|
| About LDP |
Activities |
News |
Events |
Downloads |
| |
|
Activities August 2009
Summary The following activities were carried out during August 2009 • Public hearings held at Butha Buthe Constituency to increase public participation in parliamentary activities and public information on parliament.
• Meeting with Pela Tsoeu Lobby groups, MP and Menkhoaneng community council to improve relations between MP, council and the lobby groups.
• Presentation on Public participation in councils and parliament in Matsieng and Makhoarane councils • Meeting with stakeholders on Education Bill, 2009 • Forum on Education Bill, 2009 to provide platform for civil society to debate bills before parliament and incorporate contributions of stakeholders in the legislation. ACTIVITIES 1. Meeting with Pela Tsoeu Constituency lobby groups and Mankhoaneng Community Council. Date : 17 th August 2009 Objectives : To strengthen public, council and parliament relations and improve a record of parliamentary engagement with Basotho. Attendance : 35 committees members –Ha Matube, Ha Loti, Lentsoaneng, Ha Jethe, Thabana Tsooana, Tsehlanyane, Ha Khabo, Ha Majara, MP for Pela Tsoeu, 10 Members of Community Council. Issues : As a follow up on Lobby groups request to improve linkages between decision makers and constituents in the constituency, LDP attended a meeting to act as per requisition. Meeting was well attended even though there was tension as debates progressed. The MP is already working with the groups however, it is a immense challenge to bridge the gap between the lobby groups and the council as there is considerable resistance to embrace lobby groups in communities. Outcome and meaning of meeting: Representation, constituent relations and engagement : As LPD continues to bridge the gap between decision makers and constituents, there is a major challenge of their representatives being truly representative and interactions enhanced in the process. In this meeting one could detect high levels of animosity between the parties involved and struggle for power and insecurities on the side of councillors. Most concerns of the council were on criterion of election of lobby groups and how they affiliate politically. Most councillors perceived TRC as an opposition and advocating for their down fall and misusing lobby groups to their advantage. Concern of the council was their presence and position should be felt as such lobby groups are envisaged as competition. Consequently, there is representation gap existing in Lesotho . To close this gap, elected officials should learn to listen, care and deliver development benefits impartially . If not, unresponsive legislators and councillors and MPs will run the risk of being voted out by their constituencies . Generally, regular elections should serve as a warning to incumbent and potential elected representatives. If voters eject unresponsive leaders, elected officials will become more responsive and accountable to the people they serve, thereby contributing to the consolidation of Lesotho young democracy. The coming Local government election in 2010 has put the council in a compromising and vulnerable situation as their responsiveness to constituents needs have been very terrible and have elevated themselves over their electors. However, though the councils are nearing the end of their term, there is apparent lacking of capacity- their roles are still not understood and their execution hence conflict between chiefs and the MP; their belief that they exercise more powers than national MPs is still huge instead of complementing one another for the benefit of the whole constituency. The representation gap is perceived as the dearth of formal connectedness between political officials and their constituents t hus voters in most areas feel the representation gap. They complain that parliamentarians and councillors do not visit the locality, fail to deliver development benefits, and return only when seeking re-election . It is noteworthy that even though councils performed poorly in responding to constituents developmental needs, their scope of local government authority is tied to wider pressing national objectives not respective councils. At the same time, a high degree of local government dependence on national government in the long term could be detrimental for both local democracy and local social and economic performance. It is their first term in the midst of turbulent conflicts and challenges of lack of capacity and knowledge hence dilatory service delivery. But their power misuse and their being hugely party affiliated will lead to incumbent not be re-elected in the next elections. Further, local government is highly dependent on the national government for fiscal revenues. Central allocations are tied or “with strings attached,” that is, local governments have very limited power to decide on the precise nature of revenue expenditures.
However, noting by defensiveness and unrespectable of council to both the MP and lobby groups, one can observe that there is need of unity in this constituency for its advancement. LDP advised that both tiers of government should put citizenry interest first and solve conflicts detected within the constituency. There seem to be lacking of intergovernmental relations, MP's and Council's accountability; a democratic state is centred on people. That is, the government gets its mandate to govern from the majority, and is accountable to the very same electorate. It is citizens' responsibility to elect officials do their present positions hence the only way voters would really hold their leaders accountable is through the next legislative elections. However, constituents need the Constitution to be amended to include a recall provision that allows citizens to remove elected officials who are not serving their interests. For citizens to hold their elected officials accountable, they must know them, which proves to be a challenge as most are unknown. Constituents need their MPs to be responsive; to listen to their views and care about their interests; do constituency clinics and feedbacks and also deliver development benefits. LDP thus should continue educating the MPs as well as the electorate so they understand clearly the functions of the national and local representatives- which is lacking in most respects. Elected officials should learn to listen to the views of the electorate and base their participation in Parliament and local councils on such.
