What Drives Corruption in Malawi and Why It Won’t Disappear Soon

It is now two years since Malawi was rocked by its biggest government corruption scandal in history. The systematic looting of public coffers by civil servants, private contractors and politicians saw them steal US$31 million from government coffers.

It is estimated that about 35% of government funds have been stolen over the past decade. The impoverished country’s national budget for 2013-14 was about US$1.3 billion (630.5 billion Kwachas) at today’s exchange rate.

But has the country learnt anything from its biggest scandal that saw donors withdraw support?

The University of Malawi’s Blessings Chinsinga recently pointed out that:

… efforts to root out corruption do not stick because the existing institutional milieu makes it almost impossible to introduce changes that can effectively stamp out corruption.

The observation is instructive in that the scandal spans two political administrations. Malawi was led by the late president Bingu wa Mutharika in 2004 and the scandal unravelled on the watch of Joyce Banda in 2013.

Fertile ground for corruption

A number of factors contribute to the current state of affairs.

There is no clear distinction between a party in power and government activities in Malawi, unlike in established democracies. In Malawi, the party in power is the de facto government.

In Malawi, a party in power calls itself boma (a government). Ordinary Malawians look at abuse of state resources by those in power as acceptable. It is almost impossible to tell a party in power from the government.

Even more serious is the fact that political parties in Malawi are not mandated to declare their sources of funding. This breeds corruption and fosters abuse of public resources. This is not unique to Malawi. But in countries like Botswana, hailed as one of the model democracies on the continent, they at least have a debate on political party funding. Debates are also taking place in Nigeria and South Africa, respectively the continent’s largest and second-largest economies.

Another contributing factor is that after 21 years of multiparty democracy, governance in Malawi remains heavily centralised. Although the country has been independent since 1964, it only became a democracy in 1994.

Until then, it had been a one-party state decreed by its first post-colonial leader Kamuzu Banda, who banned political parties. He became president for life in 1971. Since 1994, the country has had local government representation for only six years – from 1999 to 2004 and from 2014 to now.

The central government has been reluctant to relinquish some of its powers. The president makes even the smallest of decisions and undertakes mundane tasks that should be reserved for line ministries. This encourages a system of patronage.

Lastly, government contracts, tenders and board memberships all go to sympathisers of the party in power and not necessarily to the best bidder or the most competent applicant. Government sympathisers or ruling party members get contracts regardless of their levels of competence.

This unfairly benefits the incumbents and weakens opposition parties. Businesspeople are afraid of funding opposition parties because they could lose state contracts and other business opportunities.

Scale and depth of corruption exposed

Malawians have always known that corruption is rife in the country. But the sheer size of the Cashgate scandal, both in terms of the amount and the wide number of people involved, has shown how deeply rooted the problem is.

The involvement of the country’s political class in the scandal is in stark contradiction to their penchant for standing on political campaign podiums promising to fight corruption with all their might.

Most of the people implicated in the Cashgate scandal were either members of the then-ruling People’s Party or its sympathisers.

There is an unwritten rule in Malawi that successful businesspeople align themselves with the governing party in order to protect their property and gain more contracts.

An aunt of Oswald Lutepo, thus far the main Cashgate convict and serving 11 years in jail, was heard in court lamenting that her nephew was advised that he did not need to join politics as he was already a successful businessman and multimillionaire. At the time of his arrest Lutepo was deputy director of recruitment in the People’s Party.

The aunt’s lament is instructive: people join politics in Malawi mainly to make money. In terms of this logic, the 37-year-old Lutepo was already a millionaire. He should have stayed out of it.

But he could not escape the lure of more riches that flow from being close to those in power. He knew the unwritten rule for success in Malawi only too well:

If you are unsuccessful, support the ruling party because this is where opportunities are.

Malawi is still learning to cope without support from donors and the jury is still out on whether it has learnt anything from its biggest scandal. A recent article in African Arguments underlines the hopeless feeling that Cashgate has left among most Malawians:

Malawi’s self-enriching officials need to know they will be judged not just by an imperfect judicial system, but by generation upon future generation of their compatriots.

Malawi, A Tyranny of the majority

French political thinker, Alexis de Tocqueville, noticed that as much as democratic leadership is determined by people, ideally majority, ‘majority rule cannot be the only expression of supreme power in a democracy’. He added: “If so, … the majority would too easily tyrannise the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse its power to violate the basic inalienable right of the minority.”

