The role of civil society in Lesotho is under serious threat, with concerns that the government is absorbing its leaders into public positions, leaving the organisations they once led weaker and less vocal. Historically, civil society has played a crucial role in holding the government accountable and providing a platform for dialogue during times of political tension. However, with prominent members of civil society being appointed to government structures, the sector is facing a significant challenge.
The controversy surrounding the Christian Council of Lesotho (CCL) and the appointment of its board chairperson, Reverend Monaheng Sekese, to the board of the Lesotho Electricity and Water Authority (LEWA) has brought this concern into sharp focus. While the appointment itself is not necessarily wrong, legitimate questions about independence and conflicts of interest cannot simply be dismissed. The CCL has historically been regarded as an important moral and civic voice in Lesotho, particularly on good governance, human rights, and civic education.
The opposition has criticised the government for effectively weakening civil society by absorbing its activists, arguing that this has deprived civil society organisations of some of their most vocal members. Former Lesotho Council of Non-Governmental Organisations executive director, Seabata Motsamai, is now in the Senate, while Development for Peace Education coordinator, Sofonea Shale, has been appointed Chief of Staff in the Office of the Prime Minister. This has raised concerns that the government is creating a situation in which the state becomes so successful at recruiting civic leaders that it empties civil society of the people capable and willing to challenge it.
A democracy cannot function properly when almost everyone with the experience, credibility, and courage to question the government eventually becomes part of the government. There must be people outside the state who can say: this is wrong. There must be organisations that can demand answers without fearing that their funding, access, employment opportunities, or relationships with those in power will be affected. The opposition's criticism that the government has effectively weakened civil society should not be dismissed merely as partisan rhetoric.
The consequence of the government's actions is visible enough to warrant concern: a civic space that appears quieter when it should be louder. The silence of some organisations on contentious national issues makes this particularly troubling. The CCL, for example, has been criticised for not intervening publicly on matters such as the confrontation between the government and opposition over national reforms, allegations surrounding the State House, and the alleged attack and abduction of journalist Kananelo Boloetse.
Civil society must be independent, not automatically anti-government. It should praise the government when the government performs well and condemn it when it abuses power. Its loyalty should be to the Constitution, democracy, human dignity, and the public interest — not to a political party. That independence is precisely why conflicts of interest matter. If civic organisations become perceived as extensions of the government, they lose something far more valuable than individual members: public trust.
Lesotho has learned, painfully, that democratic institutions cannot be taken for granted. Our history of political instability, constitutional crises, and conflict should make us especially protective of every institution capable of restraining political excesses. Civil society is one such institution. The media is another. The judiciary is another. Parliament is another. All these institutions have different responsibilities, but together they form the architecture that prevents political power from becoming absolute.
Key points
- The government is weakening civil society by appointing its leaders to public positions.
- The opposition has criticised the government for effectively weakening civil society.
- The demise of civil society in Lesotho poses a significant threat to democracy.