2. Liqalaneng and Marallaneng MPs public hearings Date: 10-11 th August 2009 Objective : To increase public participation in parliamentary issues and strengthen public engagement in democratic processes, parliament in particular. Attendance :
Issues: LDP continues to seek out the opinions and interests of civil society particularly those groups and constituencies that generally lack policy and MP's access in a way to bring the marginal of society into the mainstream of democracy in Lesotho. However, all pitsos were poorly attended though in some participation has improved and issues discussed in initial gatherings by LDP were deliberated on extensively such as public engagement in legislation and role of portfolio committees. Outcome and meaning of meeting Representation, oversight and responsiveness : LDP constitutes a forum to which MPs would inform civil society of parliament activities such as bills that may be coming before parliament for public engagement in legislation. Among issues debated a matter of violation of human rights propped out as constituents stated that they vote only because they are threatened to do so and scared of security forces. Trust and confidence of constituents is deteriorating and unwillingness to vote is decreasing. In some area, the MP has never been to the area hence lack of knowledge of government, parliament and Constitution of Lesotho. LDP and media houses should increase their efforts in bringing parliament to the people especially those marginalised. Since LDP visit there has since been construction and maintenance of roads due to councils, MP and national government planning and efforts. But for proper execution t here is a need for MPs to oversee budget allocation, which constituents are clearly dissatisfied with utilization of state resources especially by ministries. MPs have responsibility for holding the Executive to account by overseeing its work and making sure that it does not infringe on the rights of citizens and does not lead to the wastage of state resources and is consistent with the public interest. Though MPs perform their oversight role in a number of ways, it is utilized at a minimum level as reports from the Executive on its activities are not done regularly. Further, putting questions and interpellations to members of the Executive is utilised, however, most questions are deferred and some are just neglected without further explanation or are replied to without further action. Parliamentarians are expected to act as such but the constituents feel that MPs the oversight role could be used better. Moreover, there has been a noticeable change in public understanding of parliament, government and participation issues in some areas as constituents asked the MP questions relevant to public engagement in democratic dispensation and work of parliamentary committees on legislation and enhancement of oversight. National Budget 2009/2010 reporting: Most ministries funds allocations were reported though most were brief and some irrelevant to people in the grassroots. However, most concerns were on mismanagement and theft of public funds by public servants who are enriching themselves. Regarding oversight role of parliament; though capacitated by introductions of portfolio committees such as Economic and development Cluster, most decisions still rest on the executive and parliament only to rubber stamp decisions already done by the cabinet. Most constituents felt that MPs are not performing their oversight role effectively as the Finance minister should report financially regularly whenever summoned by the committee. Constituents however, showed less interest on national issues as their need is policies that would address issues of poverty alleviation, community empowerment projects, and responsiveness of government to their developmental needs. Education Bill, 2009 : The bill was discussed in a very short manner though Education is one of Principles of State Policies namely provision of education (section 28) . Only clauses debated were on provision of free and compulsory education at primary level; abolition of corporal punishment at schools and fining and imprisonment of parents of learners who fail to attend school regularly. Bills should also consider cultural aspect of Basotho and be customized for them to be operational. However, constituents' interest was on government which is expected to take responsibility of all learners in Lesotho not just primary level as poverty is rampant in Lesotho . One can observe that reporting of bills is still weak due to expertise and knowledge on the side of the representative. On the other hand, the constituents too have lesser interest on legislation as they maintain their consultations and contributions were never considered in the main act. LDP advised that constituents should attend public gatherings as attendance was very poor thus weakens MPs reporting and feedback thus trust and confidence of people to their representatives would deteriorate further. 3. Meeting with stakeholders –Education Bill, 2009 Date : 21 st August 2009 Objectives : To provide linkages with civil society to effectively engage with parliament and promotion of public participation in legislation in Lesotho . Attendance : Representatives from youth formations, Teachers unions, principals unions, school secretaries. Issues : LDP was made aware that though some stakeholders made submissions before Social Cluster, not all were included in the final report of the committees before parliament. Some concerned stakeholders such as parents, non formal education sector and minority languages were not consulted. Outcome and meaning of meeting: LDP not only constitutes a forum for gathering, exchange and dissemination of information relevant to strengthening of civil society and parliamentary relations in Lesotho but also constitutes platform for civil society groupings to report back, coordinate and develop policy and strategy with respect to parliamentary engagement. Nonetheless, the meeting was directly meant to provide linkages of parliament with civil society and map way forward with the abovementioned bill. There was a major concern of some submissions being excluded in the final report of the committee. Nonetheless, stakeholders were willing to participate in effectively in the forum, but there was a need to know how their contribution will be included in the report, as such the Chairperson of the Social Cluster was informed about the forum and requested to take necessary steps and advocate for the forum contribution; which would be handed to him the following week for committee perusal. LDP on the other hand, will