Attainment of people’s basic rights is what has defined Malawi political history, from our struggle against colonialism, our struggle from one party dictatorship to the current struggles for fulfillment of people’s rights and freedoms as stipulated in Malawi’s bill of rights. Not that one right is better than another, but it is safe to say that democracy cannot function if people are denied freedoms of expression and association.

The now famous 1992 Pastoral Letter, which helped dislodge Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s one party dictatorship made this point clear: “Moreover, human persons are honoured–and this honour is due to them–whenever they are allowed to search freely for the truth, to voice their opinions and be heard, to engage in creative service of the community in all liberty within the associations of their own choice. Nobody should ever have to suffer reprisals for honestly expressing and living up to their convictions: intellectual, religious or political. We can only regret that this is not always the case in our country’.

As it was then, it remains that ‘not the case in our country’. I was recently reminded of this when President Peter Mutharika reportedly told the Talk to the President programme on MBCtv that he would put the question of legalising homosexuality in Malawi to a referendum. Never mind the name and the nature of the programme on which the President made the remarks, State House subsequently issued a statement that the President was speaking as a citizen of Malawi and not as a State President.

A section of the local civil society groups has since asked the President, via media briefings, to make his position on the issue known, and as a President, to be mindful that he cannot pity minority groups to a mob rule. I agree with the civil society, and similar to de Tocqueville’s observation calling referendum on sexual minority rights constitutes mob justice, not democracy, Malawians through a referendum voted for on June 14 1993.

That referendum signalled one fundamental point: Malawians were different people ideologically. Our common denominator is the republican constitution – the supreme law of the land, which the President promised to uphold and protect. The constitution outlaws any form of discrimination, including people’s sexual orientation. Relegating protection of existing statues to a referendum signals a failure of leadership. Unprincipled and populist leadership that only panders to the supposed popular opinion and not necessary what is right.

If majority decisions were so sacred, why is that we currently have a president that was voted for by only 36 percent of Malawians? Is it not because we have to abide by our electoral laws? Why has the president only suddenly found majority decision so popular?

The answer is simple and it is something the country’s politically aware citizens have discussed and pushed for over the years: issue-based politics. Malawi politics is not ideologically based. This means that our leaders do not really know what they stand for, apart from the fact that they know they want to be in power. To be in power you need people’s votes and so populism is the way to go. This is tantamount to people leading themselves.

It is okay for believers to cite verses on homosexuality from their prayer books but one thing we must all remember is that this is a constitutional issue because Malawi is a democracy, not a theocracy. The laws of the land are guided by the Republic Constitution, not prayer books.

Mutharika is a learned man–a lawyer by profession and decades of experience in the academia so I should believe he is aware of the issues raised here. The problem is that he is being guided by politics and a quest for more years in power. He has always stated that he will win 2019 elections. So it is about maintaining power, governance issues have to be in line with that objective or the latter suffers.

It is argued that a civilization is measured by how it treats its minorities. Our learned president has an opportunity to stay on the right side of history and lead Malawi into the right direction.

Commodification of State Resources is not the Solution

It seems like in Malawi we have found a solution to government’s perennial failures in running public services: privatise everything. Selling ‘failing’ public entities is now an easier substitute for our government’s lack of efficiency in running and managing state assets. Malawi Savings Bank (MSB) is sold. Indebank is sold. Now we are mulling over privatising mortuaries.

Those who advocated for the sale of MSB argued that governments should have no business running banks. MSB was a poster-child of this argument. There were all sorts of figures presented alongside the argument to show how MSB had ‘failed’, as if banks run themselves.

It was difficult to argue against because, as Mark Twain observed, “facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable”. To paraphrase George Canning, one can prove anything by statistics except the truth. In short, it is easy to convince anyone with statistics.Those advocating for the MSB sale played this game very well—avoid historical context on why the bank was established in the first place—apply figures instead.

