Minister of Labour and Home Affairs Peter Siele asserted that Botswana had recorded progress in gender equality as evidenced by the fact that 45% of women held decision-making positions in the country by then (Staff Writer, 2010). Similarly, when speaking at the Botswana Democratic Party's National Congress on 17 May 2007, then party president Festus Mogae stated that he was proud to appoint more women into his cabinet (Mogae, 2007).

While there is no denying that there have been some modest gender gains, there is a need to do more. To bridge the gender divide, there is an urgent need to mainstream gender into programmes and policies such as the Privatisation Policy of Botswana. However, this is not to say that a gender-inclusive privatisation programme is a silver bullet. It may not improve women's disadvantaged socio-economic position overnight. However, the privatisation programme, plus other programmes, if gender mainstreamed, would go a long way in addressing issues such as feminised poverty by ensuring that women equally participate in economic activities, including taking over privatised services.

7. Making privatisation in Botswana gender inclusive

Having argued that women face economic disenfranchisement in Botswana, the case for gender mainstreaming cannot be overstated. As explained by ECOSCOC (1997:para 10): ‘mainstreaming a gender perspectives the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels’. However, ‘gender mainstreaming is not an end in itself but a strategy, an approach, a means to achieve the goal of gender equality’ (UN Women, 2011). It involves ensuring that gender perspectives and attention to the goal of gender equality are central to all activities such as policy development, research, legislation and implementation, and monitoring of programmes and projects (UN Women, 2011).

Admittedly, the government of Botswana has, over the years, passed laws, policies and ratified international conventions (e.g. Gender Equality Policy, UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) to mainstream gender into policy, governance and development practice. However, these efforts have only achieved limited success. So, as correctly stated by Mogae in March 2008 that the struggle to achieve equality and mutual respect is yet to be achieved (Kedidimetse, 2008), there is a lot of work to be done in terms of gender-inclusive policies and practices. Foregoing gender equality attempts notwithstanding, there is no attempt to mainstream gender into privatisation through both the Privatisation Policy and PMP. Importantly, a word search of ‘gender’ in both documents returned a zero hit. Simply put, both the Privatisation Policy and PMP do not specify how gender would be included or how different minority groups would be assisted, or deliberately favoured, in order to participate in and benefit from privatisation. The two documents are premised on the false belief that public policies and programmes are gender neutral, and affect and benefit all groups equally. In fact, public policies and programmes affect and benefit different groups very differently. Specifically, privatisation is premised on false assumptions that there is equality among different groups. Hence, given women's disadvantaged socio-economic position as borne out by various macroeconomic indicators (e.g. feminised poverty; see Statistics Botswana, 2011), they are likely to be spectators of privatisation. As such, there is a need to make both the Privatisation Policy and PMP gender inclusive. Thus, a deliberate move must be made to address the gender dimensions of privatisation. There are varied benefits of doing so, among which is to ensure women's meaningful participation in privatisation and economic empowerment.

8. Way forward

Since privatisation is yet to start, there is still an opportunity to mainstream gender into the programme. Thus, an effort should be made to mainstream gender at the earliest possible point in the project or programme cycle because failure to do so can affect the entire project and/or programme concept and structure in a fundamental way (FAO, 2001). The entry point is the Privatisation Policy of Botswana and PMP II (the latter is still in draft form). Hence, there is a need for the policy and master plan to be amended to make them gender neutral. In order to mainstream gender into privatisation, there is a need to develop a results-based gender monitoring and evaluation tool. This tool must have gender-responsive indicators to cover input, process, output and impact dimensions, and they must be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound. In addition, and importantly, there is a need to appoint a Gender Officer within the Office of the President with a dedicated Monitoring and Evaluation Department to drive the implementation of the gender monitoring and evaluation tool. The Gender Officer would oversee the process, follow the privatisation programme and see how it could benefit disadvantaged sections of the society. Finally, he/she must submit annual gender mainstreaming reports to consultative fora such as parliament, the High Level Consultative Council and Cabinet. These are high decision-making bodies that can be used to ensure democratic participation in privatisation and also devise corrective actions. Importantly, the privatisation gender mainstreaming exercise should not be a stand-alone facility; it should be part of a national gender mainstreaming project.

9. Conclusion

Privatisation is part of the public-sector reforms that were first introduced in Botswana in 1992. It is based on two main principles: it is to be conducted for the benefit of all (i.e. all Batswana irrespective of sex); and it is a vehicle to promote citizen economic empowerment. Arguably, these are well-intended objectives. Thus, the all-important question is: ‘will there be a fit between intentions and outcomes on the ground?’ To answer this question, this paper has analysed both the Privatisation Policy of Botswana and PMP II from a gender perceptive. The paper concluded that they were gender blind. The paper also reviewed secondary data (e.g. poverty maps) and concluded that women suffered socio-economic disenfranchisement and will therefore not equally participate in privatisation. In addition, they will disproportionately suffer its adverse effects. Therefore, for privatisation to produce just outcomes under a regime of gender-inclusive macro policies, there is a need to mainstream gender into it. Making privatisation gender inclusive would ensure equal participation and economic empowerment of all citizens and improve the situation of socio-economic minorities like women.