THE bureaucracy and incompetence that normally hamper development in Lesotho can largely be attributed to the system of government we have.
Lesotho is one of the countries with a parliamentary system of government wherein the cabinet — the executive — is made up of ministers drawn from the legislature.
In this system, the prime minister is not directly chosen by the electorate but by fellow members of parliament.
This entails that the party with the majority in the legislature normally chooses the prime minister.
In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief legislator.
Therein lies the major problem with the system.
Under the parliamentary system, there is no clear separation of powers between the executive and the legislature.
It means that there is no independent body to oppose legislation formulated and passed by parliamentarians and therefore no considerable checks on legislative power.
This normally leaves the executive as an all-powerful body, with the legislature and judiciary having compromised capacity to monitor and contain the executive.
In Lesotho the parliamentary system has often seen a blame game over poor service delivery and lack of development between the three pillars of state — legislature, executive and judiciary.
On the one hand, cabinet ministers usually blame parliament for their own under-performance.
On the other hand, lawmakers point at the absenteeism of ministers during parliamentary sessions as an impediment that undermines the whole process of legislation.
Then we have parliament saying the backlog of cases in the courts of justice is a result of incompetence on the part of the judiciary which is set up by the executive.
The blame game is a clear indication of lack of transparency and accountability wrought by the lack of a clear separation of powers.
In my view this perpetual conflict is more of structural than personal and stems from the parliamentary system of government that allows ministers or cabinet members to be part of the legislature.
Since independence in 1966, Lesotho has suffered in terms of development and service delivery from this system which perpetuates conflict of interest when it comes to policy matters.
For instance, Lesotho has ratified many treaties and agreements without consultation of parliament.
But when it comes to the domestication of those treaties into national laws and policies, the executive wants to engage parliament to legitimise its agendas.
Consequently such policies, even if they would eventually receive the blessings from parliament, become impractical and irrelevant to the public.
We can look at how the Land Bill (2009) has caused commotion.
The government has committed itself to an agreement with the United States’s Millennium Challenge Account to overhaul the land tenure system in Lesotho.
Because of that commitment, one would not be surprised if parliament simply rubberstamps the proposed law because the ruling Lesotho Congress for Democracy party is likely to use its majority without a thorough scrutiny of the consequences of the Land Bill.
Considering the above challenges — exacerbated by indolence, incompetence and absenteeism of members of parliament — we cannot expect effective service delivery while the government system and co-ordination are fragmented as they are now.
Perhaps Basotho should consider a structural change and try the presidential system of government which provides enough space for all pillars of state to operate with less interference from each other.
One major difference between a parliamentary system and a presidential form of government concerns the elections process.
In the latter system, a president is elected by the people to assume that position.
While in a parliamentary system the government may introduce legislation, within a presidential system the president cannot, although he or she is permitted to veto legislation.
The major plus here is that there is always, within a presidential system, a clear division between the legislative body and the executive.
If Lesotho adopts the presidential system, it means the legislative assembly will be able to monitor the executive without the prime minister or cabinet undermining parliament.
This is due to the fact that parliament will have the power to endorse the appointment or dismissal of ministers.
Under the presidential system, the separation of powers is clear — parliament creates laws and policies for the executive to implement under its monitoring.
Parliament is also fully consulted when cabinet and the judiciary are appointed, hence checks and balances are more effective.
In short, we cannot have the same people formulating and implementing policy as well as monitoring themselves.
Lesotho should therefore consider changing its system of government if we are to have accountable leaders and real development as well as the service delivery that we deserve.
