Spirit of Umunthu

National IDs Should not Expire

The Malawi government has been running adverts in the local press announcing its pilot phase for national identity cards. This is a plausible move given that without IDs; one can’t justify that they’re indeed Malawian. Birth certificates are not yet universal – those who want one have to pay for it, but most of the citizenry don’t have it.

A small percentage of Malawians with national passports and driver’s licenses depend on these for an ID. Increasingly, Malawians have been using voter certificate cards as ID for services like opening bank accounts. Yet, to get a voting certificate, they also need an ID. Given that most Malawians don’t have one – people need a second person as a witness to register as a voter and earn the voting card.

During a voter registration exercise for the country’s 2014 tripartite elections, there were numerous stories, some verified, some not, that people were registering to get the voting card for their ID. This stresses the need for national IDs; people need them, and the country needs them even more.

Rumours of foreigners, mostly Mozambicans and Zambians, coming to vote in Malawian elections are always there. This only happens because the registration exercise is prone to abuse. After all, Malawians have no means of really identifying themselves. In fledging democracies like Malawi, such rumours can bring chaos and disorder since almost every election is disputed one way or the other. All of this emphasises the importance of the national IDs.

Yet, as currently proposed, the national IDs have severe shortfalls. The government has decided to impose an expiration date on this critical document. These will come with a fee, perhaps a fine if the payment is a one-off. If one has to pay a fee whenever they need to renew their IDs, this will inevitably price out a majority of Malawians, many of whom are already struggling to make a living.

As crucial as these IDs are, they cannot be a priority for most of the population. According to The Hunger Project: “Though Malawi’s economy is steadily improving, the country still faces extreme poverty, with more than 50% of the population currently living below the poverty line.” Almost half of the country’s estimated 17 million people are facing food shortages. Others have equated hunger to a “war silently killing Malawi.”

The economic situation in Malawi makes the national IDs issue an economic issue. The country’s economic situation needs to be factored in to be effective. Malawi is a country of rich and poor. Both classes ought to benefit from national programmes somewhat.
One way to achieve this is to make the national IDs a one-off payment scheme without expiration dates – it is not a government fundraising scheme, after all. Having an expiration date on these IDs defeats the whole point of the project because those who need it most, poor Malawians, will inevitably be priced out and priced out not only of access to the IDs but also out of essential services such as bank loans, health services and possibly other national such as farming subsidies and receiving foodstuffs like those currently facing hunger. Malawi cannot be a country for rich people only.

Africa Needs a Collective Thinking Space

It has become very common in the increasingly narrow global sphere to hear people correcting one another that Africa is not a country. Indeed, Africa is a continent with 50 plus countries; countries with distinct cultural traditions, regional and national dialects. There are estimated 1,500 – 2,000 languages spoken in Africa. These are important issues if one wants to fully understand Africa, let alone making decisions and/ or conclusion about it.

Yet, as an African from Malawi, a landlocked country in Southern Africa, I understand that apart from the above-pointed issues, there is also a lot that Africans have in common. In fact, the stated issues that make-up African continent are just as true within African countries. My own country, with estimated population of 16 million people has more than 12 tribes and more then 15 languages are spoken. Yet it is called it a country.

I recently reflected on this while attending Re:publica conference in Berlin, Germany along with my fellow African political bloggers, blogging at Africablogging.org and a group of wonderful Africans working with Global Innovation Gathering (GIG). We had fun; even though some of us – Africa Blogging and GIG members were meeting for the first time.

Discussions with these fellow patriotic young Africans over meals and in our hotel rooms for a week we were in Berlin got me thinking: “so Africa is a country after all.” African countries have a lot in common in terms of its socioeconomic and political make-up. I am not just talking about our shared colonial and pre-colonial period but contemporary Africa as well. Today what happens in one African country is most likely to replicate itself elsewhere.

And here is where my general reflection on Re:publica lay. I found the conference a huge collective thinking space where like-minded people converge, not just to share ideas but also to inspire each other. The diversity of a largely nerdy yet sociable group of presenters and participants at the conference was a true reflection of our own group – Africa Blogging and GIG.