Contrary to the popular argument that governments have no business running banks, governments run banks elsewhere – Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Bank in UK are state owned. But even if we were to agree that governments have no business running banks, the truth is that governments have a mandate to provide services for its people, and is it not for this purpose that MSB was established?
As a state owned bank, Malawi Savings was a public good, there to carter for all Malawians, not only the monied class who can afford savings elsewhere. Will privatised MSB fulfil this mandate? This is unlikely, regardless of the assurances by the new majority shareholders. The repeated argument that MSB has failed is ridiculous – MSB never ran itself. Why not sack those who were entrusted with the running of the bank? How will FDH Holdings run the failing bank? Is it not by bringing efficiency where it lacked?

Governments do and should run banks like MSB for the sake of the people it is mandated to cater for. Politicians should not run banks. It is politics that has failed MSB. Politicians ran the bank and it was full of political appointees. We need meritocracy in running state institutions – it is efficiency that is needed not privatising public assets.

Privatising ‘failing’ state entities instead of striving for efficiency sets a very dangerous precedent, especially in a country where majority of the people are low earners and solely depend on public services. Be mindful that the argument put forward for the MSB sale can also be used to privatise Water Board, Malawi Housing Corporation, University of Malawi, Admarc etc. All these organisations are sacking huge amount of public money. But they are kept for provision of affordable services for all.

The ‘debate’ to privatise mortuaries is taking hold. And we know it does not matter what everyone thinks – including our ‘representatives’ in parliament, government (whoever this is) could privatise mortuaries tomorrow if it pleases. The MSB sale and the arguments for its sale have set a very dangerous precedent. We must judge and hold the government to account for its failures instead of looking at privatisation as a solution.

Malawi is becoming a society where everything is seen as commodity to be sold – a typical capitalist view, and this is capitalism that Malawi, at this stage of our development cannot afford. Public services, not private services are the key to moving the current state of Malawi economy forward.

It is fine to have a market-based economy but the truth is that not everything should be a commodity to be bought and sold for a profit. Not all services and assets are for commodification. Other commodities are essential for provision of priceless public and social services; these have to be protected for the sake of the people. These are public goods. MSB was one of them – it was a noble idea that has been ruined by greedy politicians, nepotism and corruption. Unfortunately, the selling of MSB will not solve this problem. It is a problem that even the much talked about Public Services Reforms has avoided. This is the problem Malawians must fight against.

It is now time to ring-fence and protect whatever state resources Malawi is remaining with from marauding capitalists. Privatisation of mortuaries must be stopped at all cost. Malawi cannot afford to commodify everything. Commodification is a process of making unsalable things becoming salable. We need to get this right. We cannot commodify people’s lives and wellbeing.

Economic problems and crisis always provide an opportunity for governments to sale public entities. It is what author, Naomi Klein, called The Shock Doctrine; The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. It is the same trick that Bretton Woods organisations, the World Bank and International Monitory Fund (IMF), use to impose harsh economic conditions on governments. There are several cases around the world chronicled in Klein’s work.

In a country where all public services are commodified, people are no longer citizens to be protected and cushioned by their governments. Citizens become customers – mere consumers to be exploited by market forces. Public services become a subject to market forces and competition – only those with financial muscle survive.

This dilutes fundamental value that governments have a responsibility to cater for all the people regardless of their income or economic ability. A government that fails to provide services for its people has to go – it has failed its mandate. A carpenter who blames his tools for his failure is not good enough.

Will Malawi media safeguard its freedoms?

One famous Russian writer and playwright Mikhail Bulgakov once said: “I am a passionate supporter of [press] freedom, and I consider that if any writer were to imagine that he could prove he didn’t need that freedom, then he would be like a fish affirming in public that it didn’t need water.”

The media throughout the world, especially current affairs and journalism have fought and continue to fight hard for freedoms of the press, expression and access to public information, among other freedoms and rights. In Malawi, freedoms of the press and expression are guaranteed by the country’s Constitution while the battle for freedom to access public information is still on.

Today, African countries are voting more than in any other period in history. If voting is anything to go by, democracy is taking root in Africa. Consequently, most legal frameworks on the continent have liberalised media laws to make room for freedom of the media. This is also in line with Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In honour of these freedoms, May 3 was set aside as World Press Freedom Day. This year, the day is being celebrated under the theme: ‘Let Journalism Thrive! Towards Better Reporting, Gender Equality, and Society in the Digital Age’. Here in Malawi, the celebrations organised by Misa-Malawi are taking place in Mzuzu.

