Nkopane Mathibeli
It has become common for Africans to describe constitutional democracy as useless, ineffective and at worst, fraudulent. Increasingly, it is becoming near impossible to convince them otherwise, given the state of economic regression, social decay and political vice observable in almost all constitutional democracies on our continent. This is probably why some people jokingly say that if elections, voting and democracy were a guaranteed gateway to national development, Europeans would not have introduced them to us. This explains why many (definitely not all) celebrate the three military regimes in the Sahel, including the recent suspension of party politics in Burkina Faso.
Inasmuch as I am aware that these regimes have violated democracy’s core principle by usurping power, I am unashamedly in their corner just for one reason. They represent real-time proof that developing an African country and restoring the dignity of its citizens is merely a function of will, not that it can best be done by a military regime. This is because the same is possible under a constitutional democracy, but seemingly evasive.
What then explains the lack of development in our country?
My contention is that it is not the failure of democracy. Rather, it is the degeneration of civic culture and civic virtue which in turn deprive us of the ability to harness the dividends of democracy.
How, so?
To fully appreciate this, we must first appreciate the anomaly of the system of governance that preceded democracy in Europe. For context’s sake, let us specifically look at Britain because it is their version of democracy (constitutional monarchy) we inherited. This will reveal the classic goal of representative democracy. It is then from its goal that the rationale of civic culture in a democratic dispensation can be appreciated much better.
Britain before democracy
Why did the Brits formulate a constitutional monarchy as their system of governance? But before that, we must proudly note that before Basotho adopted it, they also had their indigenous system of governance, which was undeniably democratic. What was most unique about it, specifically during the reign of our founding father, was that it was overseen by a king with absolute power but not for selfish ends.
Rather, he had absolute power, as dictated by custom and monitored by the councillors of his court (parliament), to ensure that each of his subjects lived in pure bliss.
Consequently, under his watch, poverty and starvation were unknown to Basotho. The case was entirely different in Britain, where we inherited our current system of governance. The only similarity was that, as was the case in Lesotho, the state was headed by an absolute monarch. However, he used this power solely for the material benefit of his parliament/court (royal council), constituted of the landowning class (the nobility) and members of the clergy.
None of his subjects had rights except the right to life, so as to live in servitude of the king and his court. Also, none of them owned land, as all lived on plantation sized lands owned by the nobility. Just like slaves, these subjects were the property of the landowner and worked without payment until death. This system of governance was called feudalism and ended (unofficially) in 1649 after a seven-year-long civil war. The monarch (Charles I) was thereafter publicly executed, and Oliver Cromwell established an eight-year military dictatorship. On his death, Charles II became the monarch (1660 – 1685), followed by James II, who in his third year in power was overthrown by his son-in-law and daughter (William III & Mary II).
Key among the reasons for his overthrow were: (a) being a Catholic ruler of a largely Protestant nation and (b) his obsession with absolute monarchism. These two (William III & Mary II) accepted the Bill of Rights. They also agreed to abide by the royal prerogative under which the centuries-old “king’s law” was replaced by “the rule of law”. With this, the constitutional monarchy was born.
The soul of democracy
In order to fully appreciate the spirit of representative democracy, whether in the form of constitutional democracy or constitutional monarchy, it is best to see them as feudalism in reverse. This is because feudalism was a dictatorship of the few (the king and his court), whereas representative democracy is a dictatorship of the majority (the electorate).
Under feudalism, the king’s court was neither elected by the subjects nor did it represent their interests, but under democracy, the subjects elect their representatives to parliament. This reality is captured by a popular political phrase, “The people are more powerful than the people they put in power”. However, this is where the seeming straightforwardness of democracy ends. The main challenge then becomes the activation of the dictatorship of the majority. Under feudalism, this was easy because the dictatorial minority (the king & his court) had a standing army through which it held the majority in check while exploiting it through forced labour. The situation is completely different in a democratic dispensation, therefore demanding a completely different approach; an approach entirely premised on civic, not military means.
This is where the conscious cultivation of a civic culture and civic virtue comes in. In essence, civic culture or the culture of being conscious of and executing civic duties, serves the purpose of countering the situation in which elected politicians become more powerful than the electorate. Logically, when the majority is civilly cultured such that it possesses the wisdom to recognise relevant pressure points through which to dictate performance targets and timeframes of execution within the constitutional framework, it has acquired civic virtue.
It is therefore obvious that the bottom line in countering the degeneration of democracy into modern-day feudalism is a concerted effort at civilly educating the majority. It therefore goes without saying that the potency of its (majority) power is determined by how much it knows about virtuous governance, legislation, development policy and the national interest, not only party politics.
In this way, democracy becomes exactly what it was formulated to be, a dictatorship of the majority, i.e. feudalism in reverse.
What happened to us?
Just like most representative democracies across Africa, Lesotho today is characterised by economic regression, social decay and political vice. All this became reality under the watch of the political class, which, in the context of a democratic dispensation, is meant to be subjected to the dictates of the electorate. However, in reality, it is the electorate that is subjected to the political class.
Given that democracy itself is designed to rectify this anomaly, it is obviously not the fault of the political class that its masters are so weak as to become its servants. How did this anomaly come to be? There are two main ways it happened.
Firstly, through the electorate being divided on what constitutes the national interest, i.e. what are Lesotho’s state goals and ambitions, whether economic, political or social. A strong nation and, by extension, a strong electorate have a collective consciousness about such issues.
Secondly, by constantly electing politicians who do not present comprehensive plans on how to pursue the national interest. Logically, this would include detailed political party blueprints not only describing the state of economic regression, social decay and political vice. They must clearly explain how these are to be reversed permanently. The answer to the question “what happened to us” is that none of these happened. The Lesotho of today is therefore an outcome of a degenerate civic culture, in which the bulk of the electorate has close to no civic virtue.
What must be done?
From the point of view of a parasitic political class, this kind of electorate is a goose that lays golden eggs and must therefore be nurtured. However, from a patriotic point of view, this is a tragedy that must be reversed. To achieve this goal, there must be a programme to ensure that Basotho as a collective possess the requisite political wisdom. The end goal of such wisdom must be to empower them to recognise relevant pressure points through which to dictate to the political class, performance targets and timeframes of execution within the constitutional framework.
The programme must seek to inform them about virtuous governance, legislation, development policy and practice. Once the electorate internalises this, it automatically ceases to be a blind follower of the political class.
Instead, it will begin to question and reject any political party whose blueprint is not aligned with the national interest. This in itself is the height of civic virtue, and its non-negotiable foundation is a solid knowledge base.
By virtue of its role in society, the civic movement is the natural dispenser of such knowledge. Given the state of our civic culture and virtue, the movement is obviously overwhelmed and needs to be strengthened on the basis of which is funding.
Summary
- They represent real-time proof that developing an African country and restoring the dignity of its citizens is merely a function of will, not that it can best be done by a military regime.
- Rather, it is the degeneration of civic culture and civic virtue which in turn deprive us of the ability to harness the dividends of democracy.
- None of his subjects had rights except the right to life, so as to live in servitude of the king and his court.
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.