Here I realised that the Re:publica-type of gathering is something that Africa needs – in Africa we need what I call “collective thinking space.” Yes, the internet has opened up discursive platforms and spaces such as blogs, Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter etc. These decentralised networks have opened up a useful cross-boarder and trans-national interactions yet we know discussions and reflections on these spaces are very random and often lack focus, something the Re:publica handled extraordinary well.

After all, internet shutdowns are becoming common in Africa. Telecommunication companies in Africa, in pursuit of favourable deals and operating conditions are colluding with African governments, eager to strengthen their hold on power, to shutdown social media whenever they feel their grip on power is threatened.

As pointed out earlier, what happens in one African country is likely to reappear in another country. At the time of writing, Ugandan government was at pains trying to limit social media use in the country as Yoweri Museveni was being sworn in following elections, which the country’s opposition are disputing. This trend was a topic of discussion by members of Africa Blogging at the Re:publica.

Apart from individual presentations, which I hugely benefited from, as a blogger, and an academic, Re:publica has convinced me that as great as the online spaces are, they are insufficient and they are not a substitute to the old-fashioned physical gathering of like minded people determined to get things done. Spaces like Re:publica may just be what young generation of Africa needs, in order to shape its socioeconomic and political feature.

Social Media is Alright

The question of whether social media should be regulated is steadily getting traction on the continent as well as here in Malawi. The issue gained even more attention in recent weeks following the arrest of Malawi Congress Party (MCP) members who were subsequently charged with treason over a WhatsApp group conversation.

What is fundamental here is a move to limit the space of unacceptable opinion and instilling fear in people that they are constantly being watched: panopticon. The equivalent of the Big Brother idea: Those in the Big Brother house always have this sense that they are being watched at all times even when no-one is watching, therefore, you must regulate your own behavior at all times. It is antithesis of democracy and civil liberties — an effective weapon for authoritarianism.

The ironic thing is that among the key features that social media has brought is the decentralized forms of communication. Social media is social equaliser, giving voice to the voiceless, letting common people whose voice is always represented into the mainstream media; the voice of the people who only make news when they are victims of hunger, domestic violence etc.

Yet, it is understandable that social media is making groups of individuals, government organisations and others uncomfortable. Changes in society always threaten the status quo—it has always been the case. Those in a position of authority and power always fear change and new developments because they must protect their own privileged position. An informed society is a very difficult society to manage and govern for those whose primary goal is to steal from the common folk.

It makes sense then when it is government calling for regulation of social media, they do not want decentralised networks of communication; they want the top-down traditional centralised systems of information flow in which they are in total control. Yet, it makes very little sense when it is journalists asking whether social media should be regulated or not. I have come across such conversation on social media. Journalists seriously arguing for social media regulations—something they should all be defending.

Never mind the important question of who is to police the social media. But you must always be careful what you wish for, you might get it. It is a world of possibilities. There is a common defence slogan when journalists and their work is under attack—often from the powers that be: “do not shoot the messenger”. Journalists calling for social media regulation argue that there are a lot of lies and false stories on platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, yet these platforms are used by people, if anything, the blame lies with the users — not the platform. You do not shoot the messenger, remember?

People lie every day, all the time, including those in journalism and all the gatekeepers. How do you regulate a lie anyway? There were lies before social media and there will be lies whether social media is regulated or not. There are laws protecting innocent people from such lies, you do not need to regulate the media. Why would a journalist call for social media regulation? Surely, no journalist would be afraid of enlightened society.

If anything journalism in its traditional form of finding news, editing, fact-checking and report is important more than ever in the day of social media because those discussing issues on social media are not professional journalists.

Yet, this does not mean journalists have monopoly over information. The earlier journalists realise that no-one, including them, has monopoly over information the better. Instead of calling for social media to be regulated, we should instead be calling for more social media—it is good for democracy.

Social media is alright

What is fundamental here is a move to limit the space of unacceptable opinion and instilling fear in people that they are constantly being watched: panopticon. The equivalent of Big Brother idea that those in the Big Brother house always have this sense that they are being watched at all times even when no-one is watching, therefore, you must regulate your own behaviour at all times. It is antithesis of democracy and civil liberties —an effective weapon for authoritarianism.

The ironic thing is that among the key features that the social media has brought is the decentralised forms of communication. Social media is social equaliser, giving voice to the voiceless, letting common people whose voice is always represented in the mainstream media; the voice of the people who only make news when they are victims of hunger, domestic violence etc.

