The announcement by former Democratic Congress (DC) member, Bothata Mahlala, that he plans to form his own political party has raised eyebrows across Lesotho’s political landscape. Mahlala’s departure from the DC, coupled with his claims that the country’s political system lacks a genuine plan for progress, has spurred debates about his true intentions and the potential impact of his new political venture.
In a recent statement, Mahlala criticised the current political climate, arguing that the DC had no real vision to transform Lesotho. He highlighted issues such as high unemployment rates, widespread nepotism in government appointments, and the disturbing increase in brutal killings. Mahlala’s proposed solutions include reforms that focus on practical issues affecting the lives of ordinary Basotho.
Specifically, he advocates for the abolition of Members of Parliament (MPs’) daily lunch allowances of M150, a reduction in MPs’ salaries to M15 000 per month to promote national stability, and a restriction on ministers’ international trips to ensure they prioritise the country’s development.
At first glance, these proposals may seem like well-intentioned attempts to curb the growing public dissatisfaction with Lesotho’s political elite. However, upon closer inspection, they begin to raise serious questions about the depth of Mahlala’s political vision.
Can such a narrow focus on salary cuts and restrictions on MPs’ perks truly be the foundation of a new political movement capable of addressing the complex issues facing Lesotho? Is this enough to justify the formation of a new political party?
The notion of forming an entire political party based on a singular issue such as the reduction of MPs’ allowances is inherently problematic. While these concerns are legitimate and touch on the broader issue of political accountability, they do not represent a comprehensive solution to Lesotho’s most pressing challenges, including the country’s economic decline, pervasive poverty, and high crime rates.
One person who seems to agree with this critique is Nkejane Lethoba, a vocal commentator and political analyst. Lethoba has expressed scepticism about Mahlala’s political ambitions, pointing out that his focus on a singular issue is insufficient to rally the masses and create a meaningful political movement. According to Lethoba, Mahlala’s lack of a compelling value proposition for the Basotho people is a key flaw in his approach.
“You can’t form a whole political party on the basis of a singular issue of MP loans and salaries,” Lethoba said.
In fact, Lethoba suggests that Mahlala’s time might be better spent joining established parties such as the Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) or the Socialist Revolution (SR), rather than attempting to create a new party from scratch.
This would not only bring Mahlala into alignment with other like-minded political figures but would also allow him to leverage the resources and established networks of these parties to push for real reforms.
Lethoba even speculates that Mahlala may not offer anything substantially different from other politicians, such as Prime Minister Sam Matekane.
“Mr Mahlala must honestly just join RFP or SR,” Lethoba asserts. “I am willing to bet Mr Mahlala has nothing different to offer from Ntate Matekane. Why doesn’t he just join him to strengthen his vision? Or maybe join another wealthy individual, JP of SR?”
Lethoba’s analysis is grounded in the concern that Mahlala’s proposed reforms, although well-intentioned, lack the ambition and breadth needed to address Lesotho’s systemic issues.
The idea of reducing MPs’ salaries and limiting their perks might resonate with some voters frustrated by the lavish lifestyles of politicians, but these proposals are likely to be seen as too minor in the face of a country struggling with deeper structural issues.
Mahlala’s political goals don’t stop at proposing reforms. He has boldly expressed his desire to become either the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister in the 2028 elections. In his view, these positions would give him the platform to drive meaningful change in Lesotho.
However, Mahlala’s vision for change raises some critical questions: is he prepared to lead a nation with such a narrow political platform?
Moreover, Mahlala has stated that if he fails to secure these positions in 2028, he will walk away from politics entirely.
This ultimatum suggests that Mahlala’s political career may be driven by personal ambition rather than a sincere commitment to the welfare of the nation.
His rhetoric indicates that he sees his potential rise to power as a solution to the country’s problems, but without a more comprehensive agenda for reform, it is unclear how he plans to lead Lesotho out of its current crisis.
The core issue with Mahlala’s new political movement lies in the apparent lack of a well-defined, holistic vision for the country’s future. His focus on relatively small-scale reforms—cutting MPs’ salaries, eliminating allowances, and restricting international travel — does not tackle the root causes of the country’s economic stagnation, political corruption, or social unrest.
While these issues may resonate with a certain segment of the electorate, they do not constitute a sufficiently ambitious platform for a new political party.
What Mahlala fails to offer, as pointed out by critics, is a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the broader issues that have plagued Lesotho for decades.
From unemployment to inadequate infrastructure, from corruption to poor education and healthcare, these are the types of challenges that require far-reaching solutions and not just symbolic gestures aimed at placating public discontent with politicians.
While Mahlala’s departure from the DC and his intentions to form a new political party may be seen as a brave step, the truth remains that his proposed reforms seem insufficient to justify the creation of an entirely new political entity.
The criticisms of political analysts like Nkejane Lethoba highlight the core problem with Mahlala’s political approach: his platform is based on relatively minor issues without addressing the deeper, more systemic problems that Lesotho faces.
In the end, Mahlala’s political career may well be a reflection of the broader frustration that many Basotho feel toward their political leaders.
However, without a more compelling vision for Lesotho’s future, Mahlala risks becoming just another fleeting political figure, remembered not for his bold leadership, but for his inability to offer Basotho a real alternative to the status quo.
