The Smart Partnerships Approach in reducing poverty in Lesotho: A historical review

Collective action as an indigenous strategy for poverty reduction

The literature (Preece & Croome, 2016), on poverty reduction in Africa increasingly recognizes the importance of indigenous knowledge systems and community-based approaches in promoting sustainable livelihoods. In Lesotho, collective action has historically served as a mechanism through which communities mobilized labour, resources, and knowledge to address socio-economic challenges (Molapo, 2022). The practice of letsema, whereby community members worked collectively in agricultural production and other communal activities, reflected a development philosophy rooted in reciprocity, mutual support, and shared responsibility (Molapo, 2022; Makhetha, 2023). These principles closely align with the African philosophy of ubuntu, which emphasizes interconnectedness and collective wellbeing rather than individual accumulation of wealth.

From a contemporary development perspective, letsema can be understood as a form of social capital that strengthened resilience and reduced vulnerability among households. Social capital theory suggests that networks of trust and cooperation facilitate collective problem-solving and improve access to resources and opportunities. Historical evidence indicates that under the leadership of King Moshoeshoe I, collective labour practices contributed to food security, social cohesion, and economic self-reliance. These practices were supported by indigenous learning systems, including apprenticeship (Preece & Croome, 2016), initiation schools (Maharasoa & Maharaswa, 2004), and community deliberations at the khotla (Ngozwana, 2014), which transmitted values of cooperation and citizenship across generations.

However, it is important not to romanticize pre-colonial systems. While collective action promoted social solidarity, it operated within specific social and political structures that may not always have been inclusive of all social groups. Nevertheless, the historical record suggests that these systems provided a stronger foundation for local ownership and sustainability than many externally designed development interventions that emerged later. This raises important questions about the extent to which contemporary poverty reduction strategies can learn from indigenous practices without simply replicating them in unchanged forms.

Colonial transformation and the production of poverty

The persistence of poverty in Lesotho cannot be fully understood without examining the structural transformations introduced during the colonial period. The literature demonstrates that colonialism fundamentally altered economic, social, and environmental relations by replacing communal production systems with market-oriented economic structures (Pule & Thabane, 2002; Hoag, 2017). The introduction of wage labour, cash taxation, and migrant labour (Maphosa, 2023; Collins & Burns, 2007) systems gradually weakened traditional forms of collective action and increased dependency on external economic systems.

A significant body of scholarship (Murray, 1981; Lephoto, 1996; Hoag, 2027) argues that colonial policies contributed to the creation of structural poverty rather than merely failing to reduce it. The incorporation of Lesotho into South Africa’s labour economy transformed the country into a labour reserve for the mining industry (Coplan, 1994; Morojele & Maphosa, 2013). While labour migration generated income for some households, it simultaneously undermined local agricultural production and disrupted community structures. The departure of large numbers of economically active men reduced labour availability for communal farming and weakened local systems of food production (Saha, 2011; Mapetja & Mahula, 2026).

Environmental policies further compounded these challenges. Colonial narratives that blamed indigenous farming practices for environmental degradation justified interventions that restricted traditional land-use patterns (Orpen, 1979; Hoag, 2017). Such policies often ignored local ecological knowledge and contributed to the erosion of community control over natural resources. Consequently, colonial development policies produced a paradox in which economic modernization was promoted as a pathway to development while simultaneously creating conditions that increased dependency and vulnerability (Kali, 2020; Hoag, 2017).

This historical analysis suggests that poverty in Lesotho should not be viewed merely as a consequence of insufficient economic growth. Rather, it is deeply embedded within historical processes that disrupted indigenous institutions and weakened local capacities for collective action (Hoag, 2017). Understanding these historical dynamics is crucial for evaluating contemporary development approaches such as smart partnerships.

Post-Independence development and the limitations of Top-Down approaches

Following independence in 1966, the Government of Lesotho pursued a range of development initiatives aimed at improving education, agriculture, and economic growth (Moleko, 1994, Qheku, 2020). Considerable investment was made in expanding educational opportunities, vocational training, and donor-funded rural development programmes. These interventions reflected dominant modernization paradigms that viewed development as a process driven by technical expertise, institutional expansion, and economic growth.

Despite these investments, poverty levels remained persistently high. Several studies attribute this outcome to the predominance of top-down development models that often exclude communities from decision-making processes (Matlosa, 1999). Communities were frequently positioned as beneficiaries rather than active participants, resulting in limited local ownership and sustainability. Similarly, Mapetja and Mahula (2026) and Makhetha (2026) assert that agricultural projects introduced cash crops and externally designed production systems that were not always aligned with local needs, knowledge, or priorities. The limited success of these initiatives highlights a broader critique within development studies. Consequently, scholars such as Rakolobe (2022), Kali (2020) and Gumede et al. (2026) increasingly argue that development interventions are more likely to succeed when they are participatory, context-sensitive, and grounded in local realities. The Lesotho experience supports this argument by demonstrating that development programmes that fail to engage communities meaningfully often struggle to achieve sustainable outcomes. Consequently, the persistence of poverty despite substantial development investment points to the need for approaches that prioritize collaboration, participation, and local ownership.

The smart partnerships approach as a collaborative development framework

The emergence of the Smart Partnerships Approach represents an attempt to address some of the limitations associated with conventional development models (Maseru, 2012). Originating from Commonwealth initiatives in the early 1990s, CPTM Smart Partnership Movement (2010), smart partnerships promote collaboration among government, communities, civil society, and the private sector (Lesotho Smart Partnership Hub, 2004; Makhetha, 2023). The approach is founded on principles of trust, transparency, shared vision, equity, and mutual accountability.

