How the Country Moves: When politics becomes self-preservation

Tšeliso Moroke

Political parties in this country are the same. They thrive on well-known social ills. They campaign on unemployment, inequality, corruption, poor service delivery, and an unhealthy economic climate. They speak passionately about reform while in opposition. They promise structural change, institutional renewal, and economic transformation. Yet once in power, the urgency fades. The language softens. The outrage disappears. The system remains intact.

Even the new parties formed in moments of public frustration follow the same script. They emerge promising to be different, cleaner, more accountable, more transparent, and more people-centred. They speak the language of renewal. They brand themselves as a break from the past.
But once in power, they fall into the same trap their predecessors fell into.

The pressures of incumbency, the temptations of executive authority, and the realities of patronage politics all begin to reshape their character. The reformers adapt to the very machinery they once criticised. The system they vowed to dismantle becomes the system they defend. And the cycle continues.

This is how the country moves.

In Lesotho, political competition has not translated into political innovation. Party alternation in government has not produced structural reform. Instead, it has produced a rotation of elites presiding over the same administrative machinery, the same economic dependency, and the same fragile fiscal foundation.

The leadership often does not welcome scrutiny. Debate is tolerated only when it is flattering. Constructive criticism is perceived as hostility. Those who question are labelled enemies. Those who probe are accused of sabotage. Those who speak uncomfortable truths are told to be patient, to be loyal, to be “responsible.”

But democracy without scrutiny is performance. Leadership without accountability is entitlement. Speaking the truth makes some uncomfortable. The role of a politically conscious citizen, and especially of a public representative, is not to flatter authority. It is to provoke thought, demand results, and shine a relentless light on the obstacles holding the country back.

The people’s interests must come first. Not political sensitivities. Not fragile egos. Not coalition arithmetic. And certainly not the comfort of those who occupy office.

Our politics have become self-serving.

Instead of being instruments of public purpose, political parties have become vehicles of survival. Survival of leadership. Survival of patronage networks. Survival of influence. Government appointments become rewards. Public contracts become currency. Oversight becomes selective. Silence becomes strategy.

And here lies the deeper problem: the system is designed in such a way that even well-intentioned leaders are absorbed by it. New parties enter believing they will resist it. They insist they are morally stronger, more disciplined, more committed to reform. But they underestimate the institutional gravity of power.

They discover that the executive structure concentrates authority. They realise that loyalty secures stability faster than reform does. They find that patronage builds political insurance. Gradually, principle negotiates with pragmatism. Reform is postponed for “strategic timing.” Oversight becomes inconvenient. Transparency becomes conditional. The trap closes quietly.

We must confront a difficult truth: political parties have mastered the art of identifying problems, but not solving them.

They understand unemployment statistics. They can recite poverty levels. They eloquently speak to youth frustration and economic stagnation. But transformation requires more than diagnosis. It requires institutional reform. It requires discipline. It requires restraint in the use of power.
And our political culture does not incentivise restraint.

Once in office, parties inherit a centralised executive system. Instead of reforming it, they adapt to it. Instead of decentralising power, they enjoy it. Instead of strengthening oversight institutions, they negotiate with them. The system becomes too useful to dismantle. This is not about ideology. It is about incentives.

Whether old parties or newly formed ones, reformist or traditionalist, they operate within the same extractive logic: secure power, consolidate influence, maintain networks, and prepare for the next election. Long-term structural change is politically expensive. Patronage is politically efficient.
The result is stagnation disguised as stability.

We see it in fiscal dependency. We see it in administrative inefficiency. We see it in youth migration. We see it in outsourcing state capacity rather than building it. We see it in the private sector, which depends heavily on government contracts, while the government depends on uncertain external revenues.

Criticism becomes personalised rather than institutionalised. When you question governance, it becomes an attack on personalities. When you demand reform, it becomes disloyalty. When you insist on transparency, it becomes a political ambition.

But governance is not a friendship club. It is a constitutional responsibility.
Political maturity requires welcoming scrutiny, embracing debate, and acting on constructive criticism. It requires understanding that disagreement strengthens democracy. It requires recognising that accountability is not humiliation; it is correction. A country cannot move forward if its leadership fears discomfort. And citizens cannot demand better outcomes if they are satisfied with better slogans.

If political parties are truly different, let them prove it, not through speeches, but through structural reforms that outlast their term in office. Let them strengthen institutions that may one day hold them accountable. Let them design systems that do not depend on personalities. Let them resist the trap that consumed those before them.

Until that happens, the country will continue to move — but in circles.
And circles, no matter how confidently defended, are not progress.

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.