Lesotho: Intra-party Democracy meeting keynote address (continued)

The time, I think, is now overdue to demand that as states on this continent we must really get our respective houses in order. Too much time, energy and resources are spent correcting breaches, some of them quite blatant, of democratic principles which should be inviolable and which should be taken for granted by all. That time, energy and resources could usefully be devoted to tackling the myriad of urgent needs, which face the continent and each individual country. We should not be arguing whether or not to have democratic governments; we should be putting the best efforts and talents of the best and most ablest among us, and of the democratic institutions in our countries, to good use in dealing with the real priorities facing our people: poverty, disease, ignorance, illiteracy; the all-pervasive disempowerment and inequality which are the legacy of years under colonial oppression.

There is therefore no doubt that you as distinguished representatives and leaders of parties, who have the interests of your people at heart, will want to accelerate the process which will add to the stability of the democratic government. You are not doubt keen to move from this transitional stage in order to establish who the elected representatives of the people will be, those whose turn it will be to use the instruments of government to fight the evils that stand between the ordinary people of Lesotho and social and economic upliftment, development and prosperity.

These considerations form the foundations of the IPA process. The Memorandum of Agreement records that the parties recognise the need to take Lesotho out of the political impasse which existed; agreed to the holding of fresh elections within a particular time frame; agreed to abide by and respect the outcome of the elections; and agreed to formulate a code of conduct to ensure the creation of a climate conducive to free political activity and to desist from making inflammatory statements. What was further agrees was a review of the electoral system with a view to ensuring greater and inclusive participation in the political affairs of Lesotho.

These considerations have a relevance, which goes beyond the coming elections. What is at stake ultimately is the deepening of a democratic culture. We strive so much to achieve a democratic form for state because there is no doubt that properly implemented; it delivers the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Its basic tenet is people-based; governmental authority stems from one source only, and that is the will of the people, which in turn, is best expressed through elections.

Democratic governance has certain unmistakable characteristics. We speak of government by the people, for the people, the right of citizens to vote and take part in representative government. We speak of regular elections as the test of the will of the people. Although these are distinctive characteristics, democracy allows for flexibility, enough to accommodate differences from country to country. Thus one country may, within democratic ethic, commit itself to the first past the post electoral system; another may opt for the proportional representation system; yet another may devise a mixture of the two or any one in a variety of other electoral systems. In any democracy, however, elections remain the best way to identify women and men who are properly mandated to make laws and to keep the wheels of government running. They are the best way to express the "will of the people". It is the people who decide who or which party or parties should be in government. This is diametrically opposed to the philosophy that might is right, a philosophy that encourages warlordism and is potentially the biggest threat to stability and the rule of law.

Democracy can also be a two-sided coin. Since democracy prescribes regular elections, it also implies that there must be winners and there must be losers. There is elation on the one side and there is disappointment on the other. Taking part in an election carries with it a commitment to accept the consequences of elections.

One consequence is the awesome responsibility, after winning, to represent the people, to be their servant and to govern; another is the equally awesome reality, for the loser, that the verdict people has been given; that the people have decided they want to be represented by someone else, at least for the time being. They may want you to be doing other things (South Africans have a beautiful expression: the word "deployment"!); the people may be wrong of course, they may be misguided, but they are "the people" and it is their will that counts. It should be noted that even in proportional representation systems, there are losers. There are those that fail to reach the threshold.

The maturity of a democracy and the quality of its leaders may be measured in terms of the grace with which those who lose elections accept defeat in the polls.

It happens all the time and often to the most able and most principled of our politicians. It happens unexpectedly sometimes, when the polls and surveys point the other way. But when it happens, it provides an opportunity to go to work, to start building for the next time. That is why it was necessary for the parties to agree to abide by and respect the outcome of the elections.