The Rule of Law and Resilience of Malawi’s Democracy

In the last two weeks, Malawi has captured the world’s attention, for all the good reasons following a constitutional court ruling annul Presidential elections. In its judgment, the court ruled that the incumbent President, Peter Mutharika was “not duly elected” and that the elections were characterized by “ widespread, systematic and grave irregularities”. The ruling has made Malawi the second country in Africa to annul presidential elections, following that of Kenya in 2017.

New interpretation

Another significant aspect of the ruling is the re-interpretation of the electoral laws. Since Malawi’s return to multiparty democracy in the mid-1990s, the country has used the first-past-the-post system in electing its leaders. The first-past-the-post system is based on the interpretation of the law that the majority means a candidate who earns more votes than the rest of the candidates. The constitutional court has now ruled that this interpretation of the law has been erroneous; the correct interpretation is that the majority means that the winner receives 50+1 percent of the votes cast.

The new interpretation of the law means that political parties have to re-strategize, including forming alliances, in order to obtain the required mandate. Only on two occasions in Malawi’s history has the winning President received more than 50 percent of the votes cast – Bakili Muluzi in 1999 and the late Bingu wa Mutharika in 2009. In 2017 members of parliament on both sides of the aisle turned down a recommendation by a special law commission to adopt the 50+1 percent voting system. So, the political establishment is clearly not in favor of the 50+1.

President Peter Mutharika has indicated his intentions to appeal some aspects of the constitutional court ruling. In his statement, he said he has no intention of stopping the fresh elections but he would appeal certain aspects of the ruling on the grounds that the ruling is what he calls “serious subversion of justice, an attack on our democratic systems and an attempt to undermine the will of the people.” It is most likely that the appeal will include the new interpretation of the majority – to mean 50+1 percent of the votes cast.

It is interesting to note that President Mutharika is talking about “subversion of justice” given that it’s him and five other members of his party that tried to stop Joyce Banda from becoming President in 2012 following the death of his brother President Binguwa Mutharika while in office. Banda was constitutionally the right successor, as she was the State Vice President, elected on the same ticket with Bingu wa Mutharika in 2009. This background would suggest that Mutharika’s statement should be understood as political and not a true reflection on his belief in justice or constitutionalism.

The judiciary

The judges have shown massive brevity when it could have been easier and safe for the same to rule in favor of the incumbency and continuity of the status quo. For most Malawians, the ruling has confirmed their belief in the judicial system – Afrobarometer poll, released immediately after the court ruling shows that most Malawians believed in the judiciary to deliver justice. This belief is not entirely surprising given the fundamental role that the judiciary has played in the short democratic history of the country.

Following the annulled elections, Malawians have constantly been on the streets demanding that the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) commission chairperson, Jane Ansah resign. Traditionally, the police and city assemblies have had a lot of power in deciding whether people should be allowed to demonstrate or not. This time around the protesters found justice in the courts. The courts consistently sided with democracy by protecting people’s constitutional right to demonstrate freely.

Equally, a Freedom House report has noticed that the Malawi judiciary played a key role during the 2014 elections, which ushered in Peter Mutharika to power. The report recalls that “in the wake of a highly flawed election all three political parties rushed to the courts seeking injunctions.” It notices that it was the High Court that overturned Joyce Banda’s unconstitutional attempt to nullify the results. The papers notice that “the judiciary was simultaneously lauded and chastised, but overall appears to have emerged with its legitimacy intact. this is a reflection of the positive facets of judiciary independence in Malawi…”.

The role of the judiciary will be debated and studied way beyond the Constitutional Court’s historic ruling, rightly so. For now, the button has been passed on to political institutions. Malawi parliament has a duty of ensuring that the electoral laws are in tandem with the 50+1 ruling. The electoral body has to be restructured if the fresh elections are to have any credibility. Meanwhile, President Mutharika remains the appointing authority for the electoral body’s chairperson and parliament has to approve. This episode in Malawian democracy is far from over but so far it is clear that Malawian democracy is well and sound.

Malawi court orders fresh elections. What now?

In a landmark ruling yesterday, Malawi’s constitutional court nullified the results of the May 2019 presidential elections due to “serious irregularities”. The panel of five judges ordered fresh elections within 150 days.

In their 500-page decision, which took over ten hours to read, the court ruled in favour of the two petitioners: Lazarus Chakwera of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and Saulos Chilima of the United Transformation Movement (UTM). Both men were opposition presidential candidates in the election and were declared to have garnered 35.4% and 20.2% respectively.

The first defendant in the case was President Peter Mutharika, who was declared the winner last May with 38.6%. The second defendant was the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC), which defended its running of the electoral process. The judges, however, ruled that “widespread, systematic and grave” irregularities, including the use of correctional fluid on vote tallies, meant that the outcome could not be trusted.