continue to lobby and advocate for the inputs of the forum as some MP have already been informed for further action. In addition, a task team was established see to the involvement of other stakeholders who initially did not contribute and looking at gaps earlier neglected in the bill. Strategic mapping up was to be done with consultation of the public and inclusion of learners at high school level. Participants were therefore advised to do proper scrutiny of the bill for better submission and participation. Subsequently, LDP was to provide copies of Declarations concerning education ratified by Lesotho and have broader stakeholders in the actual forum such disability formations, parents, non-formal education unions and institutions of higher learning for 26 th August Forum. • Outreach: • Constituency feedback with MP from Makhaleng Constituency # 45: On the 6 th August 2009, the GGO held a collective public hearing with the Mp from Makhaleng Constituency where the MP was reporting back to the constituents about the developments made by the parliament until when it broke for winter sometimes in May. The public hearing came after some tireless efforts were made to convince the MP about the importance of reporting back to the constituents. The content of the public hearing was generally on the parliamentary affairs – that is the roles and functions of the MPs, what has been achieved by parliament thus far, and finally the GGO made a presentation on the Land Bill 2009. The Land Bill 2009 is one of the most important but controversial Bills that need robust public participation and scrutiny . NGOs inclusive of the LDP have already made a position on the Bill and there has been a lot of activism made so far on the Bill in terms of embarking upon robust public awareness raising more focus being on those sections that have a bearing on the fundamental implications of abolishing the current land tenure system which the society is so used to it. Therefore, because of the nature of the Bill it has to be subjected under public participation and scrutiny - the situation that is wanting as we speak. The MP was surprisingly not aware about some of the critical aspects of the Bill. The basis of our argument on the Bill is but not limited on the following key issues:
4.2 Public hearing in T.Y. community: The LDP had been invited by the PR MP Dr. K. Ralitapole from T.Y. constituency in the discussion of the Land Bill 2009. A few selected local stakeholders were invited including the local church leaders; local business sector; community leaders and the youth. The GGO presented the Bill highlighting some of the critical issues which have been already alluded to. The participants were furious about the Bill and therefore expressed their sentiments as follows:
The Basotho society seems to be having confidence on the LDP activities. The signal to this fact is the invitations the LDP is recently getting from society to present about the parliament related issues.
5. Public Participation 5.1 Education Bill 2009: The GGO had amassed Education Stakeholders to discuss in detail the contents of the Education Bill of 2009. The objective was to promote public participation on parliamentary issues with the aim of coming up with a collective view on the Education Bill 2009. The plan is to provide the parliamentary portfolio committee - Social Cluster the collective submission of education stakeholders on the Bill. Thus far two meetings (19/08 and 26/08/09) with stakeholders have been held and more meetings are envisaged. The meetings have been productive in the sense that the LDP had created a forum where a lot of information was shared amongst the stakeholders and as such strengthening of civil society in parliamentary matters. The stakeholder included among others the Education Secretaries of the church owned schools; Lesotho Principals Association; three Teachers Unions; Students/Learners formations; NGOs and youth movements.
The Bill is due to be discussed when the parliament re-opens from winter break therefore the stakeholders showed the urgency of the matter. LDP had learnt that some of the education stakeholders have already submitted their individual submissions before the Portfolio Committee during the course of May. However, they were disappointed to learn that their submissions even though they were consulted were not taken on board by the Portfolio committee on education the report indicated. I have identified three speakers representing the Educational Secretaries of the Church owned schools, Teachers Union and the Principals Association to make presentations respectively on the particular sections of the Bill. The same presenters were asked to be part of the Task Team that would work on the submission to the Portfolio Committee. The Lesotho TV though not invited covered the proceedings of the meeting. The TV crew interviewed me and a representative of the Teachers Union about the outcomes of the meeting. TV crew showed great enthusiasm about the LDP work and promised to give coverage in the future of the LDP activities such as the discussions on the Land Bill 2009.
6. Mediation by Heads of Churches on Lesotho 's Political crisis: The LCN with TRC in the forefront facilitated a mediation process through the Heads of Churches following the disputed PR allocation of seats in Lesotho Parliament. Ever since the political disputes over the allocation of PR seats the country has not been quite stable politically. The Eminent Person, the former President of Botswana, Sir Ketumile Masire was mandated by the SACD to facilitate the dialogue process amongst key stakeholders. Dialogue process was frustrated by Government's political unwillingness in the dialogue and this compelled Sir Ketumile Masire to retire his mission before time. This caused tension within the society and therefore the LCN was forced to intervene. The LCN and the Christian Council of Lesotho (CCL) requested the Heads of Churches to continue with the dialogue process from the Sir Masire had left. The Heads of Churches had managed on one hand to bring together the government, LCD, NIP and on the other hand all opposition parties and IEC to the negotiation table. LCN, MISA and CCL are playing technocratic role in the whole dialogue process to support the Heads of Churches. So far two meetings have been held where the parties on the dispute agreed on the agenda and the road map. It is therefore still to be seen whether the dialogue will bring the desired goals. However, what we as the LCN succeeded so far is to have had managed to bring together all the parties in the dialogue process.
|
|
||
(c) 2008 Lesotho Democracy Programme |