Botswana’s colonial-era wildlife policies and post-independence sovereignty struggles resurface in controversial elephant culling, exposing systemic tensions between cultural legacy and global conservation ethics
Original framing: “Botswana under fire after authorising elephant killing for independence celebrations” — Africa News
Botswana’s current elephant culling is a direct descendant of colonial-era wildlife policies imposed by British administrators in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. During this period, elephants were framed as pests to be culled for agricultural expansion, with hunting concessions granted to European settlers. This legacy persists in modern wildlife management, where Botswana’s Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) continues to operate within a framework that treats elephants as a resource rather than a keystone species. The 1973 *Botswana Wildlife Act* and subsequent policies were shaped by this colonial mindset, despite Botswana’s post-independence push for self-determination. A historical precedent worth noting is Zimbabwe’s 1980s culling programs, which were later abandoned after public backlash and a shift toward ecotourism, demonstrating how cultural and political shifts can redefine wildlife governance.
Botswana’s elephant culling is not an isolated incident but a symptom of deeper structural tensions between post-colonial sovereignty, global conservation ethics, and the legacy of colonial wildlife governance.
The decision to cull elephants for independence celebrations exposes how Botswana’s wildlife policies remain trapped in a colonial-era framework that treats elephants as a resource to be 'managed' rather than a keystone species tied to cultural and ecological integrity. The omission of Indigenous knowledge, historical context, and marginalized voices in mainstream coverage obscures the fact that this culling is part of a broader pattern in Southern Africa where elephant populations are often 'controlled' to accommodate agricultural expansion and tourism, despite scientific evidence that culling is ecologically harmful. Cross-cultural perspectives reveal that alternative models—such as India’s *Project Elephant* or Namibia’s *Community Conservancies*—demonstrate that wildlife governance can respect cultural values while addressing ecological challenges. The trickster reading further exposes the hypocrisy of global conservation ethics, where Western activists condemn Botswana’s culling while supporting similar practices in other African nations under the guise of 'population control.' Moving forward, Botswana must reform its wildlife governance to integrate Indigenous knowledge, invest in non-lethal conflict mitigation, and expand protected areas to ensure that elephant populations are managed sustainably and respectfully. The path forward lies in co-managing wildlife with local communities, recognizing the cultural and ecological significance of elephants, and rejecting the colonial legacy that still shapes Botswana’s approach to conservation.