2x1rm
THE LEGACY OF MORENA MOSHOESHOE, ANY LESSONS FOR CURRENT LEADERSHIP
By Sofonea Shale
Lesotho has for some time now been in the spotlight of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) agenda for its political instability and insurgencies that have defined it as a vulnerable state. This article looks at the legacy of the founding father, Morena Moshoeshoe and it challenges the current leadership to see whether it can take any lessons for transforming Lesotho into a stable, peaceful and prosperous sovereign country.
Morena Moshoeshoe built a strong system and the centrality of the leadership that was cohesive, governable and progressive. However, modern Lesotho has been unable to achieve many of its development policy targets due to flaws in its political setup.
The Nation that Morena Moshoeshoe built was firmly rooted in peace more than 200 years ago. Today, Lesotho is hardly counted among the peaceful, well governed, corruption free and happy countries in the world. The triple threat to Lesotho, namely famine, HIV and AIDS and weak institutional capacity have been worsened by the political instability and military insurgencies of 2014-15. From 2012 to date, Lesotho has had four elections and changed Prime Ministers a staggering five times. As things worsen, the prominence of names of political leaders has grown from one level to another, not so much about the political parties they represent or even the governments they lead, but by their actions when they were mandated to lead the country through elections. By 2017, all significant political leaders in Lesotho had worked together in coalitions. In keeping with the adage that there are no permanent friends and foes in politics, many politicians have been in and out of coalition governments, but they have failed to deliver to the Basotho nation the peace, stability and development that the people desire.
A patriotic, credible, compassionate and foresighted leadership is definitely a missing element in the solution that Lesotho needs for the economic and social development of the Kingdom. Basotho think Morena Moshoeshoe represents the leadership that this country needs. Morena Moshoeshoe’s leadership was premised on a governance system that delivered development, served peace, accommodated the downtrodden and created social coherence.
The grandiosity and splendor of Prime Minister Matekane, though yet to be tested, the brilliance of Dr. Majoro, the oratory of Dr. Mosisili and the exactitude of Dr. Thabane could not on their own make Lesotho prosper. Although Basotho may be justified to give a standing ovation for the work done by Morena Leabua and bow their heads for Dr. Mokhehle for reviving democracy in Lesotho since 1993, such should be judged against the realities on the ground.
Morena Moshoeshoe did not inherit any political system but built his own system of governance out of a history of wars and calamities of the day. His success was not largely, as other people believe, due to desperation on the side of those fleeing the Zulu mayhem, but it was due, in most part; to his genius. What is interesting about the value system that also became a governance system for Basotho is the way Morena Moshoeshoe used his influence to create strong institutions, thus being able to articulate and achieve public interests.
At the dawn of the new millennium, Lesotho developed two key development frameworks namely Vision 2020, a blueprint of what Lesotho would be in the year 2020 and the poverty reduction strategy described as its implementation framework. The mission statement of Vision 2020 pronounced bold aspirations to say;
By the year 2020 Lesotho shall be a stable democracy, a united and prosperous nation at peace with itself and its neighbours. It shall have a healthy and well-developed human resources base. Its economy will be strong. Its environment well managed and its technology well established.
If the development route conceptualised above was to be used to reflect how Lesotho performed on Vision 2020, clearly, the country has regressed. Achieving development in Lesotho could not be realised because the institutional transformation was not commensurate with the desired change. The declaration of Vision 2020 did not compel the government to stop undermining section 105 of the Lesotho Constitution which, as an example, provides for the national planning board to prepare, coordinate, and supervise the preparation of plans and to advise the government on the economic development agenda. It was in the journey towards Vision 2020 that the Lesotho government amended the Constitution to reduce the powers of the national planning board to that of the advisory role. This decision manifested rigidity and self-interest and was largely motivated by the desire of political leaders to have ultimate power and influence on the affairs of the state. Put differently, Lesotho had chosen regression over building strong institutions on a foundation that the great King Moshoeshoe left. This was a false start. The National Planning Board is still to be established and the nation awaits to see the stance that the new government will take towards its establishment presumably under reforms.