Conceptually, the Smart Partnerships Approach resonates strongly with indigenous Basotho traditions of collective action (Makhetha, 2010). The principles underpinning smart partnerships closely mirror those embodied in letsema and ubuntu, suggesting that the approach has the potential to bridge traditional and contemporary development paradigms (Sihela, 2026). Rather than viewing development as a process driven exclusively by the state or external donors, smart partnerships recognize the importance of shared responsibility and collaborative problem-solving (Maseru, 2012). However, the literature reveals a significant gap between the ideals of smart partnerships and their implementation in practice. Reports from the Lesotho Smart Partnership Hub (2004, 2007 & 2012) indicate that many partnerships experienced challenges related to governance, accountability, trust, and resource management. In some cases, partnerships dissolved prematurely due to internal conflicts and weak leadership structures (Makhetha, 2010, 2023). These challenges suggest that collaboration alone is insufficient to guarantee successful development outcomes.

The effectiveness of partnerships depends on the quality of institutional arrangements that support them. Partnerships require what Lipholo (2022) refers to as clear governance structures, transparent decision-making processes, capacity development, and mechanisms for conflict resolution. Without these conditions, collaborative initiatives may reproduce existing inequalities rather than overcome them. Therefore, the challenge facing smart partnerships is not simply one of promoting cooperation but of creating institutional environments that enable cooperation to flourish sustainably.

Reimagining poverty reduction through partnership, learning, and local ownership

The evidence reviewed in this study suggests that successful poverty reduction requires more than economic intervention; it requires social institutions capable of fostering trust, participation, and collective agency. The Smart Partnerships Approach offers a potentially valuable framework because it recognizes the importance of collaboration across sectors and social groups. However, its effectiveness depends on the extent to which it becomes embedded within local governance systems, educational programmes, and community development processes. Adult learning and capacity development emerge as particularly important dimensions of sustainable partnerships (Mahanetsa & Sebatane, 1994). Effective collaboration requires skills in leadership, financial management, participatory planning, conflict resolution, and accountability (Lipholo, 2022). Communities cannot be expected to manage complex partnership arrangements without access to appropriate learning opportunities and institutional support. Consequently, education should be viewed not as a supplementary component of partnerships but as a central mechanism through which partnerships are strengthened and sustained.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the importance of moving beyond project-based approaches toward long-term institution-building. Partnerships should not be understood as temporary development projects but as enduring social arrangements capable of mobilizing collective action around shared goals. Integrating indigenous values of cooperation with modern governance practices may provide a culturally relevant and sustainable pathway for addressing poverty in Lesotho.

The literature therefore points toward a development paradigm that combines indigenous knowledge, participatory governance, capacity development, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. Such an approach has the potential to strengthen local resilience, improve livelihood opportunities, and contribute meaningfully to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 1.

Institutionalising smart partnerships within local governance

Smart partnerships should be formally embedded within district and community council development planning processes. Institutional integration would provide partnerships with greater legitimacy, continuity, and access to resources while ensuring alignment with local development priorities. Government policies should establish clear frameworks that define stakeholder roles, accountability mechanisms, and partnership governance structures.

Strengthening community capacity and adult learning

The sustainability of partnerships depends largely on the capabilities of their members. Policymakers should invest in adult education, leadership development, entrepreneurship training, financial management, conflict resolution, and participatory planning programmes. Such learning initiatives would strengthen communities’ ability to manage partnerships effectively and enhance their contribution to local development. Institutions of higher learning, technical and vocational education centres, and community-based organisations should play a central role in delivering these programmes.

Promoting ethical leadership and accountability

The review identifies weak governance and misuse of resources as major factors undermining partnership sustainability. Strong accountability systems, including transparent financial management procedures, regular audits, community monitoring structures, and ethical leadership training, are essential for building trust among stakeholders and ensuring responsible resource management.

Aligning partnerships with agricultural and rural development strategies

Given the central role of agriculture in rural livelihoods, smart partnerships should be integrated into agricultural revitalization programmes. Collaborative initiatives can support climate-smart agriculture, cooperative farming, value-chain development, and local food security strategies. Such integration would strengthen the economic impact of partnerships while addressing the structural causes of rural poverty.

Enhancing community ownership and participatory development

Development initiatives should move beyond consultation toward meaningful community participation in planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Communities should be recognized as active development partners rather than passive beneficiaries. Participatory governance strengthens local ownership, increases programme relevance, and improves the likelihood of long-term sustainability.

Establishing monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems

A national monitoring, evaluation, and learning framework should be developed to assess the effectiveness of smart partnerships in reducing poverty and improving livelihoods. Beyond measuring outputs, such systems should capture lessons learned, identify best practices, and facilitate knowledge sharing across districts and sectors. Continuous learning and adaptation are critical for strengthening partnership performance over time.

Leveraging indigenous knowledge and ubuntu-based development

Policy frameworks should explicitly recognize indigenous knowledge systems and values of ubuntu as development assets rather than cultural relics. The integration of traditional practices of collective action with contemporary governance and development strategies can enhance social cohesion, strengthen local resilience, and improve the cultural relevance of poverty reduction initiatives.

In conclusion, sustainable poverty reduction in Lesotho requires a development approach that combines effective institutions, community participation, continuous learning, and indigenous values of cooperation. Smart partnerships can provide such a framework if they are supported by strong governance structures, meaningful stakeholder engagement, and long-term investments in human and social capital.