Malawi journalism, like elsewhere, still has a lot of challenges though, which means May 3 must be a day to celebrate media freedoms as well as a moment of reflection on persisting challenges.

Francis Nyamnjoh, Professor of Social Anthropology at University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa observes that examination of most legal frameworks in Africa reveal a craving by governments to control, which leaves little doubt that lawmakers still perceive journalists as potential troublemakers who must be policed. The tendency, he adds: “Is for new laws to grant freedom in principle while avoiding, often by administrative nexus, the curtailment of press freedom in practice.”

These issues are real in Malawi as seen through the struggle to have Access to Information Bill debated in Parliament and passed into law. The bill was drafted 15 years ago and Malawi is now with a fourth president yet the bill is still gathering dust. However, it is important to point that these obstacles are visible mostly because they hinge on national legal frameworks. Thus, it is easy to accuse the government of abusing power and stifling democratic freedoms.

Less pronounced are equally pertinent issues of media’s overreliance on corporate world for funding—through grants and advertising. Powerful national and multinational corporations throughout the world wield more power than central governments. This is not new, USA’s The Nation Magazine observed this as far back as May 1873 in its editorial: ‘The Growth of Corporate World and Decline of Government Power’. Emerging from a dictatorship where there are no media freedoms, it is easy to see why Malawi media fraternity is much more concentrated on legal frameworks rather than corporate influence.

Corporations are making obscene profits at the expense of poor Malawians. Media have to question and explain these issues. It is not enough to report on profits declared and tax paid by corporations and their various donations across the country.

These donations are only a drop in the ocean, banks and mobile phone companies are making over 100 percent profits in this country—reported by the media of course through the dreaded ‘he said or she said’ way, with little critical analysis. Corporations pay public relations officers to do their bidding. Journalism must not do the same. Even in Malawi, journalists and PR folks are fond of calling each other ‘colleagues’.

Earlier this year there was a media ‘controversy’ when President Peter Mutharika gave K50 000 to each journalists he hosted at Sanjika Palace. These were senior journalists, some of whom hold managerial positions within their organisations. Some of the journalists returned the money because they felt pocketing it would have implications on their public image and trust.

Some donated the money to various causes while others kept it. But it does not matter who did what with the money. The point is, the money rightly polarised opinion because Mutharika is a politician, a public figure and the money was rightly seen as buying favours. Some of the journalists who received the money argued that they could not be bought by K50 000.

They are right. Studies have shown that most senior reporters are well paid; it is junior reporters who get peanuts. So, perhaps, Mutharika miscalculated the move or indeed he did not mean to bribe the senior scribes.

The furore that the money caused is understandable, yet journalists do not question corporate donations and sponsorship. Corporate world, like politicians, are interested parties. They too crave favourable coverage from the media. Their public image matters too, if not much more than politicians. When we talk about media’s watchdog role, it is not just politicians at question, private sector as well.

As professors of journalism, Emily Bell, Clay Shirky and Chris Anderson from Columbia Journalism School, New York University and The City University of New York, respectively noticed in 2012:

“Journalism exposes corruption, draws attention to injustice, holds politicians and businesses accountable for their promises and duties. It informs citizens and consumers, helps organise public opinion, explains complex issues and clarifies essential disagreements. Journalism plays an irreplaceable role in both democratic politics and market economies.”

The importance of this quotation is its emphasis that journalism is not just there to keep politicians on their toes, but business and commercial interests too. The genuine worries about politicians’ money within journalism must also apply to the corporate world.

Misa-Malawi is hosting a Press Freedom Day gala with sponsorship from the corporate world. Airtel has donated K3 million and there are various awards sponsored by corporations and business interests. Misa-Malawi may not be financially independent. Yet, one wonders if such donations and sponsorship should not also be questioned, as it was rightly the case with Mutharika’s money? As press freedom is celebrated, is it not important that we also reflect on these pertinent issues engulfing the industry?

It is important that freedoms of press and speech are guaranteed and guarded by the country’s legal frameworks. Yet, it is equally important to realise that such freedoms are endangered by powerful corporations, more so that media institutions are mainly dependent on corporate world for survival.

I do not have solutions to these issues, but it is important that the media fraternity in the country recognise and open up to these pertinent issues.

