Best wishes for 9th par­lia­ment

Lesotho Times - - Feedback -

I am re­spond­ing to an ar­ti­cle by one of your colum­nists, ‘Ut­loang Ka­jeno’, which re­cently ap­peared in the Le­sotho Times un­der the head­line, Elec­tions a Two-horse Race.

I am ap­palled at the man­ner in which ‘Ut­loang Ka­jeno’ un­der­rates the Le­sotho Congress for Democ­racy (LCD) and un­der­mines its leader.

I have no doubt, in my mind, that ‘ Ut­loang Ka­jeno’ is an ad­her­ent of the prin­ci­ples of Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power.

I found some in­ter­est­ing prin­ci­ples of the 48 Laws of Power which ‘Ut­loang Ka­jeno’ unashamedly con­tin­ues to use against the LCD lead­er­ship which he/she ob­vi­ously thinks are of no use to his/her as­pi­ra­tions.

You seem to know a lot about ju­di­cial pro­ceed­ings, rule of law and ju­di­cial in­de­pen­dence and maybe that is the rea­son for al­leg­ing that Ntate mo­th­etjoa mets­ing, the Deputy Prime min­is­ter (DPM), has im­pugned the in­tegrity, pro­fes­sion­al­ism and dig­nity of the ju­di­cial law of gov­ern­ment by ut­ter­ing words that in ef­fect eroded the rule of law and ju­di­cial in­de­pen­dence, con­cepts that are hall­marks of a nascent democ­racy and the em­bod­i­ment of our demo­cratic ideals, prin­ci­ples and iden­tity as a civilised na­tion.

The first ques­tion that came up after read­ing your ar­ti­cle is what are those of­fen­sive, il­le­gal and un­demo­cratic ut­ter­ances?

You should have maybe sup­ported your cri­tique with tan­gi­ble proof of what was said by the DPM.

maybe Ntate/’me ‘Ut­loang Ka­jeno’ does not know that what the law does not for­bid the law al­lows and that he who al­leges must pro­vide proof.

The ar­gu­ment re­lat­ing to the coali­tion EV­ERY mosotho who truly has Le­sotho at heart has to wish the next Par­lia­ment well and suc­cess.

Prayers have to be said for Le­sotho to avoid run­ning in the lanes used by the 8th Par­lia­ment. If it has to, it must at least run dif­fer­ently.

The 8th Par­lia­ment and its Ex­ec­u­tive ran in all di­rec­tions, hence it could not last beyond three years, as run­ners bounced into each other in their un­co­or­di­nated runs.

The 9th Par­lia­ment and its Ex­ec­u­tive will have to choose to run form East to West or vise versa, and not in all di­rec­tions.

The elec­torate will be ex­pect­ing to see and feel the dif­fer­ence be­tween the 8th and 9th Par­lia­ments. The 9th Par­lia­ment has to avoid clumsy and ob­vi­ous mis­takes.

For ex­am­ple, cor­rup­tion takes dif­fer­ent forms, shapes, col­ors etc. The more one at­tempts to look to de­tect it, the less he/she is likely to see.

An un­sus­pect­ing, MP can eas­ily find him­self/her­self par­tic­i­pat­ing in­no­cently in ap­par­ently cor­rupt events.

This is a chal­lenge to all fu­ture mps to be care­ful about the en­vi­ron­ment they have to par­tic­i­pate in, lest there be traces of cor­rup­tion some­where un­der ev­ery stitch or seam of their well-wo­ven Par­lia­men­tary gar­ment. Not all un­trained eyes can lo­cate all cor­rupt ten­den­cies.

For ex­am­ple, par­tic­i­pa­tion in in­ten­tional Par­lia­men­tary pro­cesses could be an in­ter­est­ing sam­ple for fu­ture mps to con­sider.

If the In­ter-par­lia­men­tary Union (IPU) Statutes and Rules were ob­served to the let­ter; there would be no room for the slight­est cor­rup­tion.

But if lo­cal rules of par­tic­i­pa­tion are tai­lored or read to evade the ex­pressed spirit of the IPU, the un­sus­pect­ing mps are likely to find them­selves as in­no­cent par­tic­i­pants in cor­rup­tion-re­lated events.

The na­tion de­serves an ex­pla­na­tion that the han­dling of IPU mat­ters through a five-yearcom­mit­tee and not through del­e­ga­tions for each assem­bly does not amount to cor­rup­tion.

This is more pos­si­ble as long as the Na­tional Assem­bly Stand­ing Or­ders re­main silent ex­cept to de­mand that del­e­ga­tions have to re­port to the House after tours.