The defendants have the right to appeal at the Supreme Court of Appeal. Given the nature of the case, it is unlikely such a move would be successful, but it may be considered by President Mutharika and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as a way to buy time ahead of the election re-run.

What’s a majority?

One particularly unexpected aspect of yesterday’s ruling was the judges’ suggestion that none of the presidential candidates could have won because none of them received over 50%. The law requires the victor to receive a majority. This was a radical alternative legal interpretation of Malawi’s constitution and could require the country to amend its Elections Act.

Since 1994, when Malawi returned to multiparty democracy, the vote has been determined by first-past-past-the-post in which the candidate with most votes wins regardless of whether they receive a majority of support. The winner of Malawi’s presidential contests has only earned over 50% on two occasions: Bakili Muluzi in 1999 and Bingu wa Mutharika in 2009. In 2017, a special Malawi Law Commission tasked with reforming the electoral laws proposed switching from winner-takes-all to a 50%+ electoral system. But parliament voted against the change.

If the system were changed, none of the presidential candidates from May 2019 would be likely to receive a majority in the first round. This means that political parties will have to start forging electoral alliances quickly if they are to secure a route to 50%+ in the fresh polls.

Who is in charge?

The court explained that its ruling also returns the status of the presidency and vice-presidency to its state prior to the election. This means Mutharika remains in position, as he was the sitting president in May 2019, while Chilima is reinstated as vice-president. The two men were elected on a joint ticket in 2014, which means that Chilima cannot be removed from his elected position even though he defected from the ruling party in 2018 to found UTM. The court clarified, however, that its judgement does not annul other decisions taken by President Mutharika in the last nine months.

The court ordered parliament to meet within 21 days to work out the modalities of fresh elections. Restructuring the electoral body is likely to be the key priority given its role in overseeing the nullified elections. The president retains the power to appoint the MEC chairperson, who is then approved by parliament. But it is unlikely that any of the existing top electoral officials will be returned given their past performance and the level of public anger with the body.

The current MEC chair, Jane Ansah, has been the focus of numerous demonstrations in the past several months calling for her resignation. She resisted those demands, saying she would wait for the court ruling. As many of those who celebrated the court’s decision have pointed out, including members of the Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) which organised many of the protests, the judges’ decision has vindicated their concerns.

A clear and straightforward ruling

While the ruling DPP and its supporters will be disappointed that the May 2019 election has been annulled, the judgement presents an essential opportunity for Malawi to improve its electoral system and avoid a repeat of the problems that dogged the last process. Some of these potential improvements have already been suggested by the judges, such as adopting a 50+ electoral system.

The ruling will also go a long way in building public trust in Malawi’s judiciary and institutions, especially given that its ruling goes against the wishes of the incumbency. Historically in Malawi, the government has been seen as all-powerful and untouchable. This is therefore a momentous step in the right direction for the nation’s democracy, though the next steps will be crucial to ensure these gains are not lost.

Before the judgement, there was genuine fear of violence and outrage whichever way judges ruled. These concerns, however, seem to have been assuaged by the open way in which the judgement was handled. The process was clear and straightforward, ensuring that there was an overall sense of justice being done. This feeling benefited from the fact that the court case was covered live on radio and television stations throughout the country, allowing people to follow the proceedings. With hindsight, the decision to allow live coverage of the case was a masterstroke.

The courts have played their part in upholding Malawi’s democracy. Now the ball is back in the court of lawmakers.

Knowledge is not for knowing, it’s for cutting

A picture collage consisting of front pages of local newspapers with headlines on corruption within the Malawi Government and public institutions has been making rounds on social media (see the featured image). The headlines will not be entirely surprising for regular readers of local newspapers because such headlines are in the newspapers almost every other day.

The power of the collage, however, is that it has managed to capture the headlines in one breath, which gives a better perspective of what is otherwise covered sparsely in the newspapers. The collage has put the levels of theft, mismanagement and impunity in the government and public institutions into a much better perspective.

What is even more revealing about the picture collage is that it has exposed the fact that the media regularly report on corruption, theft, and mismanagement in government ministries, departments, agencies, and the public sector, yet nothing is done about it.

We all read the stories and reports in disgust, and we throw the newspapers away, feeling empowered that we know what is going on. We sit back and wait for tomorrow’s headlines. This is the trend; the enculturation is real and pathetically so.

I follow the media closely, and I know that there is no shortage of public criticism of the local press, sometimes rightly so.  The media is criticised for declining levels of investigative reporting, passive reporting, and, especially in electoral periods like this, suspected biased reporting towards one political party or another. The media should take public criticism positively and try to improve. If anything, such criticism shows that the public cares and values the information that the media provides.