Media content is not just shaped by regulations, it is also shaped by ownership and economic interests, giving corporations enormous power on media content. Restrictive media regulations do not only hamper free press and freedom of expression, it also stifles democracy and good governance. The same is the case with unguarded corporate influence. Such corporate influence is what economist Noreena Hertz called ‘Silent Takeover’, in her 2000 thesis on Global capitalism and the death of democracy. Will Malawi media stand firm and guard its freedoms from monied corporations?

Washed away: Malawi after the floods

From late December to mid-January 2015, heavy rains resulted in the worst floods in Malawi’s recent history. Predictably, the lowlands of the southern and eastern regions were most affected.
Some districts, like Chikwawa and Nsanje, are prone to flooding but were overwhelmed by the scale of the rain, which fell non-stop for four consecutive days. Figures from the Malawian government and Unicef show that the floods have so far killed 276 people, 230,000 people are homeless and 645 have been injured, while others are missing.

The government’s response was swift. President Peter Mutharika quickly declared the floods a national disaster and over half of the country’s 28 districts disaster zones. The move enabled the early mobilisation of resources, with rescue teams and relief items dispatched to the affected areas. The NGO response too, both local and international, was decisive and swift.

Praise for the prompt response should be tempered with criticism for unpreparedness. The floods were not a surprise. The worst- affected districts are flood-prone, and the rains were forecast in advance. Safety measures could have been more firmly in place. But the government only has a draft policy on natural disaster response to guide the Department of Disaster Management Affairs’ operations. In January, Mutharika admitted that Malawi needed a new policy as what was in place was insufficient.

This failing contributed to the casualty levels and costs of these floods. Laws and policies are only as good as government’s willingness to implement them. The department responsible for disasters was ill-equipped and unprepared to act with the necessary efficiency when it mattered. The 2014/15 national budget allocation to the department is not publicly available; efforts to access it have been fruitless.

Funding and personnel are needed to strengthen the department. Changes in weather patterns may have been an important contributing factor, which means such floods could become more regular.

The number of casualties, images of destroyed property, crops and the faces of the destitute are always crucial in determining the attention level of disasters. The sympathy aroused attracts humanitarian aid and media attention. The details give a sense of the horrific drama to news stories, both print and broadcast. The floods caught the attention of international media organisations that would otherwise have little interest in Malawi. But the devastation caused by these floods will be felt long after they have dried up, and media crews have departed with their flashing cameras.

By President Mutharika’s account, Malawi will face substantial food shortages this year. The floods washed away approximately 64,000 hectares of food crops, according to Unicef Malawi. Many farmers will have lean harvests. As a result, these floods could worsen the country’s already fragile economy, which is dependent on agriculture for 90% of its export revenues. Malawi’s government, alongside the International Monetary Fund, had projected GDP growth of 5.8% for 2015. But this was based on “a good agriculture season”. Projections will now have to be revised downwards.

Evidently, the government needs to confront the results of flooding with utmost seriousness. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, President Mutharika estimated that his government needed 23.9 billion Malawian Kwacha (MK), about $51 million, to recover from the damage. Malawi’s parliament, sitting in February for a mid-term budget, was due to approve 38 billion MK ($81 million) to go towards disaster relief efforts. However, figures from Unicef suggest the impact of the floods is even worse than first feared.

Unfortunately, the Malawian media is, thus far, not asking the tough questions of government. The tendency in Malawi is that local bigwigs are only too happy to “help” in front of the cameras, because being seen helping enables them to avoid criticism and enhance their reputations. Some powerful and influential politicians in Malawi sponsor journalists’ transportation and “allowances” in order to have their “donations” events covered. This skews coverage away from finding out what went wrong and what can be improved for next time, towards praising a few individuals for their ability to donate.

A local journalist, Idriss Ali Nassah, currently based in Ethiopia, accurately captured this in his Twitter posting: “If only [Malawi floods] had happened in an election year, all manner of “well-wishers” would have rushed to assist.” By “well-wishers”, Nassah meant politicians looking for votes.

In a follow-up tweet, he added: “the timing of [Malawi’s flooding] is horrible. After elections, those with the means have no appetite to help. Next election is 4 years away, anyways.” To some Malawians, these sentiments may come across as insensitive and irresponsible, because these floods have been framed as something that must unite all Malawians as they make collective efforts to help those affected.

