Connect with us

Insight

Coalition agreements are a waste of time

Published

on

Coalition agreements in Lesotho are a complete waste of effort, cartridge and paper. They add zero value to the stability, success and effectiveness of the coalition.
On August 31, 2017 when the leaders of the All Basotho Convention (ABC), Alliance of Democrats (AD), Basotho National Party (BNP) and Reformed Congress of Lesotho (RCL) signed the Coalition Agreement for National Unity, Reconciliation, Peace and Stability I felt a sense of de javu and not excitement.
I recalled how on April 10, 2015, the seven leaders of Lesotho’s second coalition government signed the Coalition Agreement for Stability and Reform. I consider this 2015 coalition agreement, indisputable proof that coalition agreements in Lesotho are absolute “rubbish”.

The leaders who signed this agreement achieved neither “stability” nor “reform”.
The alliance imploded after about 28 months. They had also failed to achieve most if not all the broad objectives they set themselves i.e. to be a reformist government, to restore national peace and political stability, to deepen democracy and respect for human rights, to make transparency and good governance their hallmark, to drive economic growth, to consult more with citizens, to eliminate corruption at all levels of society and government, to deepen national pride amongst Basotho and to deepen the relationship with regional and international partners.

When we go even further back in history, we see how our first coalition government also failed. The ABC, LCD and BNP alliance ended abruptly after only about 31 months in office. During that period, the coalition partners jostled for power even though they had an agreement to regulate the alliance. They also achieved very little of their own objectives to improve the lives of Basotho.

For me, this is sufficient evidence that coalition agreements in Lesotho do not serve the same purpose that they perhaps serve in other countries of the world. Over here, they don’t mean very much. But for the benefit of the doubt, I took time to compare the Coalition Agreement for National Unity, Reconciliation, Peace and Stability (2017 coalition agreement) with the Coalition Agreement for Stability and Reform (2015 coalition agreement).

Advertisement

I was hoping to find differences between the two that would convince me that the 2017 coalition agreement is better and therefore more likely to succeed where previous ones failed.
At the end of the exercise, I concluded that the 2015 and 2017 coalition agreements are more similar than they are different.
In fact, 90 percent of the objectives and (or) priority programmes in the Coalition Agreement for National Unity, Reconciliation, Peace and Stability appear in the Coalition Agreement for Stability and Reform in some form or another – improving the economy, entrenching a culture of the rule of law, respecting human rights, fostering peace and stability, espousing good governance, altering current procurement practices, undertaking constitutional, political, security and administrative reforms, beefing up local government, implementing policy of the declaration of assets and interests, monitoring and evaluating the agreement.

Basically, it’s the same document. The language and wording might be different, but generally, it’s the same agreement just signed by a different group of leaders. It’s a rehash and repackaging of things we have heard before. The same challenges / issues that rendered the previous coalition agreement useless will render this one just as useless:
l Jostling for power – the leaders of smaller parties in the coalition being perceived to have more power and status than senior leaders in the dominant party (i.e. the very thing that caused the DC to splinter resulting in the coalition eventually imploding)

l Skirting around hard and tough issues to avoid upsetting and antagonising coalition partners i.e. foregoing the national interest to avoid imperilling the alliance
l Slow service delivery due to the need for consultations between the partners l Hurdles presented as the result of having weak institutions and the actions of corrupt state officials i.e. criminality condoned and tolerated (politicised) instead of being tackled.  l Inadequate capacity and state resources to respond to dire economic and social crises i.e. inability to implement policy
l Lack of humility, ego and personality related differences between leaders that make cooperation and collaboration between them a hard ask
Coalition agreements in the past failed to mitigate these challenges. In fact, in some instances, having the coalition agreement worsened the situation e.g. not consulting when the agreement says consultation is required collapsed our first coalition government.

These and many other challenges remain present and unremitting. However, there are a couple of “new things” in the new coalition agreement presumably included to increase the prospects for success for this coalition. The inclusion of confidence building measures to restore lost trust and confidence in government by citizens is one of these “new things”.
These measures include promptly implementing all outstanding decisions emanating from the intervention by SADC, limiting the abuse of public office by promptly strengthening investigative and judicial offices promptly, promulgating a public procurement code of conduct for politically exposed persons including ministers and senior officers, reviewing and passing new procurement legislation. Implementing all reform proposals outlined by both SOMILES and the Commonwealth (New Zealand Reforms) that do not require constitutional amendments and lengthy legislative processes.
The way I see it, pushing too hard on these things will be the very thing that will cause this coalition’s instability in future. Here are three examples why I say this (not exhaustive of course).
There are ministers in the current government who formed part of decisions by the previous government to frustrate the implementation of the SADC recommendations. For these Ministers, “promptly implementing all outstanding decisions emanating from the intervention by SADC” will not be as important and urgent as perhaps it is to new Ministers who were in the opposition at the time SADC issued the report. I therefore see a potential clash of priorities between the partners when the agreement must be actualised.

