The Trajectory of Contemporary Governance in Lesotho: A Transition towards Coalition Government
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the success story of the formation of coalition government in Lesotho. Lesotho has since 1970 experienced a chequered history of authoritarian and military rules until 1993 when the country went democratic. Interestingly, within two decades of the country’s multi-party democratic experience, it has experimented with multiple governmental systems viz; in 1993-1998, it adopted First-Past the Post or winner-takes-all model, and then in 2001, it adopted Mixed Member Proportion model, which brought some stability within the unitary parliamentary governance. In 2012 the latter model gave impetus to a new model of coalition government. Unfortunately, however, the three- party coalition government was interrupted in 2014 by a military adventurism which gave rise to the 2015 snap elections that led to another seven-party coalition government. Interestingly, another faction occurred from the seven-party coalition and a vote of no-confidence was passed by the opposition against the ruling coalition, which led to the early 2017 elections. The third coalition governance of four parties was established after the elections and took its term of five years before the elections of October 2022 that established a “trinity” of three parties coalition under the leadership of a prominent businessman. This paper posits that although coalition model has been accepted by the Lesotho people, however, it has come with increasing cost on executive expenditure, as it puts great burden on taxpayers. This paper recommends the inclusion in the democratic discourse (conversation), a blend of the western democratic culture with traditional African culture in administering the affairs of the state since the two are not mutually exclusive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".