Never mind the important question of who is to police the social media. But you must always be careful what you wish for, you might get it. It is a world of possibilities. There is a common defence slogan when journalists and their work is under attack—often from the powers that be: “do not shoot the messenger”. Journalists calling for social media regulation argue that there are a lot of lies and false stories on platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, yet these platforms are used by people, if anything, the blame lies with the users—not the platform. You do not shoot the messenger, remember?

Why would a journalist call for social media regulation? Surely, no journalist would be afraid of enlightened society. If anything journalism in its traditional form of finding news, editing, fact-checking and report is important more than ever in the day of social media because those discussing issues on social media are not professional journalists. Yet, this does not mean journalists have monopoly over information. The earlier journalists realise that no-one, including them, has monopoly over information the better.

Instead of calling for social media to be regulated, we should instead be calling for more social media—it is good for democracy.

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.

Never Expect Governments to Promote Freedom of Information

Hungarian-born American publisher Joseph Pulitzer noticed that “there is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle which does not live by secrecy.” He further observed: “get these things out in the open, describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the press, and sooner or latter public opinion will sweep them away.”

It is a straightforward point: secrecy fosters corruption; only transparency can ensure accountability. This is a very important principle, especially as freedom of information (FoI) campaigner, Heather Brooke noted in her theses on Your Right to Know: A Citizen’s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act:

“Making government transparent and accountable to the public directly increases the efficiency of the public sector more than any number of government regulators or watchdogs … FoI also highlights problems way before they become catastrophic mistakes. A strong FoI regime means fewer regulators and public inquiries that eat-up public money.”

If there is one country out there that must take heed of these key principles it is Malawi. Corruption has been the country’s headline story for nearly three years now, following revelations of a systematic looting of public coffers where estimated US$31 million was stollen by civil servants, private contractors and politicians, a scum locally known as cashgate.

“Corruption bleeds Malawi economy”, writes Frank Jomo for African Arguments. It is politics that breeds and sustains corruption in Malawi. As I previously argued, there is unwritten rule in Malawi that successful business people align themselves with the ruling party–the de facto government in Malawi context–in order to protect their businesses and gain more contracts. This is why most business people connected with cashgate were at the time aligned with the ruling party, Joyce Banda’s People’s Party.

This not to say Banda’s party is the most corrupt; it just happened that her’s was the party in power when cashgate unravelled. In fact, the scandal perhaps unravelled on her watch because she was too naïve about it. National audit reports have since revealed that the looting of government confers go back to the tenure of her predecessor, Bingu wa Mutharika who was in office between May 2004 until his death in office in April 2012.

The current government, headed by Mutharika’s younger brother, Peter is reluctant to act on these audit reports implicating the government of his brother in which Peter Mutharika himself was a cabinet member, holding several ministerial positions. Meanwhile, Bingu’s predecessor, Bakili Muluzi also has a court case on alleged corruption committed while in power–between 1994 and 2004.

At times the story reads like fiction, yet this is Malawi, a peaceful and self-styled “God-fearing nation”. More than half of its estimated 16 million people live below the poverty line. The country ranks 173 of 188 on United Nation’s latest Human Development Index report of 2014.

There is no doubt self-enrichment is one of the reasons most people go into politics in Malawi. Successive governments have been reluctant to pass access to information law (ATI), an enabling law of the section 37 of the country’s constitution, which state:

“Subject to any Act of Parliament, every person shall have the right of access to all information held by the State or any of its organs at any level of government in so far as such information is required for the exercise of his rights.”

The current government promised to pass the necessary bill into law so that access to information can become a reality in Malawi. Two years into power, the DPP government now feels like passing the ATI bill is a foolish move–akin to a foolish dog that bites the hand that feeds it. Owing it to donor pressure, even though the president denied this, the bill has been gazetted ready to be discussed in Parliament.