Yet, Nassah is absolutely right: You do not need to go beyond local media coverage to see where priorities are. Details of donations, by size and giver, fill local media reports. There are no hard questions and analysis of the government’s response and its lack of preparedness to deal with the floods. The feeling is that those who dare question are out there to derail noble efforts by the administration and the “well-wishers”.

As it is, there are still a lot of bodies being recovered and a lot more missing people are feared dead. Are these bodies identifiable? Are they being buried in mass graves? These human stories are not being told because even the media are afraid of being seen as unsympathetic. Yet, the country needs to confront these uncomfortable truths if Malawi, as a country, is going to learn lessons and manage future disasters better.

Why won’t the Malawian media report on crazy mobile phone rates?

BBC recently reported that the average Malawian spends more than MK5400 (US$12) a month. That’s more than half the average monthly income in Malawi. Proportionate to earnings, Malawi has the most expensive mobile phone rates in the world.

There is no shortage of complaints within Malawi about expensive phone tariffs but this report (based on findings by the International Telecommunications Union) shows the extent of the problem. For a week, following the report, I monitored local newspapers reports and the mobile phone rates received no coverage at all. Not even by the growing number of columnists and opinion writers.

Why the silence on a story that is obviously of pressing concern to ordinary Malawians, and which made a splash internationally?

Only Nyasa Times, Malawi’s populist news website, republished a copy and paste version of BBC’s piece. Newspapers are the main agenda setters within local media in Malawi, and they didn’t cover the story at all.

There are two major mobile phone companies in the country, Airtel Malawi and TNM. These are also the main providers of mobile internet. Those familiar with the political economy of the local media will understand the media blackout on the mobile rates story. Like the rest of the world, Malawi’s newspaper industry depends on advertising revenue and mobile phone companies have become indispensable source of that revenue. The media industry cannot afford to get on the wrong side of these mobile phone corporations.

For a long time, the Malawian government and NGOs were the largest advertisers but mobile phone companies have now taken over because they are very consistent advertisers and they buy prime space in bulk —daily space for a whole year in some cases. There is fierce competition between the duopoly of Airtel Malawi and TNM and this drives the need for endless media advertising between the two.

An insider working with Airtel says: “all mobile phones companies buy strip ads [advertising banners on the bottom of front and back page] for the whole year.”

A look at a whole week’s run of the country’s two dailies, The Nation and The Daily Times shows strip ads alternating between the two mobile phone companies. If Airtel has a front page on Monday, TNM will have the back page, and on Tuesday it is the other way round.

According to the insider, these strip ads are worth MK180 000 (US$400) a day, which means newspapers make roughly MK131 million (US$291,111) annually from strip ads alone. Add these strip ads to various full-page adverts worth an average of MK280 000 (US$622) per advert, and you see that the revenue is colossal.

The insider said, of course the government and NGOs are important but they are not as valuable as mobile phone companies because government and NGOs mostly place job vacancies and press statements, which are neither daily nor in colour—which is more expensive, and they do not book expensive prime spots like front and back pages.

This explains the newspaper blackout on the mobile phones rates story. The mobile phone companies may not issue editorial directives but, as they say, only a foolish dog bites the hand that feeds it. Newspapers know exactly what to do. Of course the local media always have a go at politicians, the government and the civil society.

The media responsibility, always, is to hold to account those holding public positions. But this must include powerful corporations that rip off poor Malawians, 75 per cent of whom live on less than US$2 a day.

Of course Malawi media does a lot of commendable work reporting on government excesses and corruption in high places but the media know that they can afford to get on the wrong side of the government and politicians. The media know they have a public backing should the government withdraw advertising revenue or bring draconian media laws. This was the case in 2010 when the government of the late Bingu wa Mutharika threatened to withdraw advertising with some private media houses such as the Nation Publications Limited.

In 2007 Blantyre Newspaper Limited (BNL) were forced to retract a story they reported on a love triangle involving a Catholic priest, a banker and a married woman. The woman’s husband was seeking divorce in court after discovering that the wife was having an affair with the two men.

At the time BNL had a debt with the bank where the involved banker worked and his influence forced the immediate retraction of the story despite the fact that the story was based on a case that took place in an open court. Caroline Somanje, a journalist who wrote the story and BNL General Manager were fired from BNL for no editorial reasons, as BNL alleged, but for being insensitive to BNL’s financial interests.