The collage of newspaper headlines shows that amidst the public criticism of the media, the media also provides a lot of valuable content, exposing corruption, theft and malpractice in high places. It is important to remember that the media merely acts as a watchdog, informing and exposing the public on what is happening in the public and private sector, as well as within civil and political societies.

Democracies ought to have independent institutions to check on abuse of power by those entrusted with it. It is entirely up to these institutions and members of the public to act on the information provided by the media. Beyond this, there is little that the media can do.

The Council of Foreign Relations attributes the fall of the former South African President, Jacob Zuma’s heavily corrupt administration to the power of South Africa’s independent media. Notably, he states that this happened in combination with the country’s strong civil society: a “sophisticated parliamentary opposition and court judges who regularly ruled against the government.”

He notices that once the media publicised corruption to the general public, civil society did not hesitate to sue the administration in the courts, and the formal parliamentary opposition was able to delay or block unfavourable parliamentary initiatives put forth by the Zuma government. This underscores one of the essential aspects of the media, which is often overlooked: media reports are only a means to an end. It is up to the rest of us to act on it. French philosopher Michel Foucault observes that knowledge is not for knowing; it is for cutting, and indeed, knowledge is power, and power comes with responsibility.

Malawian civil society has its commendable moments, but its efforts are often thwarted by the lack of independent public institutions to complement them. Our compromised Anti-Corruption Bureau immediately comes to mind.

In 2018, we saw civil society organisations trying to do things differently. For instance, Charles Kajoloweka and his team at Youth and Society opted for the legal route in their efforts to demand accountability in public institutions. Young activists successfully initiated an online petition and stopped the Malawi Government from erecting a statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Blantyre.

Yet, these actions do not take away the fact that Malawi is generally a laid-back, if not passive, and fatalistic nation. This is especially the case when it comes to holding power to account. Malawi is politically polarised and is characterised by blind political royalty—folks see everything through political party colours. These narrow interests mean that folks cannot objectively appreciate things from the broader perspective of national interest. This is the ultimate tragedy of our democracy, and our leaders take full advantage of it. It is not surprising that media reports exposing wrongdoing are not acted upon.

Media Freedoms Should not be at the Mercy of Politicians

“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.” Thomas Jefferson

It is always good when politicians pledge their commitment to protect media freedoms, especially in emerging democracies where such freedoms are often provided in theory but cannot always be guaranteed in practice. For Malawi, it is particularly interesting to have such assurances coming from the ruling DPP presidency given the part’s chequered record when it come to media freedoms in the country.

Addressing a political rally in Ndirande, Blantyre, DPP’s vice president for Southern Region, Kondwani Nankhumwa assured the media in the country that the Malawi government would protect media freedoms. Never mind that Nankhumwa was speaking at a political rally, not a government gathering, the crucial difference difficult political party in power and government is, unfortunately inconsequential in Malawi politics.

Quoted by Daily Times, Nankhumwa said:

“We want you to know that we appreciate the work you do. During the term of President Peter Mutharika, no journalist has been arrested; this shows that we appreciate the work that you are doing.”

Malawi is in campaigning mode as the May 2019 presidential, parliamentary and local government elections get closer. So Nankhumwa’s comments should in no small part be understood from this context. One should also understand Nankhumwa’s sentiments from the background that his comments came only days after MISA Malawi issued a statement demanding justice for journalists whose constitutional right to work freely in the country have been violated in the country and no culprit has been brought to book.  This context is very important, especially having in mind Nankhumwa’s insistence that no journalist has been arrested during President Peter Mutharika’s term of office.

The Daily Times ran editorial arguing:

“… while we say thank you to the ruling party vice president for the Southern Region for such soothing words, we want to see his words reflected in deeds of ruling party politicians. We want to see journalists operating without looking over their backs.”

All good and understandable, even though the editorial missed the context of Nankhumwa’s assurances. But here is the main with Nankhumwa’s problem: media freedoms should not be at the mercy of politicians; media freedoms must be guaranteed and promoted by legal framework and necessary procedures must be in place to ensure that such laws are protected. The duty of political leaders is to ensure conducive legal framework and procedures to allow journalists to work independently and free of all forms of coercion.

These are the basics of democratic process; it is in autocratic states where media freedoms and civil liberties are at the mercy of those in power.

Politicians like Nankhumwa can be congratulated for making progressive assurances on a political podium. Yet, Matters of policy should not be discussed on the political podium – there are procedures for it. What are we going to do next time politicians use the same podium to promote populist policies that are not progressive? Democracy is about institutions, not individuals and that is the only way democracies ensure continuity as well as protection of democratic freedoms and civil liberties.