The National Strategic Development Plan (NDSP I and NDSP II) has been unable to curb the deterioration of life in Lesotho, let alone achieve the objectives for which it was developed to address. The institutions of governance, oversight and security as well as the judiciary as state organs have not been spared the destabilisation for personal interest of their otherwise supposedly autonomous and professional mandate. This weakening of institutions could only end up in instability, political decay and corruption which define Lesotho of late.
It is widely acknowledged that in Morena Moshoeshoe’s time, Basotho practiced the best form of popular democratic participation through the Pitso system, where his subjects had a voice in the governance of the affairs of the nation. In light of the Mfecane wars, the leadership of Morena Moshoeshoe at its very infancy was threatened. The fact that Moshoeshoe was able to rise from a history of conflict to a stable, peaceful, participatory, development-oriented, equal and prosperous democracy negates modernisation development theorisation that the global South is compelled into. Morena Moshoeshoe built his own, not so much on the battlefield, but on values that were more impactful than war. The magnanimity with which he took victory, defined the hallmark of his diplomatic advancement to enemies but most importantly, coalescing with other chiefs without seeking to vanquish them. His wins in battles were great achievements, but they could not have survived without a strong people, coherent and united in common purpose that could not have survived.
In the 1820s Moshoeshoe had accepted the Afrikaners who had just trekked from the Cape Colony to temporarily settle for their livestock and by 1830s, he had to defend a runover by the Afrikaners. Other chiefs had been smashed and dispossessed by the settlers, Morena Moshoeshoe remained standing.
Morena Moshoeshoe abolished the death penalty and any form of punishment for women found guilty of witchcraft. He ordered that no one should be despised for their views regardless of status in society and wanted all to be heard on the matters that affected his subjects.
Morena Moshoeshoe also had the conviction that no community was built by force and authoritarian leadership, rather by negotiation and dialogue. For him, no problem was bigger than collective wisdom, another principle on which he founded his nation. He used the chief’s council and on that platform, there was no issue immune to open and honest scrutiny of the councilors, irrespective of its nature. He allowed his people to deliberate on issues and summarised their wishes into decrees. His conviction on the consultation was also found in his council of advisors, which would provide rich and diverse perspectives on the issues of governance.
The governance system of Morena Moshoeshoe resembled a discernable level of development and stability of the political system. He was not heavy handed on the people. Instead, he demonstrated that which he wanted from his people by being exemplary. For example, history tells us of how the cannibals killed and ate his grandfather. Forgiving them sent a strong message to his subjects about what he means by being a people able to forgive.
It is cultural for Basotho to respect their in-laws. By marrying many women, Morena Moshoeshoe created bonds and ties with many families, a practice also used by his subjects to court different clans. Morena Moshoeshoe also accepted many people from different clans and chiefdoms and did not discard their identities. This explains why Basotho are an amalgam of tribes and clans.
Contrary to many chiefdoms of his time, Morena Moshoeshoe entrenched into his system of governance, regard for the vulnerable sections of his people. These included women, children and persons with disabilities. It was a given that able bodied men and women would work collectively at tšimo-kholo to provide for the common abundance. Again, women would not stand trial at the chief’s kraal, but were represented by their husbands for any wrongdoing. The widowed and the deserted were taken care of by society and men in the society were duty bound to ensure the livelihood of those who needed support.
Moshoeshoe also had a strong system to ensure the sustenance of livelihoods and the redistribution of wealth to combat poverty and hunger among his subjects. He practiced the mafisa economic justice and development model to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. In this system, the ones with more than adequate means of livelihood, especially cattle, would lend part of their herd to those who did not own any. They would then rear them as their own, milk and use for ploughing. In return, when the herd had increased, they would then share offspring to give the poor a jumpstart for the growth of their own heads and achieve self-sustenance. This model ensured that whenever rich people became richer, at least one family was getting out of destitution. The mafisa system was a means of sharing and evenly distributing wealth among his people. Morena Moshoeshoe himself outshone this practice by redistributing cattle after successful raids. His political system characterised humanity, equality, and justice.
MOSHOESHOE’S RELEVANCE IN THE CONTEMPORARY GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES
Lesotho today represents everything contrary to the system that Morena Moshoeshoe created. The primary question is whether the status quo can be changed and whether the current leadership can reclaim his legacy.
