Nurturing the architecture of coalition politics in Lesotho

Analysis by

Friday’s first joint public appearance of the coalition government trio since the turbulence, did not only mark the new beginning for the All Basotho Convention (ABC), Basotho National Party (BNP) and Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD), but also made a statement that the contemplated LCD-Democratic Congress (DC) marriage could not be consummated.

This reality has been received with diverse views, including those which scorn and demonise the opposition as power-mongers and peace-detractors.

While the DC members have themselves, at one time or another in the history of Lesotho politics as Basotho Congress Party (BCP) and LCD members, fallen prey to the political naivety of seeing the opposition as representatives of trouble, their current role as the opposition is not only an ingredient to democracy but a defining factor in the construction of the architecture of coalition politics in Lesotho too.
Contrary to the popularly held view that the DC and its stewards of parties of congress orientation are bad all the way down, this article portrays their benefit to democracy and the nation.
First and foremost, it has to be admitted that had it not been for the DC’s eagerness and indeed, potential to unseat the current coalition, the much-celebrated consensus among Dr Thabane, Hon Metsing and Hon ‘Maseribane could have been tougher, taken longer or even not been achieved.

In politics, government is put on its toes by the strength of the opposition and its capacity to either change government or sway views of the polity.
No one can deny that the DC has this capacity and has indeed applied it in this case.
The LCD might have struggled to convince its two partners that things are not going well and that something drastic needs to be done if there was no alternative.
The emphasis that the agreement between LCD and DC have been made to form government has, in its own way, exerted gentle pressure on the ABC and BNP leaders to negotiate and address the worries and concerns of their partner.

It is therefore naïve for one to celebrate the agreement among the trio as a peace accord yet demonise the DC.
Although some, and indeed the majority, believe that the DC is disappointed at the peace reached because it did not want it, others hold a contradictory view.
The DC deserves applause too! In fact, the DC would equally be naïve if it cannot stand up and celebrate but mourn this otherwise quick and efficient consensus brokered by the trio.
It is your presence and willingness to court the LCD that persuaded the three parties to agree within this time and with this relative ease.

Now that the trio are to announce their new agreement which will be an addendum to the original, what are the key issues it should contain?
The leaders should recognise that it is not them alone in coalition. They must ensure that their coalition should be seen in cabinet, in parliament and within political parties in leadership, substructures and the rank and file.
By definition, a coalition is a convergence of different formations in order to attain a common goal, in this context the ABC, BNP and LCD.

Although the parties want to retain their sovereignties, there cannot be an absolute party sovereignty in a coalition, otherwise that would be a recipe for disaster.
The needed and inherent unitary rationality in government is highly compromised by the silo approach that this government has taken since 2012.
Why is it that you do not have a minister from one party, deputised by one from another party of the coalition? If you reserve ministries for parties, where would the collectivity be derived from? There is a strong need for the coalition government to demonstrate unity right from the composition of government.

The comprehensive coalition is better protected against arbitrary, hasty and unpopular decisions. This way, the parliamentary platform could be effectively used as a monitoring mechanism for good governance without reservations.

The involvement of party structures will make sure that members participate and interact with their coalition government effectively.
As it is now, one party feels more responsible and therefore accountable in one and not other ministries of the same coalition government.
Since the parties claim differences in orientation, there must be a platform for interparty deliberations.

This platform would allow debate on political issues to seek common ground and relieve cabinet from unnecessary ground party interests which may block progress.
The parties in coalition may not necessarily hold similar views on questions like dual citizenship, for an example.
Since this is an issue of national concern, it may not be proper for a coalition divided along ministries to table it in cabinet, only to hear ministers of the same cabinet differing on it in public.
This platform could be made of the stalwarts of parties in the coalition to safeguard their party interests.
Though realistically speaking the existing party difference are more artificial than real, this will be a necessary management platform of political interests.
The nationalist and congress divide that some people talk much about, is neither here nor there.

The real issues that Leabua (BNP) and Mokhehle (BCP) differed on such as the whites, the church and the chieftainship, have themselves been transformed by global forces so much that manashenale and macongress dichotomies can only be clung to fanatically.

The Interparty Conference will, therefore, help the parties find common ground based on the new political and economic agenda, as well as the way Basotho are responding to the new political environment.
Since this coalition is the first experience in Lesotho, it is expected that the leaders would find the need for legislation over the coalition government.
This law should not only define the power-sharing arrangement among parties that coalesce as, but also guide the formation of, government.

This will give clarity to the constitutional provisions which have proven hard to implement as they are. There should also be commitment from leaders that constitutional provisions which are not adequately defined should be explained by Acts of Parliament.

These should include prorogation of parliament, formation of government after elections, floor-crossing and many more. This process will definitely benefit from the opposition which is also going to be a beneficiary to its product.

In the light that no single party may be able to form government on its own, every party has a role to play.
Since government is an art and a science, new thinking is also mandatory in this era of coalition politics. The ABC, BNP and LCD coalition should not look at themselves alone and perhaps the Bloc but even the opposition too.
It is necessary for the coalition government to devise ways of engaging the opposition effectively.
In fact, the DC has the potential to add vibrancy to Lesotho politics and democracy.

The earlier announced DC shadow cabinet can be and indeed should be able to articulate the voices of the voiceless and those who are not listened to when they speak.
What can be expected from the leaders is also willingness to deepen democracy. The coalition government should also be ready for the institutionalisation of public participation.
Parliament is the major platform for public participation, yet Members miss this point at times.
There are several instances where parliament has not only passed laws without consultation but literally refused to listen to the people even when they speak.
When parliament was prorogued on 10 June, MPs cried foul, using statements which paraded them as democrats who do not want people’s mouths to be shut.
They have even gone further to lament payment made to them without working.

These are factual but sorry, not genuine concerns. Before recess, parliament opened when the Queen ‘Mamohato Memorial had not been operational for weeks due to the strike that even experienced police brutality.
None of the Members ever thought to invoke the Standing Order # 29 to discuss that national concern.
This is the section seeking permission for an urgent matter to be deliberated by the House immediately, which MPs invoked earlier for purposes of the Motion of No Confidence in government.
Some MPs wanted the Motion of No Confidence to be treated as an urgent matter while others did not want it and even went to block it through the courts.
What is surprising is that although both the proponents and opponents said their act was for the people, it looks like they both worry less about the people.
Those who know rules and can even invoke them for urgent matters did not do so about the Queen ‘Mamohato strike, even those who strongly wanted to see government intact have not acted to use government power to rescue the people.

What is it that MPs take to be urgent? For what do the opponents of the Motion of No Confidence want to keep government?
When MPs complain about public money wasted on their salaries while parliament is prorogued, one is immediately reminded that they are not against being paid when parliament is dissolved.
When they argue that constitutional prorogation is equal to closing people’s mouths, one is reminded that they were once rowdy and singing in the House.
In order to democratise this democracy, let there be a Public Participation Act so that people’s right to participate in their governance is guaranteed.