Leadership is Not About Age

One of the recurring issues on Malawi’s political scene, at least from 2014 is the issue of youth leadership. Youthful Atupele Muluzi contested on this agenda in 2014 elections and finished a distant fourth in an election won by the oldest candidate on the ballot, Peter Mutharika. Eventually Muluzi betrayed his own “youth agenda” and joined the Mutharika government.

Muluzi says he joined Mutharika’s government because he thinks he could save Malawians better while in the government and not outside it. Yet, those who follow Malawi politics closely will tell you that Atupele Muluzi could have gone into the alliance so that the Peter Mutharika’s government could not bother his father, Bakili the same way Bingu wa Mutharika did. Bakili Muluzi, a former State President is answering corruption charges amount to MK1.7 billion while in power and he has been in and out of the courts for the past 12 years or so.

It is an alliance of convenience, based more on personal reasons than an urge to serve Malawians better, like Atupele would want us believe; the Muluzis want to ensure that they are left alone while Mutharika gets the additional numbers he needs to increase the number of MPs who would vote with his party in parliament—you can call it a gentlemen’s agreement.

It was easy for Atupele to abandon the “youth agenda” because it was not as personal to him as the above case. Also, important is the fact that the “youth agenda” had no any ideological leaning – it was just a tactic to attract the youth vote who still make the majority of the electorate in Malawi.

Four years on, the issue of youth leadership is back into the public discourse. This time more pronounced by those advocating for the country’s Vice President, Saulosi Chilima to contest as a president. Chilima has declared his interest to contest, albeit with some conditions, including “transparent” nomination process. He says he doesn’t want to impose himself in the issue. Chilima talks about some of the serious ills affecting the development of Malawi, including corruption and nepotism. Chilima’s diagnosis is correct if not obvious for most Malawians. He talks of transformational leadership and meritocracy in public appointments and recruitment.

Curiously, Chilima seems unwilling to comment on the fact that those propping up his candidacy are a group of recycled politicians frustrated elsewhere because they were left out of top positions. As argued before, this smacks of the same corruption that Chilima is denouncing. Interestingly, the beginnings of Chilima Movement out of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was mainly on the grounds that at 45 years old he was much younger and energetic, unlike 78 years Peter Mutharika who is leading the party into the 2019 elections.

In his interview with Zodiak Broadcasting Station, Chilima revoked the often used argument that Malawi’s first post-colonial cabinet was dominated by young men and women in their 20s and 30s. It is true, and rather than just being in the cabinet it was also the youthful politicians the likes of Orton Chirwa, Masauko Chipembere, Yatuta and Dunduzu Chisiza and Rose Chibambo etc. who did most the ground work for the independence of this country. They were young, inspired, and dedicated to the freedom of this country.

Yet, the example as used by Chilima and many other contemporary politicians desperate to score political points tends to be ahistorical and lacking in context. Those young politicians in the first cabinet were ideologically driven – they were not just leaders for their own sake. The Cabinet Crisis of 1964 happened because those youthful politicians differed with Kamuzu Banda on ideological grounds – not scramble for a leadership position, as it is the case today.

In their 2010 journal paper on “Cabinet Crisis and its Legacy of Perpetual Regression of Trust Among Contemporary Malawi politics”, Happy Kayuni and Richard Tambulasi of Chancellor College, University of Malawi observed that there were five reasons why the Cabinet Crisis happened. The youthful politicians were against the following:

The adoption of Skinner Report, which approved reduced remuneration for civil servants; The delay in Africanisation; The continuation of diplomatic links with the racist regimes of Portuguese Mozambique and apartheid South Africa; The introduction of three pence hospital charges and Reluctance to accept aid from, and forge links with, communist China.

These young leaders were concerned about the ideological direction the country was taking. Ideology is crucial in politics because it gives direction to those leading the society. These young leaders stood by their ideologies and many of them paid with their lives, others with their freedom and livelihoods, including that of their families and loved ones.

This is inspirational, more so given the tribulations Malawi is going through today and it is not surprising that aspiring young leaders would want to associate with this group. Yet, today we do not have young leaders of such ilk. Today folks are quick to use the sixties group of as an example of themselves but they are not.

Chilima is still part of the government he is criticising; he can’t resign because that may affect his lucrative retirement package of a Vice President. He knows he cannot be fired because his position is constitutionally protected. Likewise, Atupele Muluzi abandoned his “youth agenda” when it no longer suited his personal interests. Today he is a part of a failing government he would most likely contest against in 2019, yet he won’t resign as a cabinet minister in Mutharika’s government.

