FORMER Prime Minister Pakalitha Mosisili has poured cold water on proposals to replace Lesotho’s proportional representation (PR) zebra system with the best loser model, arguing that the current arrangement creates opportunities for people who would otherwise never make it into Parliament.
His concerns, particularly regarding women’s representation and inclusivity, deserve respect and consideration. However, on one fundamental issue, he is wrong. The current zebra model has failed Basotho and needs serious reform.
The purpose of Parliament is to represent the people. Every Member of Parliament (MP) should derive his or her legitimacy from the electorate. Unfortunately, the zebra system has created a class of MPs who owe their positions not to voters but to political parties and party leaders.
Many PR MPs have never stood before the people seeking a mandate. They enter Parliament through party lists, often selected behind closed doors by party executives. Once in Parliament, their loyalty naturally lies with the political parties that nominated them rather than with the ordinary Basotho. This has weakened accountability.
A constituency MP knows that his or her political survival depends on the voters back home. If roads remain in poor condition, clinics lack medicines, or youth unemployment worsens, constituents can punish that MP at the next election. But many PR MPs do not face the same level of scrutiny because they are insulated by party structures. This arrangement has encouraged a culture of political patronage.
Over the years, the zebra model has increasingly become a mechanism for rewarding party favourites, political loyalists and those with close ties to party leadership. Instead of strengthening democracy, it has often entrenched internal party politics and promoted individuals who enjoy the confidence of party elites rather than the confidence of the electorate.
Even more troubling is the fact that deserving candidates are sometimes sidelined.
There are numerous examples of candidates who fought hard in constituencies, secured significant support from voters and narrowly lost elections, only to watch party favourites who never campaigned or faced the electorate enter Parliament through PR lists. This cannot be considered democratic.
If a candidate can persuade thousands of Basotho to vote for him or her, surely that person has demonstrated a level of public support that deserves recognition. Such individuals have proven their ability to connect with communities and understand the concerns of ordinary citizens.
The best loser model seeks to recognise precisely that. It would ensure that individuals who command substantial support among voters are not entirely excluded from Parliament simply because they lost closely contested constituency elections. These candidates would have a direct relationship with the people and would carry into Parliament the interests and aspirations of communities that actually voted for them.
Critics argue that the best loser system would favour wealthy candidates capable of financing expensive campaigns. This concern is not entirely without merit. Money has become an increasingly influential factor in politics.
However, the solution to that problem lies in strengthening campaign finance regulations and ensuring fair electoral competition. It cannot be to preserve a flawed system that has produced MPs who are accountable primarily to political parties rather than to citizens.
Mr Mosisili also argues that abolishing the zebra system could reduce women’s representation in Parliament. This is a legitimate concern that policymakers should address carefully. Women’s participation in politics remains below acceptable levels and must be protected and promoted.
But the promotion of women should not be used to defend a broader electoral system that suffers from serious democratic deficiencies.
There are numerous ways of ensuring gender representation without retaining all the weaknesses of the current PR arrangement. Parliament can adopt targeted mechanisms to promote women candidates while simultaneously ensuring that MPs have a genuine electoral mandate.
Democracy is strongest when representatives derive their authority directly from the people.
Basotho have repeatedly expressed frustration with politicians who seem detached from the realities facing ordinary citizens. Part of this disconnect stems from an electoral system that allows some politicians to enter Parliament without first earning the trust and support of voters.
The National Assembly should not become a refuge for political insiders or a reward centre for party loyalists.
It should be a chamber filled with men and women who have demonstrated their ability to inspire confidence among the electorate.
The proposed reforms are not perfect, and Parliament must thoroughly debate their implications. However, dismissing the best loser model outright ignores the fundamental weaknesses that have emerged under the zebra system.
After more than two decades of experience with proportional representation, it is reasonable to ask whether the system is truly serving the interests of Basotho.
The answer for many citizens is increasingly clear. The zebra model may have been created with noble intentions, but in practice it has too often produced party representatives instead of people’s representatives.
Lesotho deserves a Parliament whose members owe their seats first and foremost to the voters. Any electoral system that strengthens that principle deserves serious consideration.
Post Views: 438