Corporations in Malawi have more media influence than the government. Sadly, most people only pay attention to government’s efforts to muzzle the press, most through threats and regulation. This means corporate powers in Malawi are left unchecked. It would not surprise me that mobile phone companies also have financial support of the political establishment. Political parties in Malawi are not mandated to disclose their sources of income, and so they don’t.

Unwritten Rule that Fosters Corruption in Malawi

It is now two years since Malawi was rocked by its biggest government corruption scandal in history. The systematic looting of public coffers by civil servants, private contractors and politicians saw them steal US$31 million from government coffers.

It is estimated that about 35% of government funds have been stolen over the past decade. The country’s national budget for 2013-14 was about US$1.3 billion (630.5 billion Kwachas) at today’s exchange rate.

But has the country learnt anything from its biggest scandal that saw donors withdraw support?

The University of Malawi’s Blessings Chinsinga recently pointed out that:
… efforts to root out corruption do not stick because the existing institutional milieu makes it almost impossible to introduce changes that can effectively stamp out corruption.

The observation is instructive in that the scandal spans two political administrations. Malawi was led by the late president Bingu wa Mutharika in 2004 and the scandal unravelled on the watch of Joyce Banda in 2013.

A number of factors contribute to the current state of affairs.

There is no clear distinction between a party in power and government activities in Malawi, unlike in established democracies. In Malawi, the party in power is the de facto government.

In Malawi, a party in power calls itself boma (a government). Ordinary Malawians look at abuse of state resources by those in power as acceptable. It is almost impossible to tell a party in power from the government.

Even more serious is the fact that political parties in Malawi are not mandated to declare their sources of funding. This breeds corruption and fosters abuse of public resources. This is not unique to Malawi. But in countries like Botswana, hailed as one of the model democracies on the continent, they at least have a debate on political party funding. Debates are also taking place in Nigeria and South Africa, respectively the continent’s largest and second-largest economies.

Another contributing factor is that after 21 years of multiparty democracy, governance in Malawi remains heavily centralised. Although the country has been independent since 1964, it only became a democracy in 1994.

Until then, it had been a one-party state decreed by its first post-colonial leader Kamuzu Banda, who banned political parties. He became president for life in 1971. Since 1994, the country has had local government representation for only six years – from 1999 to 2004 and from 2014 to now.

The central government has been reluctant to relinquish some of its powers. The president makes even the smallest of decisions and undertakes mundane tasks that should be reserved for line ministries. This encourages a system of patronage.

Lastly, government contracts, tenders and board memberships all go to sympathisers of the party in power and not necessarily to the best bidder or the most competent applicant. Government sympathisers or ruling party members get contracts regardless of their levels of competence.

This unfairly benefits the incumbents and weakens opposition parties. Businesspeople are afraid of funding opposition parties because they could lose state contracts and other business opportunities.

Malawians have always known that corruption is rife in the country. But the sheer size of the Cashgate scandal, both in terms of the amount and the wide number of people involved, has shown how deeply rooted the problem is.

The involvement of the country’s political class in the scandal is in stark contradiction to their penchant for standing on political campaign podiums promising to fight corruption with all their might.

Most of the people implicated in the Cashgate scandal were either members of the then-ruling People’s Party or its sympathisers.

There is an unwritten rule in Malawi that successful businesspeople align themselves with the governing party in order to protect their property and gain more contracts.

An aunt of Oswald Lutepo, thus far the main Cashgate convict and serving 11 years in jail, was heard in court lamenting that her nephew was advised that he did not need to join politics as he was already a successful businessman and multimillionaire. At the time of his arrest Lutepo was deputy director of recruitment in the People’s Party.

The aunt’s lament is instructive: people join politics in Malawi mainly to make money. In terms of this logic, the 37-year-old Lutepo was already a millionaire. He should have stayed out of it.

But he could not escape the lure of more riches that flow from being close to those in power. He knew the unwritten rule for success in Malawi only too well:

If you are unsuccessful, support the ruling party because this is where opportunities are.