Malawi – 56 Years After Dunduzu K. Chisiza’s “Realities of African Independence”

“Vindictiveness directed at the opposition parties has its nemesis when tables are turned – not to mention the adverse effect of the resultant strife on economic development.” Dunduzu Kaluli Chisiza

In his futuristic 1961 book “Realities of African Independence”, Dunduzu Kaluli Chisiza envisioned some of the problems that newly independent African States would face. He mentioned four specific problems: 1) political, 2) leadership, 3) social and 4) economic. The book was entirely set out to discuss problems that independent African countries would have to deal with. I think it is a shame that this book is not a recommended reading in schools and colleges, even more so that the book is currently out of print.

I am saying this because Chisiza’s fears of independent African countries have come to pass, certainly for Malawi. It is through reading this book that one appreciates political and leadership problems faced today, in Malawi and elsewhere on the continent. To make my point, I will concentrate on political and leadership problems that Chisiza identified, in part because I think these two problems are key to socio-political and economic problems that have trapped so many African countries in poverty.

By political problems Chisiza did not mean wars or other forms of insurgency. He meant personalised politics that stifle national development, politics that promote narrow personal interests at the expense of wider national interests. Chisiza argued that at the centre of the political problems was the relationship between government and opposition parties. He noticed that this was “indicated by such symptoms as intolerance on the part of governing parties, a tendency towards ‘strong-man’ governments, indulgence in smear campaigns and political instability.”

Anyone who pays attention to Malawi politics would agree that after 53 years of independence Malawi is still mired in the political mess that Chisiza feared. Party politics is prioritised over governance – it is always a contest between opposition and the incumbency while the rest of the country spectates. The caveat here is that those in the opposition often have no better option either; it is just that it is not they with the public purse at that given time – Malawi is stuck in this political vicious circle.

Within the independent African states, Chisiza feared what he called leadership of “rewarding friends and punishing foes” at the expense of greater public good. He noted:

“It is deplorable for leaders to promote faithful party members into positions for which they have not necessary skill or ability, above the heads of those who posses it. This leads not only to inefficiency but to downright corruption.”

Most of the problems facing Malawi today emanate from party politics Chisiza warned about. Corruption and politics of patronage are a deadly combination because those involved in malpractice, such as corruption do so with impunity – corruption cases like cashgate has taught Malawians this lesson. Politics attract not patriots and people ready to serve their nation but opportunists looking to get closer to power for personal gains.

National events are politicised so the ruling party can benefit from public resources being thrown around for a national event. On its 53^rd independence Malawi government decided to celebrate the anniversary under the theme “thanking God for a season of plenty.” The theme clearly points to the relatively good harvest in the last harvesting season and the ruling party shamelessly makes sure that it takes at least some credit for it, when in fact Malawians should be question whether the issue of food security should remain the defining political issue, 53 years after independence.

There is no space for policy issues; it is always about politics, not governance and not Malawi as a notion but political party. Political party colours are more prominent during national events than the national flag. This is a defining shame of Malawi’s democratic era.

Academic studies with findings unacceptable to the incumbency is met with brutal rejection, indignation and intimidation from the government and ruling party zealots; civil society organisations that dare question the status quo are vilified by the government in equal measure. Every political party in power has its useful youth wing whose duty is not national service but to intimidate opposition and silence critical voices.

Unfortunately, you cannot do away with these problems through the ballot – the solution is not choosing one party or individual over the other. This is because, as Chisiza observed the cause of these problems is the friction between the incumbency and the opposition – elections only means the two opposites swapping sides and the motivation of being in power remains the same: exploiting the public purse. They hold it so dearly that anyone who dare point out flaws in the governance system is seen as a threat.

The political and leadership problems that Chisiza so ably identified have turned Malawi into a corruption heaven where folks prefer to advance narrow self interests than promoting broader national interests; a country where those in the positions of power and their cronies loot from the public coffers with impunity.

Ministerial Appointments in Malawi and Citizen’s Right to Know

Cabinet reshuffle is always headline news. This is because cabinet is very important in the running of a country – cabinet initiates and implement state policies. This means that citizens must be concerned with calibre and character of ministers forming a cabinet because cabinet decisions affect everyone. This also means that public scrutiny of the ministers is inevitable, some would say a must; the cabinet ministers must be prepared for it.

Yet, the reaction of Malawians to sacking and appointments of cabinet has always baffled me. It appears to me that extreme majority of Malawians are contented with the country’s constitutional mishap which empowers the State President to appoint whoever he/ she pleases into the cabinet.

The irony is that even though Malawian public does not demand the citizens’ right to know the criteria used to appoint individuals into this important body – the cabinet, Malawians are always discussing and speculating on why they think someone has made into the cabinet and why others have not. This indicates citizens’ interest in knowing how people are hired into cabinet positions; similarly, is also indicates public interest to know the reasons when a cabinet minister is fired.

So why are we not demanding citizens’ right to know?