Secondly, it is not true that all these leaders want a strengthened justice system. Having strong investigative and judicial offices is not in the best interests of corrupt politicians both in and outside government. I therefore expect to see sparring between those in government who genuinely want Lesotho to have stronger investigative and judicial structures (motivated by national interest) and those who don’t (motivated by self-preservation).

Advertisement

Thirdly, reviewing and passing new procurement legislation and public procurement codes will close the space for politicians to distribute patronage. Because this will effectively reduce their scope to loot and to pillage state resources i.e. the easiest way to accumulate wealth in Lesotho, there is bound to be pushback from those who are in government for self-enrichment and instead public service.
The second “new thing” is the inclusion of a clause to invite SADC and other international partners to serve as mediators of last resort to the agreement in the circumstance that all local remedies fail to resolve a dispute.

When push comes to shove, I am not convinced this will make a difference. SADC is a toothless bulldog. Take for example how SADC was powerless in the past to force the Government of Lesotho to implement its recommendations. So, to say that SADC would serve as mediators of last resort does not mean much.
The acknowledgement that the current size of the cabinet is “too large for effectiveness and cost and could lead to fragmentation of government programs. The Partners agreed to review ministries and their responsibilities and thereafter re-align them as necessary before the beginning of the next fiscal year with consideration given to having a smaller government in future following the review”.

This is another “new thing” in the 2017 coalition agreement. This is one of those classic pronouncements by politicians meant only as a lullaby. Having a smaller Government would go against our culture of pushing partisan and personal interests instead the national interest. A smaller government before 2022 is a pipedream. It’s not going to happen. Let’s not fool ourselves.
Because 90 percent of the objectives and priorities are not new and there is nothing to write home about as far as the “new things” are concerned, I maintain my position that in Lesotho, Coalition Agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. The Coalition Agreement for National Unity, Reconciliation, Peace and Stability is no exception.
As far as I am concerned, great leadership, ethical and moral leaders, love for country, genuine trust and mutual respect between leaders, is what is required. No piece of paper i.e. a coalition agreement will ever make up for these things.

Poloko Khabele

Advertisement
Advertisement

Insight

Down in the Dump: Conclusion

Published

on

I closed last week by recording the dreadful news that trashy Trump had been elected called to mind WB Yeats’s poem “The Second Coming.” This is the poem whose opening lines gave Chinua Achebe the phrase “things fall apart.”

Yeats observes “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

It was written in 1919 and controversially uses Christian imagery relating to the Apocalypse and the Second Coming to reflect on the atmosphere in Europe following the slaughter of the First World War and the devastating flu epidemic that followed this.

It also reflects on the Irish War of Independence against British rule.

Advertisement

In lines that I can now read as if applying to the recent American election, Yeats mourns: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”

And then I can visualise Trump in the poem’s closing lines: “What rough beast is this, its hour come round at last, / Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born?”

Trump is certainly a rough beast and isn’t the choice of verb, slouching, just perfect? For a non-allegorical account of the threat posed by the Dump, I can’t do better than to quote (as I often do) that fine South African political journalist, Will Shoki. In his words: “Trump’s administration simply won’t care about Palestinians, about the DRC, about the Sudanese.

It will be indifferent to the plight of the downtrodden and the oppressed, who will be portrayed as weak and pathetic. And it will give carte blanche [that is, free rein] to despotism and tyranny everywhere.

Not even social media, that once revered third-space we associated with subversion and revolution in the first quarter of the 21st century can save us because Silicon Valley is in Trump’s back pocket.”

Advertisement

So what follows the triumph of the Dump? We can’t just sit down and moan and bemoan. In a more recent piece of hers than the one I quoted last week, Rebecca Solnit has observed: “Authoritarians like Trump love fear, defeatism, surrender. Do not give them what they want . . . We must lay up supplies of love, care, trust, community and resolve — so we may resist the storm.”