To en­sure that new mps get in­formed about their fu­ture roles, pow­ers that be ought to make those lo­cal rules of par­tic­i­pa­tion known by all, to en­able them to de­tect if they are in the spirit of the ex­pen­sive IPU ses­sions and as­sem­blies.

The next Ex­ec­u­tive will def­i­nitely have to show a dif­fer­ence be­tween it­self and the short- gov­ern­ment or coali­tion of po­lit­i­cal par­ties, as es­poused in our Con­sti­tu­tion, has to be guided by agree­ments of the coali­tion of po­lit­i­cal par­ties which form a gov­ern­ment.

It fol­lows there­fore, that no one mem­ber of the coali­tion of po­lit­i­cal par­ties has carte blanche and a sin­gu­lar right and law­ful au­thor­ity to uni­lat­er­ally ad­vice His majesty to lived coali­tion of the 8th Par­lia­ment. The lat­ter had been very vo­cal.

among its many pro­nounce­ments was its un­quan­tifi­able wish to erad­i­cate cor­rup­tion. It is not in dis­pute that it is in this very area where the coali­tion failed dis­mally: Not that it per­formed any bet­ter else­where. The coali­tion lacked a roadmap on how it would go about this top pri­or­ity com­mit­ment.

Rather, it opted to chase shad­ows and picked the wrong sus­pects, over­look­ing the ob­vi­ous in their midst.

The Coali­tion had to prac­tice what preached even dur­ing SADC in­ter­ven­tions.

most im­por­tantly, the com­po­si­tion of the next Cab­i­net has to speak to the na­tion, no mat­ter which party or par­ties form gov­ern-

it en­act laws or as­sent to a gazette brought to him.

maybe you have for­got­ten that His majesty de­clined to as­sent to the first pro­ro­ga­tion gazette and should com­pre­hend why the other coali­tion gov­ern­ment part­ner has pub­licly men­tioned his op­po­si­tion to sub­se­quent gazettes which were singed for as you al­lege.

You seem to know a lot about the congress move­ment, par­tic­u­larly the LCD and the Demo­cratic Congress (DC) found­ing prin­ci­ples, but you were maybe never told that the Le­sotho Congress move­ment motto has al­ways been and will al­ways be “Jus­tice to friend and foe”, and the LCD and DC mot­tos are de­rived from the Le­sotho Congress move­ment motto.

I am not go­ing to dis­cuss your in­sin­u­a­tions that Ntate mets­ing and his NEC, lieu­tenants ac­cord­ing to you, want to leave a legacy of a dis­obe­di­ent na­tion that does not obey law­ful au­thor­ity be­cause your un­der­stand­ing and in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the rule of law and ju­di­cial in­de­pen­dence is skewed.

Siphiwo Mseti, Chair­per­son of LCD Sta­dium Area #31 Con­stituency.

makhabane ment.

all ef­fort ought to be made to avoid a con­tro­ver­sial cab­i­net (i.e. con­tro­ver­sial ap­point-

ments). Fail­ure in this will be a sig­nal of the be­gin­ning of a de­cline of their rule.

The elec­torate will be watch­ing with keen in­ter­est, as to who, and from which dis­trict, one gets ap­pointed, and prob­a­bly why that par­tic­u­lar in­di­vid­ual.

The shape of party lists will speak vol­umes. They will in­di­cate whether or not a party wishes to em­power mem­bers of the Cen­tral Com­mit­tees to ac­cess gov­ern­ment, re­gard­less of the cal­i­bre of such mem­bers and at the ex­pense of over­sight of gov­ern­ment af­fairs; or whether Youth or Women would be favoured as many par­ties tend to do.

The Le­sotho of the 2015 elec­tion ven­tures into a new era where the old guard may only re­mind vot­ers of the past. It has been re­peated many times that old habits die hard.

On the one hand, new blood would in­ject some new thoughts into this new arena of coali­tions. a care­ful bal­anc­ing of vet­er­ans and young blood has to be done.

above ev­ery­thing else, there should be no room to re­ward loy­al­ists and at­ten­tion-seek­ers with cab­i­net po­si­tions. Na­tional in­ter­est has to pre­vail.

Be that as it may, the 9th­par­lia­ment has to help Ba­sotho to for­get dis­com­forts of the 8th par­lia­ment. GOOD GOD WILL­ING, that would be the best pay back to the elec­torate.

File pic­ture: The 8th Par­lia­ment Ses­sion in Oc­to­ber this year.

LCD Leader Mo­th­etjoa Mets­ing

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Lesotho

© PressReader. All rights reserved.