Yet, The Nation newspaper has reported that the gazetted bill is not in its original form–as drafted and approved by the stakeholders. This observation has also been made in a MISA-Malawi and Media Council of Malawi joint report protesting against the watered-down Bill.
The MISA-Malawi and Media Council of Malawi joint report is “[an appeal] to the government to review its position on ATI and MPs to reject current version of bill.” the report notes “that the ATI Bill gazetted by the government on February 19, 2016 does not meet the following principles that underpin a good ATI law:

– Effective Enforcement
– Maximum Disclosure
– Minimum Exemptions
– Public Interest override
– Simple, affordable & quick access procedures
– Whistleblower Protection

Prior to the gazetting of the bill, President Peter Mutharika told ATI campaigners and stakeholders that he would not approve the bill unless some “inconsistencies” are removed. He argued that he wants a law that was in the interest of Malawians and not some other elements. The president’s statement is very instructive on what he meant by “inconsistencies”.

Heather Brooke noticed that “one reason government officials hate openness is that it highlights their mistakes.” As for Malawi, this is not just about officials hiding their mistakes but also opening way for corruption and covering their tracks. As Brooke warns:

“You should not expect politicians to promote freedom of information. Why should they? They have vested interest in controlling the public’s access to information and thereby maintaining their grip on power.”

The onus is on the media and the civil society to continue their dogged work for the public good; must continue to ask awkward questions; must continue to dig, to unearth and then explain all the falsehood and deceits that the powers that be try to feed the unsuspecting public.

Will God Save Malawians from Hunger?

Malawi’s president, Peter Mutharika, recently called for and attended national prayers, asking God for good rains in the current rainy season. This came at a time when most districts across the country are experiencing a prolonged dry spell, with some areas having gone weeks without rainfall. What is being framed as a spiritual challenge is, in truth, a predictable governance failure, one whose consequences could soon shift from worry to outright fear.

Malawi often prides itself on being a “God-fearing nation,” and within that cultural framing, national prayers may appear harmless or even reassuring. Yet there is something deeply troubling about a state that repeatedly turns to prayer at moments that demand policy, planning, and investment. The real question is not whether Malawians should pray, but whether the country’s leadership should continue to substitute prayer for responsibility. Faith cannot be a development strategy.

Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in Mangochi, a lakeshore district in southern Malawi that I recently visited. Long before reaching the district, the effects of the dry spell were unmistakable. Maize plants at roughly the six-leaf stage were already wilting, their leaves grey and lifeless. Another week without rain would almost certainly wipe out crops in a district that sits beside two vast bodies of water, Lake Malawi and Lake Malombe. The irony is as cruel as it is obvious.

As Lake Malombe came into view, a colleague captured the absurdity of the situation: crops were dying just metres from an abundance of water, while farmers remained indoors, waiting for rain. This passive dependence on rainfall mirrors the state’s own posture. At both the local and national levels, Malawi behaves as though its natural resources are untouchable, unusable, or irrelevant—while hunger remains a recurring national emergency.

Public discourse around this crisis quickly dissolves into blame-shifting. Farmers blame government; government blames climate change; everyone eventually blames God. What is carefully avoided is the uncomfortable truth: Malawi has failed, repeatedly and deliberately, to invest in long-term agricultural resilience. Irrigation is not a new idea, nor is climate variability a sudden revelation. What is missing is political will.

For years, irrigation has featured prominently in speeches and policy documents, yet it remains largely rhetorical. Instead, leaders continue to lean on farm input subsidies—an approach that offers quick political returns but little structural transformation. Subsidies without irrigation are an exercise in self-deception. You cannot subsidise rain, nor can you negotiate with a changing climate.

Since the return to multiparty democracy in 1994, Malawi’s political leadership has consistently avoided development programmes that cannot be completed, branded, and campaigned on within a single five-year term. Long-term national projects have been sacrificed at the altar of electoral convenience. Development has been reduced to a performance, and governance to a cycle of public relations. The cost of this shortsightedness is borne not by politicians, but by poor Malawians whose survival is tied to an increasingly unreliable rainy season.

National prayers may offer comfort, but they also serve as a convenient distraction from accountability, from hard decisions, and from the urgent need to act. Malawi does not suffer from a lack of faith; it suffers from a surplus of political cowardice. What the country needs is not divine intervention, but leadership that is pragmatic, selfless, and genuinely patriotic, leadership willing to plan beyond elections, invest beyond slogans, and govern beyond prayers.

Condemning Corruption While Ignoring Corruption

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” – Friedrich Nietzsche.

Not that our political leaders are monsters but Nietzsche’s argument is similar to the argument that people, especially those in positions of leadership and power must always practice what they preach if they are to be taken seriously.