Katt Lissard tells me that on November 7th following the confirmation of the election result, in the daytime and well into the evening in Manhattan, New York, there was a large demonstration in support of the immigrants Trump despises.

And a recent piece by Natasha Lennard gives us courage in its title “The Answer to Trump’s Victory is Radical Action.”

So, my Basotho readers, how about the peaceful bearing of some placards in front of the US Embassy in Maseru? Because the Dump doesn’t like you guys and gals one little bit.

One last morsel. I had intended to end this piece with the above call to action, but can’t resist quoting the following comment from the New York Times of November 13th on Trump’s plans to appoint his ministers.

Advertisement

I’m not sure a satirical gibe was intended (the clue is in the repeated use of the word “defence”), but it made me guffaw nonetheless. “Trump will nominate Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host with no government experience, as his defence secretary. Hegseth has often defended Trump on TV.” You see, it’s all about the Dump.

  • Chris Dunton is a former Professor of English and Dean of Humanities at the National University of Lesotho.

 

Continue Reading

Insight

A question of personal gain

Published

on

Recently, an audio recording featuring the distressed MP for Thaba-Bosiu Constituency, Joseph Malebaleba, circulated on social media. The MP appears to have spent a sleepless night, struggling with the situation in which he and his associates from the Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) party were denied a school feeding tender valued at M250 million per annum.

In 2022, Lesotho’s political landscape underwent a significant shift with the emergence of the RFP led by some of the country’s wealthiest individuals. Among them was Samuel Ntsokoane Matekane, arguably one of the richest people in Lesotho, who took the helm as the party’s leader and ultimately, the Prime Minister of Lesotho.

The RFP’s victory in the general election raised eyebrows, and their subsequent actions have sparked concerns about the motivations behind their involvement in politics.

In an interview with an American broadcasting network just after he won the elections, Matekane made a striking statement, proclaiming that he would run Lesotho exactly as he runs his business.

Advertisement

At first glance, many thought he was joking, but as time has shown, his words were far from an idle threat. In the business world, the primary goal is to maximize profits, and it appears that the RFP is adopting a similar approach to governance.

Behind the scenes, alarming developments have been unfolding. A communication from an RFP WhatsApp group revealed a disturbing request from the Minister of Communications, Nthati Moorosi, who asked if anyone in the group had a construction business and could inbox her.

This raises questions about the RFP’s focus on using government resources to benefit their own business interests.

The government has been embroiled in a series of scandals that have raised serious concerns about the ethical conduct of its officials. Recent reports have revealed shocking incidents of misuse of public funds and conflicts of interest among key government figures.

Over the past two years, the RFP has been accused of awarding government contracts to companies affiliated with their members, further solidifying concerns about their self-serving agenda. For instance, vehicles purchased for the police were allegedly sourced from suppliers connected to a Minister’s son and MP.

Advertisement

The MP for Peka, Mohopoli Monokoane, was found to have hijacked fertiliser intended to support impoverished farmers, diverting crucial resources away from those in need for personal gain.

Such actions not only betray the trust of the public but also have a direct impact on the livelihoods of vulnerable communities. Monokoane appeared before the courts of law this week.

While farmers voice their concerns regarding fertiliser shortages, it seems that Bishop Teboho Ramela of St. Paul African Apostolic Church, who is also a businessman, is allegedly involved in a corrupt deal concerning a M10 million fertilizer allocation, benefiting from connections with wealthy individuals in government.

The procurement of fertiliser appears to be mired in controversy; recall that the Minister of Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Thabo Mofosi, was also implicated in the M43 million tender.

The renovation of government buildings with elaborate lighting systems was contracted to a company owned by the son of an MP. The RFP’s enthusiasm for infrastructure development, specifically road construction and maintenance, is also tainted by self-interest, as they have companies capable of performing these tasks and supplying the necessary materials, such as asphalt.

Advertisement

Minister Moteane finds himself in a compromising situation regarding a lucrative M100 million airport tender that was awarded to his former company. Ministers have even gone so far as to award themselves ownership of diamond mines.

Meanwhile, the nation struggles with national identification and passport shortages, which according to my analysis the RFP seems hesitant to address until they can find a way to partner with an international company that will benefit their own interests.

The people of Lesotho are left wondering if their leaders are truly committed to serving the nation or simply lining their own pockets. As the RFP’s grip on power tightens, the consequences for Lesotho’s democracy and economy hang precariously in the balance.

It is imperative that citizens remain vigilant and demand transparency and accountability from their leaders, lest the nation slide further into an era of self-serving governance.

