Getting thingsright in 2024

In that spirit, there are a number of issues about us that need to be considered with a view to correct them, if this is found necessary. I would like to raise just four of them here, in no particular order of importance.
The first issue has to do precisely with the designation of 2024 as a year in which we are 200 years old as a nation. By some reckoning, Basotho’s nationhood bicentenary ought to have been celebrated four years ago, in 2020. Moshoeshoe I broke from his father’s chiefdom to set up his own in Butha Buthe in 1820, at the age of about 34.

If building a nation consisted of forming alliances with other chiefs, attracting followers, gathering under one’s rule individuals and communities in search of political and socio-economic security, providing leadership to one’s adherents in peace and in war, then there is evidence that Moshoeshoe I started all these activities while in Butha Buthe, before 1824, and during back and forth movements between Butha Buthe, Menkhoaneng, and other places, in that time.
Some of the evidence for this comes from those who resisted his attempts to increase the size of his chiefdom while in Butha Buthe, before 1824. One of them is quoted as having said: “Moshoeshoe wants us to federate because he has no people.”

Based on what is being suggested here, Moshoeshoe I and his adherents’ arrival in, and settlement on, Thaba Bosiu in 1824 enabled continuation — not the beginning — of a process of nation-building that had started in 1820.

Moshoeshoe I’s attempt to build a larger chiefdom (which became a nation) did not wait until the winter of 1824.
Saying the Basotho nation was born in 1824 denies Butha Buthe and Butha Buthe Mountain their rightful places in our heritage. And many other disadvantages can be mentioned.

The second issue of concern is that it has always been the case that moments like this attract those wishing to do good work for public good on the one hand and on the other those looking to cash-in for personal gain even if they achieve this in return for work of poor quality.

The commemoration of the 200th anniversary of Basotho’s nationhood is no exception. A number of schemes are emerging around us, all pretending to be in honour of this anniversary, but guaranteed to produce poor quality results. In fact, from inception, some are intended just to line pockets of those who have concocted such schemes.

Because only good quality work needs to be associated with celebration of our nationhood, ways need to be established to ensure that work guaranteed from the beginning to be of poor quality, and made for personal gain, is not associated with the celebration of our nationhood.

The third issue has to do with representations of Moshoeshoe I — his name, pictorial representations of him, etc. The manner in which some of these things are done in some quarters shows lack of interest, lack of respect, carelessness, and even distortions.

For example, there is a practice that is entrenching itself in which Moshoeshoe I’s regnal number is written in form of Arabic number 1, instead of Roman numeral ‘I’.
Regnal numbers are ordinal numbers that are always represented by a Roman numeral. Just as we write King Letsie III — and not King Letsie 3 — the name of Basotho nation’s founder-king has to be written: Moshoeshoe I.

The fourth issue that needs to be considered for discussion and correction has to do with the marginalisation of Baphuthi in our polity and structures of power. If discussions have been going on about giving Baphuthi’s leadership their rightful place in our polity, including a place in the Senate, then that discussion needs to be completed in order to give celebrations of our nationhood a meaning.
If no such discussion is going on, it needs to start and be completed.

Prof Motlatsi Thabane