Lesotho election: Emasculating the constitution and democratic practices

Relatives of Lesotho Defence Force detained soldiers who came to Botswana during last year's SADC Summit
Relatives of Lesotho Defence Force detained soldiers who came to Botswana during last year's SADC Summit

One of the cardinal principles of the Westminster system of government, which Lesotho follows, is the principle that the Prime Minister must maintain the confidence of the lower house (National Assembly in Lesotho).

Confidence does not necessarily mean that the Prime Minister has majority support in Parliament. This is why minority governments have survived in a number of countries. They all survive at the pleasure of the opposition. Once indications of lack of support or a vote of no confidence succeeds the Prime Minister has to fall on his sword. It is that simple. Those who attempt or actually succeed to rule without parliamentary support are not democrats by any stretch of imagination. Lesotho Prime Minister, who was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament in both the indirect vote of no confidence (rejection of his budget), and a direct rejection through a no confidence vote, should under normal circumstances have quietly left office in favour of the person whom Parliament gave their vote to. Instead, he has devised several stratagems to extend his mandate for at least three months when elections are held. Democrats don’t behave that way! This as will be detailed below is not for nothing. It was meant to extent the government’s term by at least three months; attempt to destroy as much of the physical evidence of crimes committed by the government and its agencies; put in place an intense programme of intimidation ahead of the elections.

In Lesotho, lately we have witnessed a situation where the Prime Minister in spite of several manoeuvres lost the confidence of Parliament but hung on to power. Mosisili failed to have a budget even tabled, since Parliamentarians wanted him to submit himself to a vote of no confidence so that the budget could be presented by a more credible person who has the confidence of the House. After losing the battle of wills between the Speaker, who was used as hatched man, and the rest of the Members of Parliament, Mosisili then went ahead to unconstitutionally advise the King to dissolve parliament contrary to clear stipulations of Section 83 of the Constitution that such a role is that of the Council of State. His was clearly a case of trying to spite Parliament rather than to submit to its decisions.

Editor's Comment
BPF should get house in order

Speaker of the National Assembly, Dithapelo Keorapetse, has this week rightly washed his hands of the mess, refusing to wade into a party squabble that has no clear leadership and no single version of the truth.When a single party sends six different letters to the Speaker’s office, each claiming to be the authoritative voice, it is not just confusion, but an embarrassment.Keorapetse is correct to insist on institutional boundaries. Parliament...

Have a Story? Send Us a tip
arrow up