It is clear to see that those responsible for presidential communication are aware of the public interest in cabinet appointments and sackings. Presidential communication handlers are aware that the State President owes the public an explanation on decision that affects the running of the country. This is why announcement on public appointments are always accompanied by this pre-emptive disclaimer: “… using powers vested in him by the Constitution His Excellency the President (whoever happens to be at the time) has decided to relieve (you can add a name) of his/ her responsibilities as Minister of …”

The disclaimer is intended to address a specific issue, away from that of sacking, or appointment of a cabinet minister. The point of the disclaimer is to manage public expectations and demands. This Constitutional provision is unfortunate because it protects Presidents from transparency. Yet, the Constitution is there to serve Malawians, not protecting leaders from public scrutiny and accountability – as it were, Malawians can do with amended version of this provision to suit the democratic needs of the country.

Like all the local media on that day, The Daily Times of 7^th April 2017 reported on the sacking of Minister of Civic Education, Culture and Community Development, Patricia Kaliati. Reading the Times’ story it was clear that the newspaper was mostly interested in digging out why Kaliati had been fired – the same was the case with The Nation and Nyasa Times.

There was no scrutiny whatsoever as to how the President settled on Cecilia Chazama to replace Kaliati. Nothing wrong with pursuing this angle – media institutions have a right to determine what they find newsworthy and angles to pursue. Yet, this is typical of how Malawians approach this important matter. Malawians are more interested in why ministers are fired but not necessarily how they are hired. Yet, the latter is crucial. In fact it does not make any sense to know why a cabinet minister has been fired when in the first place you did not care to know how they were appointed.

In Malawi we have cultivated a culture in which we think it is procedural that the State President must appoint all his/ her close associates into top positions. The Nation only mention that Chazama is a Secretary General of the ruling party, DPP and that she’s an MP for Blantyre North East. This culture makes us blind to broader issues of governance and stops us from asking important questions on transparency, accountability, nepotism, cronyism etc. These issues negatively affect the running of government. I am aware that these things happen elsewhere yet this should not justify Malawi’s situation.

Why citizen’s right to know matters?

Freedom of information campaigner, Heather Brooke argues that bad governments rule by secrecy and the problem is that decisions made in secrecy by such governments do not lead to good value for money or good public services.

This is very true for Malawi. The status quo whereby the President can hire and fire just because the Republican Constitution allows them; and the citizens have no right to demand the reasons behind the decision should not have been allowed in the first place. Over the years Malawians have paid dearly for this constitutional loophole. It has allowed State Presidents to appoint individuals merely as a reward for one’s “royalty” to the President and in some cases for the President to gain political advantage – mostly securing necessary numbers to pass bills in parliament.

The status quo nature and sustains nepotism and cronyism in the country. It compromises quality and efficiency of public services delivery. It does not help that currently the citizenry, the civil society, including the media are only curious to know why someone has been fired from the cabinet so folks can gossip and speculate about personal relationship and intraparty politics. Malawians, we cannot allow ourselves to turn into a nation that is only interested in gossip while those we elect in office are running the country down. We must focus on the bigger picture.

Malawi’s plans for major electoral reform are way overdue

Malawi is set for a major overhaul of its winner-takes-all electoral system with far-reaching implications for the country, if ongoing efforts to reform the system bear fruit.

Any changes in the voting system will represent the biggest overhaul of the country’s electoral system since it became a multiparty state in the mid 1990s. This followed the end of one-party dictatorship under Kamuzu Banda, the country’s first post-colonial leader and “president for life”.

A special Malawi Law Commission was given the task of reforming the country’s electoral laws. Following a year of investigation, it recently held a two-day multi-stakeholder conference to discuss the planned reforms. Its main proposal is that the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system of electing the president should be abolished.

I believe that the proposed new system would help reduce the toxic politics of regionalism in Malawi. It would also enhance national stability, which is the bedrock of any successful nation. But it isn’t without challenges, and would need the serious allocation of state resources to bring it about.

Proposed changes

The proposed new system – absolute majority – to replace the FPTP will require the winning candidate for president to get at least 51+ percent threshold of the national vote.

Political scientist at Catholic University, Nandini Patel, a participant at the conference, has explained the proposal thus:

In a situation where no presidential candidate secures the threshold, the recommendation is that there should be a runoff or double ballot where the top two candidates contest in the second round and the one who secures more votes is declared winner.

On the face of it, the proposal is straightforward and makes logical sense. Yet, this is complex than it appears and if adopted it would revolutionise the way local politics is done.

The FPTP has been been in place since 1994, when Malawi embraced multiparty politics after doing away with Kamuzu Banda’s 30 years of dictatorship. Since then, a presidential candidate from a high-populated region is more or less assured of electoral victory because the FPTP system.