About a week ago Malawi’s state president, Peter Mutharika presided over anti-corruption day where he gave a resounding speech in which he identified corruption as “a deadly enemy we must fight in an all-out war!” “Corruption denies medicine from those suffering in our hospitals; it denies learning resources from our children to frustrate our future; and it drains resources for building roads and bridges to frustrate development of this country,” He said.

Mutharika asked Malawians to embody the spirit of hard work, honesty and integrity and accountability. President Peter Mutharika – Photo Credit: NyasatimesI fully agree with the president, and I am sure no well meaning Malawian could disagree with these observations. In fact, if we are to look around we will see Malawians crying for a corrupt-free nation – a country with accountable leadership where basic necessities are provided for; a country with servant leadership where bounties of the land are meant for all Malawians not for the privileged few; a country where patriotism means supporting the government when it deserves it and defending one’s country unconditionally.

It is however unfortunate that throughout 51 years of independence, these issues have been frustrated by the people Malawians have entrusted with power. Corruption is everywhere in Malawi and it is safe to say that it trickles from the echelons of power to the lowest denominator. It is the corruption of cashgate proportions that “denies medicine from our hospitals” – it is this kind of corruption that “denies learning resources from our children” – it is this kind of corruption that “frustrates development of [Malawi]”.

After two decades of democracy and Malawians pushing for accountable government and leadership, Malawi government has only just establish the office of assets declaration, which is still being frustrated by inadequate funding and no one is exactly sure what will come out of it. Here president Mutharika has an opportunity to make good of his desire for an accountable state.

Talking about accountability, why is that we have a democracy where political parties are not legally obliged to declare their assets and source of funding? Is this not fertile ground for corruption? Have we, as a nation, ever had an honest discussion why is it that it is only the ruling party that always has election campaigning resources? During his BBC HARDtalk interview, President Mutharika insinuated that Joyce Banda used the proceeds from the sale of presidential jet for her campaigning, shouldn’t this be a cause of concern that we need a law in place to regulate electoral funding?

President Mutharika has opportunity to make good of his desire by passing access to information bill, which successive governments have frustrated since the year 2000. His own government has added to frustration on this issue. One minute there is a commitment to passing to the bill, the following minute the same government is backtracking. Talk is cheap and Mutharika’s anti-corruption speech comes to nothing if his government does nothing to address issues fostering corruption – Mutharika should heed Nietzsche’s observations: “… if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

Malawi’s Calculated and Manipulative Leaders

Malawi was a de facto police state during a good part of former president Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s 30 years rule. There was no rule of law or judicial system to speak of. Kangaroo courts and traditional tribunal were Kamuzu’s preferred systems. The late Orton and his Wife Vera Chirwa who were recognised as prisoners of conscious by Amnesty International were among scores of other innocent Malawians who became victims of Kamuzu’s Kangaroo courts.

It is not that Kamuzu believed in the fairness of Kangaroo court, he did not; this is why he favoured it because he could easily control outcome of any case. This saved his dictatorship – it was the most effective way of locking up anything he feared and did not like. Dictators hate a lot of things, mostly intelligent and patriotic people. Kangaroo courts were designed for these people.

The ironic thing is that after his presidency Kamuzu and his co-accused in Mwanza Murder Case was saved by a democratic and transparent judicial system, which he denied a lot of Malawians for 30 years he was in power.

It is regrettable to say that today those in power continue to disregard the rule of law where and when it clashes with their selfish narrow interests, as opposed to broader national interests. We saw this with the late Bingu wa Mutharika in 2011, as he sought absolute power, trying to stop Malawians challenging his increasingly autocratic rule through the courts. Mutharika initiated and failed with the so-called “injunctions bill”.
Again, the irony of this is that DPP, Mutharika’s party, heavily relied on the courts to obtain and vacate injunctions, as 2014 tripartite elections results got delayed day after day.

I am reminded of this as the DDP-led administration has decided to disregard recommendations for the revised Communications Act that the state president should not be a sole appointing authority for board managers and members of politically, and, let us face it, financially important telecommunication institutions, Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) and Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC).

As MISA Malawi statement, released on 17th November 2015 has already stated, independence of MACRA and MBC from political interference was key issue in the review of Communication Act of 1998. MISA correctly observes:

“by maintaining the state president as the appointing authority for the boards and management of the two institutions, the cabinet has effectively rendered the review of the law useless.”

