Analysts say ABC didn’t do its homework
MASERU –– The stayaway called by opposition parties flopped because the timing was wrong and the planning was poor, analysts have said.
They said the opposition, led by the All Basotho Convention (ABC), had failed to mobilise enough support because there was nothing strong enough to trigger a wave of discontent among people that could have made them participate in the protest.
Professor Nqosa Mahau of the University of Northwest said it seemed that the people had ignored the call to stayaway because businesses in Maseru had opened as usual.
“We can say the stayaway failed because for such a major campaign to be regarded as successful people must stay at home and businesses should be closed,” Mahau said.
He said the ABC could have lost support in urban areas.
“The ABC seems to have lost the immense support it had in urban areas at its inception,” said Mahau.
“The people who had invested their hopes in the party have become disgruntled and their faith has eroded.”
Mahau said a spate of internal squabbles that have rocked the party since 2007 could have forced people to abandon the party.
“At the height of its popularity ABC would call a stayaway and the country would be brought to a standstill. But those days are history.”
He said the opposition had a valid reason for protesting but they had failed to properly plan the stayaway.
“They do have a valid point but they failed to pull their plans through.” Professor Seroala Ts’oeu-Ntokoane of the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the National University of Lesotho (NUL), said the stayaway had failed because “the timing was not conducive”.
“The timing of the stayaway was not right. Previous stayaway campaigns were able to gather momentum because they were organised during periods of general discontent when people were feeling that they could bring change,” Tsóeu-Ntokoane said.
She said there was also a general feeling of fatigue among people regarding stay-away campaigns.
“People felt there was no major reason why they should invest their time in a stayaway and halt their daily business routine for something they would ultimately gain nothing from.”
“Civil servants were threatened with pay cuts if they participated in the stayaway. Why would they risk their livelihood?”
She said the fact that the government was well prepared had also contributed to the failure of the stayaway.
She added the government’s success also lay in the common trend of African regimes of discrediting their adversaries to the public.
“A common trend of African regimes is to threaten and demonise popular movements with the aim of ultimately disabling them. In some cases they co-opt the opposition to achieve their goals.”
“There are major internal conflicts within the opposition which put them in a weak and compromising position.”
Poor organisation had also contributed to the failure, Tsóeu-Ntokoane said
“There was lack of proper organisation, enforcement and overall coercion to ensure the success of the stay-away.”
But there are other analysts that insist that the stayaway was a success arguing that counting the number of the people in the streets is not a proper measure of the impact of the protest.
Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and respected political analyst, Professor Kopano Makoa, said the stayaway was a success because the government had panicked.
“The stay-away has been extremely effective. The government displayed a high level of anxiety and panic. They deployed security forces and invested public funds in things like fuel to ferry government personnel around. Thwarting the stay-away proved to be a costly exercise,” Makoa said.
He said the government was also reduced to making public threats against people to stop them from participating in the stay-away.
“Observing how many people there were in town is a poor variable on which to gauge a stay-away.”
“They have entered into talks, the government. They have to make the talks seem to be working.”
3 comments
Comments are closed.