In the case of Malawi, the country’s Southern Region has always had a higher population than the Central and Northern administrative regions. Thus, all the country’s presidents since the dawn of democracy have come from that region; Bakili Muluzi (1994 – 2004), Bingu wa Mutharika (2004 – 2012), Joyce Banda (2012 – 2014) and the incumbent, Peter Mutharika, Bingu’s young brother, from 2014.

This may yet be a coincidence given that there is no study to back the hypothesis. But, the fact that the sitting President, Peter Mutharika, won the election with only 35% of the national threshold strengthens the hypothesis.

All things being equal, it should not matter where the state president comes from. Yet, as I have previously argued: the trend in Malawi is for the incumbent president to concentrate government development efforts in their own regions and districts of origins.

This makes those from other parts of the country feel aggrieved and short-changed. It’s for this reason that some members of the political elite in the country lodged serious calls for federal system of government, barely two months after Mutharika’s electoral victory in 2014.

Of course the late President, Bingu wa Mutharika initially came into office in 2004 with only 36% of the national threshold but managed to get a 63%of the national threshold in 2009 to win his second term.

He got votes in all regions other than only the Southern Region where he comes from.

The proposals to end the advantage the FPTP gives to candidates from highly populated districts are already facing resistance from some in the governing party. Heatherwick Ntaba, President Mutharika’s special advisor has argued ca the proposed new system of electing the president is “unrealistic and wasteful.”.

there is no way we can attain legitimacy of people are talking about. Let us talk about the costs. In reality we are already struggling to conduct by-elections [in areas where MPs and local government councillors have died].

Challenges

The proposed absolute majority system will certainly have its own problems. But, Ntaba’s fears are self-serving as the current system benefits his political party. Given the country’s regionalism voting pattern, the new 51+ winning threshold would require presidential candidates to reach out to regions beyond their own regions in order to win the presidency. No single region can produce enough votes for 51+ winning threshold.

Presidential candidates will thus be forced to consider forming alliances with candidates from other regions. This would have a good unintended consequence as politicians would be forced to extend government developmental programmes beyond their owns regions.

This would also introduce Malawi to the dynamics of alliance politics, with all its unpredictability and possible infighting within the governing alliance, given that it leaves a room for alliances of convenience, that are not necessarily in the interest of the country.

Yet, the bigger picture is that the new policy would reduce grievances and the feelings of unfairness. In the past, these fuelled calls for the country to adopt a federal system of government.

Grace Chiumia is a Victim of Malawi’s Defective Political System

Fredric Jameson, a contemporary American Marxist and literary critic opened his influence work on The Political Unconscious (1981) with that slogan: “always historicise.” Jameson’s view is that all works of literature are received by the reader with already read status – even new text, he argues, is read with a hangover of unconscious prejudice and interpreted under the influence of opinions of the time.

Jameson says instead, a metacommentary is always necessary if we are to uncover a true meaning of any text. Any given phenomenon, he says, must be analysed from three perspectives in order to get a full meaning of the situation. First is political history. Second is context of the social period in which the phenomenon occurred and finally the entire period of the mode of production – here the mode of production meaning everything that goes into the production of the necessities of one’s life.

The importance of metacommentary is that it leads us to a full understanding of our social, political and economic transitions. It points to the fact that ideas do not suddenly appear and disappear – nothing takes place in isolation from the existing political context.

This is the point often missed by most social commentators and analysts, more so in Malawi. The current case being that of Malawi’s Minister of Sports and Culture, Grace Chiumia’s calling President Peter Mutharika a “life president”. Chiumia has since apologised to Malawians and the president for calling him “life president.” Chiumia should have known better how politically incorrect this is, especially for a country that has endured authoritarian leadership of a “life president” – Kamuzu Banda.

Malawians are understandably angry and rightfully cynical about the statement – was Chiumia perhaps testing waters? Maybe intentions are there to make Mutharika a “life president?” I personally doubt this. Instead, from Jameson’s perspective, I believe Chiumia is herself a victim of the country’s political system – a system that forces those occupying appointed public positions like hers to use every window of opportunity to show their supposedly unquestionable loyalty to the president – the appointing authority.

From Kamuzu Banda, Malawi’s founding president, to the incumbent, Peter Mutharika – the country’s fifth president, the thinking is that simply calling the State President – what he/ she is; a State President is not enough. One must use as much adjectives as their vocabulary can provide. It is very easy to talk nonsense and make mistakes when you are in this situation. It is not an enviable position at all.

Above everything else, Chiumia’s case is a reminder of the rotten political system that Malawi has. Ultimately, attacking Chiumia is missing the point if not an opportunity to critique a system that puts political patronage personal interests above national interests. You would not have these cases where there is no cronyism and political patronage – these begets bootlicking, which is what Chiumia was doing.