The poignancy of this statement becomes pointless when you realise that like Kamuzu and his Kangaroo courts, like Bingu and his quest to ban court injunctions, the current administration is aware of this anomaly, and they are aware that those concerned with governance issues in Malawi will protest at its decision one way or another. But they do not care, so long as it fits the narrow and selfish interests of the incumbency – the stinking “so what” attitude from our elected leaders.

It is this attitude from the people we trust with power that is keeping Malawi in poverty. The worst part is that those in power know this but they are calculative and manipulative. There is no worse thing than a calculative selfish individual with power. Sadly, Malawians have been cursed with such leaders, coupled with the citizenry who are happy to take all the nonsense.

Mutharika’s HARDtalk Interview: The Devil is in the Detail

Malawi president, Peter Mutharika recently appeared on BBC’s HARDtalk programme, hosted by Zainab Badawi. His appearance was in line with what has become a trend for African leaders – granting interviews to Western media and not the local media. Controlled press briefings is the closest the local media get to interview a state president – this is certainly the case in Malawi.

It shows the contempt that African leaders have towards the local media. Anthropologist, Francis Nyamnjoh has noticed that from early to mid 1990s most African countries have liberalised media laws only in theory but in practice journalists on the continent are still seen as troublemakers to be monitored and policed.

One thing that became immediately apparent in the HARDtalk interview is that Badawi had more facts about Malawi than Mutharika. For every question asked about Malawi’s poor economic growth, infinite poverty, massive corruption and poor governance, the Malawi president turned to Cashgate – a term used to refer to a systematic looting of state resources by civil servants, politicians and business persons. Of course blaming everything on Cashgate is more convenient for President Mutharika because Cashgate happened on the watch of his political rival, the former State President, Joyce Banda.

Yet, Mutharika had no answers why all the country’s economic and governance problems should be attributed to Cashgate when Joyce Banda was in power for only two of the country’s 51 years of independence. This question points to one of the biggest problems with Malawi, as a country. Those in the leadership positions are never honest with the diagnosis of the country’s problems. Wrong diagnosis means wrong prescription; wrong prescription means the problem will not go away. It is akin to wrapping a boil with a bandage – you can only hide it but it will not heal. The solution is to burst the boil and treat it.

Like a boil, Malawi is at a point where we need to open up to uncomfortable realities. The deliberate misdiagnosis of the country’s problems is convenient because majority of the country’s politicians leaders are either interested in covering their corrupt past; that of their peers or are merely interested in denting CVs of their political rivals. Short term, narrow and selfish interests are prioritised in place of bigger, long-term national interests.

It is all about political blame game, and at the moment Joyce Banda is unfairly taking all the flak. Of course Cashgate happened on her watch and she must account for it. Yet, there are also unaccounted for millions of Malawi Kwachas that went missing under Presidents Bingu wa Mutharika, Peter’s older brother, and Bakili Muluzi. The latter still has a court case, answering charges of corruption for allegedly diverting government money into a personal account.

Peter Mutharika and his government wont mention Bingu and Muluzi because UDF (Mulizi’s party) and DPP (Mutharika’s party) are now in a convenient political collation of some sort. This is something Peter Mutharika could not admit to Badawi because in the typical Malawi politics, Peter Mutharika thought Badawi was out to get him, personally, when the truth is Badawi was looking at Malawi and Peter Mutharika happened to be the unfortunate president answering her questions. I doubt very much that Badawi has any interest in Malawi’s internal politics.

Sadly, this is also the reality on the ground. Everything is personalized. Over the years, majority of unsuspecting Malawians have been indoctrinated to think and see everything through tinted political party colours, at the expense of broader national interests. Those who dare stand for national interests and question the status quo are seen as jealous, opposition elements or sponsored by westerners to “destabilise” the country.

Mutharika approached the interview with this pitiful mindset. At times it was embarrassing to watch. We can do better! But not until Malawi leaders start looking at things as they, not how they want them to be. If not, Malawi will not be able to shake-off the painful “poorest country in world” tag. Its presidents will continue moving around the Western world with begging bowl; its presidents will continue giving unprepared interviews to the likes of BBC in hope of attracting donor sympathy for grants and donations. Let us #DemandaBetterMalawi