Lesotho needs an effective Prime Minister, not a powerful one

Theko Tlebere

The debate about power in Lesotho often begins from the wrong place. We usually ask whether a Prime Minister should have “full control” of government.

But the more important question is this: what kind of power does Lesotho need for a stable, democratic, and effective government? My argument is simple. Lesotho does not need an all-powerful Prime Minister. Lesotho needs an effective Prime Minister working within strong institutions. What do I even mean? Follow me this week as I give my take on the kind of Prime Minister our kingdom needs.

The distinction I have just made in my introduction matters. A Prime Minister must have enough authority to lead the Cabinet, coordinate ministries, discipline ministers, implement government policy, and protect national stability. Without that authority, government becomes a marketplace of competing interests. Ministers behave like independent political actors.

Coalition partners pull the government in different directions. Senior officials delay implementation. Citizens then suffer because the government exists, but it does not govern. In a country like Lesotho, weak executive coordination is costly. When ministries fail to cooperate, roads are not completed on time.

Hospitals remain under-resourced. Schools lack support. Farmers wait for services. Young people lose confidence in public institutions. A Prime Minister must therefore be strong enough to demand performance from the machinery of government.

However, there is a danger in confusing effective leadership with unlimited power. Effective control means the Prime Minister has the authority to govern. Absolute control means the Prime Minister becomes bigger than the Constitution, Parliament, Cabinet, courts, and the people.

That is dangerous. It should stick in our heads that Lesotho is not a presidential system. It is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The Prime Minister does not personally own the state. He or she governs because the National Assembly gives that democratic authority.

Once the Prime Minister loses the confidence of Parliament, the constitutional basis of power becomes questionable. This is why Parliament is central to democracy. Parliament is not the enemy of the Prime Minister. It is the institution that gives the Prime Minister democratic legitimacy. But Parliament must also hold the executive accountable. If Parliament becomes weak, silent, or captured by executive influence, democracy becomes only a ceremony.

Lesotho’s political history has shown both dangers. At times, Prime Ministers have appeared too weak to control coalition partners and government machinery. At other times, Basotho have feared that too much power in the hands of one political leader may weaken institutions. Both extremes are harmful. Coalition politics have made this problem more complex. Since Lesotho entered the coalition era, prime-ministerial authority has become more fragile. A Prime Minister may formally lead the government but still depend on several parties with different interests, ambitions, and loyalties.

Coalition partners may demand ministries, influence appointments, and threaten withdrawal whenever disagreements arise. In such circumstances, the Prime Minister may spend more time surviving politically than governing nationally.

This explains why some people argue that Lesotho needs a stronger Prime Minister. They are not entirely wrong. Government cannot function properly when every decision is hostage to coalition bargaining. A Prime Minister must have enough authority to maintain Cabinet discipline and protect policy continuity. But strong prime-ministerial authority must not become arrogance.

The state is not the private property of the Prime Minister. Cabinet is not a personal club. The public service is not a party office. The security forces are not political instruments. National resources are not campaign rewards. When a Prime Minister treats institutions as personal tools, executive leadership becomes executive abuse.

The security sector is especially important. Lesotho’s political history has shown that relations between civilian leaders and security institutions can easily become a source of national instability. A democratic state requires civilian control of the military, police, and intelligence services.

But civilian control must mean constitutional control, not personal control by one politician. Security institutions must serve the Constitution and the nation, not ruling-party factions. This is why constitutional reforms remain extremely important. The reform process should not merely ask who has power. It should ask how power is structured, limited, supervised, and transferred.

The real issue is not whether the Prime Minister should be strong or weak. The real issue is whether Lesotho’s institutions are strong enough to allow decisive leadership while preventing abuse.

A mature democracy does not fear strong leadership. What it fears is unaccountable leadership. The vote of no confidence is a good example. In principle, it is a democratic mechanism. If a Prime Minister loses majority support in Parliament, there must be a lawful way to remove that government. But if votes of no confidence are used recklessly, Parliament becomes a permanent battlefield.

Governments become unstable, investors lose confidence, citizens become tired, and development plans are interrupted. Our country, Lesotho, therefore needs balance. Parliament must retain the power to remove a government that has lost legitimacy. But that process should not be abused for personal ambition or factional games.

A constructive vote of no confidence, where Parliament removes a Prime Minister only when it can identify a replacement, may help protect both accountability and stability. The same applies to Cabinet appointments. The Prime Minister must have the authority to appoint and remove ministers. Without that power, Cabinet discipline becomes impossible. But appointments must be guided by competence, integrity, national balance, and policy needs. If ministerial posts are used only to reward loyalty, silence critics, or satisfy coalition partners, governance suffers.

Lesotho must move beyond the politics of office-sharing and build a culture of performance. A minister should not remain in office because he belongs to the right faction. A minister should remain in office because he or she performs. The Prime Minister must demand results, but the public must also demand accountability from the Prime Minister.

At the end of it all, the question is not whether a Prime Minister should have power. Of course, power is necessary for governing. The real question is whether that power is exercised for national stability, development, and public service, or for personal survival, political revenge, and institutional capture.

Lesotho’s future depends on getting this balance right. A weak Prime Minister cannot govern. An unchecked Prime Minister can damage democracy. The answer lies between these two extremes: strong leadership under constitutional control. That is the kind of Prime Minister Lesotho needs.

Not a ceremonial leader trapped by coalition chaos. Not an imperial leader above the law. But an effective constitutional leader with courage to govern, discipline to respect institutions, and humility to remember that power belongs ultimately to the people. The Future is NOW!

Newsday

Your Trusted Source for News and Insights in Lesotho!
At Newsday Media, we are passionate about delivering accurate, timely, and engaging news and multimedia content to our diverse audience. Founded with the vision of revolutionizing the media landscape in Lesotho, we have grown into a leading hybrid media company that blends traditional journalism with innovative digital platforms.