The African Peer Review Mechanism report of 2010 rightly points out that since independence from Britain in 1966, the political history of Lesotho has been dominated by instability, controversy and conflict, sometimes spilling over into violence. There is a general consensus among many political analysts and scholars that democracy in the form of modern political formations are also the engineers of political instability in Lesotho. This is evidenced through the history of political instability that has resulted in among others, the state of emergency declared by Leabua Jonathan in 1970 resulting in the persecution of the Basutoland Congress Party that had won elections. The military coup of 1986 that removed him from power and more recently, the riots of 1998. There have also been many intra and inter-party conflicts that resulted in several splits. As of October 2022, when the country held elections, a nation of just over 2 million had 65 political parties contesting elections.
The diversity, political dynamism and the challenges of today are not any foreign. Different political parties of today may be equated to the clans and tribes that Morena Moshoeshoe did not seek to coerce and subsume in his own. The system of Morena Moshoeshoe has been able to relate with other systems and built the coherent value system that became the way of life. Put differently, the system of Morena Moshoeshoe was able to appeal to the conscience of the individual subject thus making it functional.
In Morena Moshoeshoe’s governance, opportunities were abundant and the policies pro-poor. Today, political parties jostle for proximity to power, which gives them access to national resources. Ordinarily, this power is then used to skewedly distribute resources on nepotism, corruption and favouritism as the formulae. Given this distribution formulae, those who lose the power to rule find themselves losing everything. Again, those who lose power in their political party formations believe that their chances of getting crumbs as political elites, who would join parliament and subsequently be appointed ministers stand of chance of making it in life because clinging to power is a means of survival. In Morena Moshoeshoe’s system, the matsema and mafisa strategies were used commonly to create and evenly distribute wealth. The system of Morena Moshoeshoe relied on the people for its success. However, today the politicians seek to be in government more for personal gain than to pursue the course for the good of the populace. Unlike in Moshoeshoe’s era, the people are the means to resources at election time.
LESSONS TO RECLAIM THE LEGACY OF MORENA MOSHOESHOE
Whether or not there are any lessons for the contemporary leadership to learn from Morena Moshoeshoe, the starting point should be establishing where Lesotho got it wrong. The British took 98 years to demolish the value-based system that Morena Moshoeshoe built. If the current crop of leaders is to use the lessons from Morena Moshoeshoe to address today’s challenges, a reflection on what went wrong is instructional. The modern political leadership define independence as political power. They ought to contest, compete and use this power to advance the country, but owning this power has degenerated into corruption, nepotism and public misery. Therefore, Basotho inherited a state that was so different from what Morena Moshoeshoe created, with no intention whatsoever to reclaim its former glory. The post-colonial state in Lesotho, like many other African states, inherited the authoritarian, unequal, violent and inhumane state.
The leadership today, should first admit that the instability, poverty, violence and rivalry found in Basotho is a manifestation of the grotesque independence architecture that negated the governance of Morena Moshoeshoe and that must be reversed, albeit within the confines of the modern democratic dispensation. This is a precondition for those who may want to transform Lesotho from the weak and vulnerable state that it is into a Morena Moshoeshoe value-based system of governance. This commitment is necessary because leadership will have to sacrifice some benefits that go with post-colonial state.
Although Basotho are the beneficiaries of critical donor support today, the country was once a granary of Southern Africa. In the 1870s, diamond diggers at the Kimberly mines provided a ready market for Lesotho wheat and Basotho farmers exported wagon-loads of grain annually. The country was so wealthy that it could support the British government to purchase two Spitfighter jets during the First World War. This could be reclaimed through a strong decentralisation, renewed chieftaincy that is anchored on a solid and progressive democratic government. Only a committed and people-centred democratic dispensation without self-interest can make Lesotho the envy of other progressive African countries like Botswana and Rwanda.
The reforms process in Lesotho, which seeks to empower institutions and limit excessive powers of the state has met many challenges. These obstacles explain in part what would otherwise be the attitude of political leadership to reclaiming the value based system of Morena Moshoeshoe.
The reforms process in Lesotho presents an opportunity for leadership to change the path through which Lesotho is going. The progress made in reforms shall tell the extent to which it is possible for the political leadership in Lesotho to reclaim the value-based system of Morena Moshoeshoe.