In Jameson’s perspective, you cannot scrutinise an individual – Chiumia in this case, separately from the system that produces and reproduce her ways of thinking. She has perhaps noticed her “mistake”, hence the apology, after the public criticism. It is important to analyse these issues from the full perspective of the system that produces it. A mango tree will not give you apples because it produces mangos.

No Tax Heavens BUT Corruption is Malawi’s biggest problem

While in power 2012–2014, President Joyce Banda lamented on the difficulties of running Malawi economy:

“It’s heavy, but I am able to carry it. Why? Because I am an African Woman. An African woman carries heavy loads anyway. That’s how we are trained; are brought up that nothing is unbearable. I use that now, positively. I use that now to have a thick skin that I have, and not fear, and move forward, and push; and push forward.”

Joyce Banda had inherited a tanking economy from her predecessor, the late Bingu wa Mutharika; and at the same time, Mrs Banda was facing pressure from the IMF to devalue the country’s currency by nearly 50%, a decision with possibilities of catastrophic consequences for the majority of the population, majority of whom leave below the poverty-line.

Looking at recent report findings by anti-poverty campaigners, Action Aid, perhaps Mrs Banda, her predecessors and her successors could have had it easier had it not been for tax avoidance strategies used by some multinational corporations.

The Action Aid report argues that multinational corporations are depriving the world’s most impoverished communities of vital revenues. The report observes that tax revenue is one of the most important, sustainable and predictable sources of public finance there is. Adding: “It is a crucial part of the journey towards a world free from poverty – funding lasting improvements in public services such as health and education.”

The observation is correct and Action Aid should be commended for their relentless campaign on tax justice, especially in poorer countries. Tax is very important for any country, let alone countries with meagre resources to go around for everyone. John Christensen of Tax Justice Network Production has called tax “the greatest invention”, meaning that tax is the best system of redistribution of resources in the hugely economically unequal societies throughout the world.

Among others the Action Aid report has identified a colonial era (1955) United Kingdom (UK) treaty with Malawi – then Nyasaland, which the report notices is “outdated and unfair.” Citing International Monetary Fund figures, Action Aid observes that in 2014 developing countries, such as Malawi received US$134 billion in aid from wealthy countries but lost US$200 billion a year from tax avoidance.

In particular, the Action Aid study has established that the UK-Malawi treaty limits the ability of Malawi government to tax UK companies operating in the country:

“UK companies had investments worth US$157 million in Malawi in 2010 (the latest year for which UN data is available). While this may seem small by UK standards, Malawi’s economy is so small that it equates to 13.7% of all foreign investment, making the UK the third largest investor in the country (after Switzerland and South Africa). This means renegotiating this treaty could potentially have a significant effect on Malawi’s tax revenues, at little relative cost to the UK,” observes the report.

One wonders why Malawi government continues to accept such treaties, especially that the country has been running on a tight financial rope in the last three financial years, in part due to donor withdrawal of up to 40% of annual budgetary support. Malawi has been struggling raising domestic tax to plug the financial gap left by the donors. The country’s 2016/ 2017 national budget has been reduced to MK23.7 billion against MK50 billion revenue shortfall.

The situation is bad; the country has shortage of food, the health system is struggling, moral within the civil service and education standards continue to fall. The government is yet to find ways of increasing its tax-base. These are some of the areas that Action Aid says could benefit from a fairer tax treaty with UK multinational corporations, which the report has not named.

Action Aid is theoretically right on this, Malawi must demand justice and push for fair tax treaties. It makes no sense for Malawi claiming its independence from Britain while it remains financially shackled to Britain and its multinational corporations. It is said that economic independence of a nation produces true political independence of a nation state, political independence is only a façade if the nation is not economically independent.

Organisations like Action Aid can only do so much and their work falls short as it ignores political realities of the countries it is fighting for. Fear of political infereference does not do these charity organisations and their commendable campaigns any justice. Tax justice campaign makes so much sense but it becomes ineffective when it ignores the fact that among the key reasons countries like Malawi are struggling today is corrupt, self-serving leadership and cronyism.

Corruption and senseless looting of government resources by senior civil servants, politicians and business persons is the reason donors withdrew their aid from Malawi. In just six months, US$31 million was stolen from government coffers in a corruption scandal called cashgate.

It is estimated that about 35% of government funds have been stolen from Malawi government over the past decade. While this is by no means to downplay Action Aid’s work, it is important to note that there is no guarantee that any money rescued from the unjust tax treaties will benefit the most needy Malawians. Evidence suggests that Action Aid’s conclusions that lost revenue from unjust tax treaties would improve the living standards of Malawians are inadequate, flawed and a miscalculation of facts.