In conclusion, the RFP’s dominance has raised serious concerns about the motives behind their involvement in politics. The apparent prioritisation of personal profit over public welfare has sparked widespread disillusionment and mistrust among the population.

Advertisement

As Lesotho navigates this critical juncture, it is essential that its leaders are held accountable for their actions and that the nation’s best interests are placed above those of individuals.

Only through collective effort and a strong commitment to transparency and accountability can Lesotho ensure a brighter future for all its citizens.

Ramahooana Matlosa

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Insight

Down in the Dump: Part One

Published

on

Attentive readers will recall that some weeks ago, I scribbled a series of pieces on elections due to be held in the UK, France, South Africa, and the USA. These elections were unusually critical for the well-being of their countries and even that of the world.

The results of the last of these elections are now with us and we are faced with the devastating news that Donald Trump is heading back to the White House.

I can hardly think of worse news to swallow or to equip the world to survive the years ahead.

The Dump, as I call him, is one of the most odious, dangerous, untrustworthy individuals currently inhabiting planet Earth. To cite a few of his demerits: he is a convicted felon; he believes climate change is a hoax; he is a sexist and a racist (one of his former military advisers has gone so far as to describe him as a fascist).

Advertisement

He is a snuggle buddy of the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and will probably discontinue aid to Ukraine as it resists invasion by Russia. Western European allies such as France, Germany and the UK are dismayed at his victory, as he holds the principles of democracy and constitutionalism in contempt.

As for Africa, well, he once described it as a “shit country,” so don’t look forward to much support from him.

Readers who spent time at the NUL will remember my dear colleague Katt Lissard who is now back home in New York. She spent some years with us as a Professor specialising in Theatre studies and was the Artistic Director of our international Winter / Summer Institute for Theatre for Development.

Many activists in the USA like Katt, who don’t see themselves as part of the political mainstream, chose to campaign for the Democrats and Kamala Harris in the hope of keeping Trump and the far right out of power. Confronted with the news of Trump’s victory, she sent an email to friends noting this was “just a brief check-in from the incomprehensible USA.”

She then explained: “We’re in shock and the early days of processing, but white supremacy, misogyny and anti-immigrant bias are alive and well and driving the boat here.” So, how do Katt and millions of decent, like-minded Americans plan to weather the storm?

Advertisement

Katt explained: “We were deeply depressed and deeply furious as it became clear that one of the worst human beings on the planet was going back to the White House, but we are still breathing and know that we will in the days ahead begin to formulate plans and strategies—and not just for heading north across the Canadian border.”

Picking up on that last point, it may well be that many decent Americans might just up and off across the border; Canada had better prepare for an avalanche of applications for residence permits.

And not just from Americans; in, for example, the American university system alone there are many many Africans employed in high positions (Professors and such-like), who must now face the fact they are living in a country whose leader despises them and who may opt to get out.

In her email written to her friends, once the news from hell had been confirmed, Katt quoted a piece by Rebecca Solnit, one of the most exciting writers at work in the USA today (readers may remember that I have previously reviewed two of her books for this newspaper, Whose Story is This? and Recollections of My Non-Existence).

Now Solnit is a feminist and at the heart of her work is a dissection of the way women have been marginalised in the USA (let’s remember that Kamala Harris, the Presidential candidate who lost to Trump, did so partly because so many American males could not bring themselves to vote for a woman.

Advertisement

I am thinking of the kind of male who invaded the White House when it was announced Trump had lost the 2020 election, bare-chested and wearing cow-horn helmets on their numbskull heads).

Solnit has this to say on our response to the Trump victory: “They want you to feel powerless and to surrender and to let them trample everything and you are not going to let them.

You are not giving up and neither am I. The fact that we cannot save everything does not mean we cannot save anything and everything we can save is worth saving.

You may need to grieve or scream or take time off, but you have a role no matter what, and right now good friends and good principles are worth gathering in.

Remember what you love. Remember what loves you. Remember in this tide of hate what love is.” And then: “A lot of us are going to resist by building solidarity and sanctuary.”

Advertisement

What is so morale-boosting about Solnit’s piece is not just her vision but also her command of language.
Her writing is so crisp and elegant. Language comes at us at its best, of course, in literature, and when I heard that the Dump was on the move back to the White House, I immediately recalled one of the most startling poems in the English language, “The Second Coming” by the Irish poet WB Yeats.

I’ll kick off with that next week.

To be concluded

Chris Dunton

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending