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

Abiding by the result does not mean that there will be no challenges to the conduct of elections and the pointing out irregularities which might affect results in courts or electoral tribunals setup for the purpose and in accordance with prevailing laws.

That is a necessary part of the electoral process. Its function is to ensure that the will of the people is heard and is not thwarted by fraud or negligence or inefficiency. Election misdemeanors and irregularities must be capable of being dealt with speedily by the established machinery in the system.

Such mechanisms must be effective and they must be able to resolve disputes quickly. This is necessary firstly because the expressed will of the people must be known at the earliest possible moment, and, secondly, to ensure that problems are dealt with while they are still fresh, while evidence is still readily available. There is a third reason, however. If not handled expeditiously, election grievances easily get out of hand and the rhetoric around it gets louder and louder to a point where it drowns out all logic. This can be very damaging to national stability. Grievances of this nature must however never be allowed to be used as an excuse to whip up emotions and to plunge the entire country into disarray. That is why the parties agreed, in the Memorandum of Agreement, to desist from making inflammatory statements. That commitment should be relevant both before and after the elections.

That is why, also, democratic states have structures built into the system to deal with various matters and resolve disputes. The function of the institutions and systems is to isolate problems and deal with difficulties which arise in any specific sphere. In a functioning democracy, no problem should be so pervasive as to threaten the Constitution itself and the stability of the nation. It is axiomatic that the structures themselves must be credible, competent and effective. This should present no problem where the necessary agreements have been reached among the parties regarding the nature, composition and functions of such structures. In South Africa we have what we refer to as Chapter 9 institutions and they are described as institutions designed to support democracy. They are vested with independence and are required to do their work with integrity. One of such structures is the Independent Electoral Commission, an institution that is familiar in Lesotho. Electoral courts and tribunals are established in terms of electoral legislation. Then there are the ordinary courts; the country's final judicial authority and they are also independent. Their brief is to resolve disputes and to dispense justice without fear, favour or prejudice, subject only to the Constitution and the law.

What is clear is that the integrity of elections must never be compromised. Firstly, the climate must be right, and in this the Government, as well as any special structure, which may have been set up for the purpose, play a crucial role. The parties too and the candidates are implicated in the manner in which they conduct themselves before the elections. That is why the parties have committed themselves to formulate a code of conduct to ensure the creation of a climate conducive to free political activity.

Secondly, fairness must be guaranteed. In this, the IEC occupies a special place. There is no doubt that its independence and impartiality must be unquestioned. Although technically good or internationally validated elections are not sufficient in themselves to ensure stability, it is clear that competent and efficient structures will ensure that losing parties will know that they have not been unfairly excluded from power. It follows therefore that the IEC must be adequately resourced if it is to do its work properly and deliver an election in terms of the prescripts of the law. It must also be in a position to make an early start with its preparations.

Let me come back to the historic experience of this Interim Political Authority. It is not often that politicians on opposite sides, who compete for power against each other, work together to produce a model for the governance of the country. We did it in South Africa, and the result is commonly described as a miracle. It is happening here and it is a chance that must be made to succeed. What is happening here is the laying down of the foundations for a new democratic system. It is at once an exciting undertakings and one of immense responsibility. It is not a personal odyssey; for anyone here it is not an exercise meant merely to serve personal ambitions and assist personal advancement. It is the journey of a nation, an exercise that affects every woman, man and child in this country.

The people out there expect to see practical results from this exercise, because democratic governance is an intensely practical and meaningful undertaking. For one thing, it challenges those in whom the public have entrusted their fate to be accountable to those who elected them. It challenges those who seek public office to commit themselves to work for the common good of the nation, and that means the ordinary citizens of this country; to seek their upliftment and advancement and to solve the problems they encounter from day to day.