Malawi is still learning to cope without support from donors and the jury is still out on whether it has learnt anything from its biggest scandal. A recent article in African Arguments underlines the hopeless feeling that Cashgate has left among most Malawians:

Malawi’s self-enriching officials need to know they will be judged not just by an imperfect judicial system, but by generation upon future generation of their compatriots.

Presidential powers, a problem Malawians must confront

The recent announcement that President Peter Mutharika is to relinquish some of the presidential powers is a welcome development, and well overdue, given that he is Malawi’s fourth democratic president. Even though the reduction of presidential powers was one of the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) election promises, we all know that electoral promises are not always met.

Successive Afrobarometer studies have established that when it comes to national issues majority of Malawians are more worried about food security, stabilisation of economy and national security, among the top issues. Presidential powers are nowhere on the list. This makes the announcement more interesting because it shows that it is not necessarily a populist decision from Mutharika, even though it has some elements of it. The announcement indicates some breakaway from tradition—Mutharika’s three democratic predecessors; Bakili Muluzi, Bingu wa Mutharika and Joyce Banda, respectively were all populist leaders–always pandering to perceived popular opinion.

For a country that has been massively affected by floods that have displaced hundreds of people and have killed 176 people with several others still missing, it is understandable that this important story did not gain much traction. Yet, the short history of democratic Malawi attests to the fact that abuse of presidential powers is by far the major culprit in Malawi,insofar as good governance and public service delivery are concerned. Presidents in Malawi have had too much power, and at a great cost to poor Malawians.

In Malawi there is no difference between the public service, especially senior positions, and sympathisers of the ruling party. Inevitably, this undermines professionalism and compromises the difference that must be there between the party in power and the public service. This diffusion leads to abuse of state resources by the party in power. I do not know how long is the piece of rope or how genuine is the announcement to reduce presidential powers but such move would definitely be a major step for Malawi democracy.

Recently the State Vice President, Saulosi Chilima told an audience of senior media practitioners that the public reforms that he has been tasked to oversee is a process that must be inclusive and involve all Malawians. The language is good, but this is a common statement in Malawi when things are not going well. Those in power and their ‘sympathisers’ are always happy to make national problems everyone’s responsibility. Yet, always want to claim all the credit when there is a success. Success is always a responsibility of the privileged few whom we must praise.

My immediate reaction to Chilima’s calls was: How can anything being championed by the government be inclusive when everything involving Malawi government is wrapped in political party colours, this time DPP’s blue? How many members of this Public Service Reform Commission are not members or sympathisers of the ruling party?

Letting go some of the presidential powers is good a move as I have said above but depoliticising government and state operations and activities is far more important than many care to think. The idea of all Malawians taking responsibility for reforms such as Chilima’s will not work until the government starts to listen to its critics and not only seeing them as adversaries out to derail government’s efforts. Honest critics are much more important than political party zealots telling you everything you want to hear.

Presidents ought to be questioned and challenged. This is not currently the case in Malawi. I am not sure if letting some presidential powers go is in line with the public service reforms but the two must go together like conjoined twins. It is one and the same. If this were to work, it would save Malawi and Malawians a great deal of money.

Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC) is currently pressing for Joyce Banda to reimburse the money she used to buy maize she distributed during her campaign. Presidents must be questioned and the source of such resources, where necessary, be stopped right away. This can only happen whilst the president is still in power. As it is, it seems like MHRC is fighting a lost cause.

The fight must be to change the system now. Chasing the shadows of retired presidents for financial reimbursement will not stop the looting today. It is important to make it possible that the incumbency be stopped while at it rather than wait until they relinquish power.

Muluzi ruled, now has a corruption case in court, Bingu came and accumulated wealth suspiciously, Joyce Banda came and MHRC are now demanding reimbursement from her. What is being done to stop the looting and abuse of state resources today? This is the challenge that has to be confronted. Mutharika’s directive for reforms and reduction of presidential powers shows he is aware of this problem. But politicians will not solve it; they created it after all.

Calling Malawians ‘lazy’ for their plight is misguided and self-Defeating

“The realities of the modern global economy require government to play a substantial role in ensuring the national and economic security of the people.” ~ Matthew Continetti

One the advantages of publishing online are instant responses and feedback you get from a wider audience – albeit a similar demographic. Some comments are abusive, mostly attacking the author. Not engaging with the content. Yet, there are also critical and engaging comments. I pay attention to the latter and I learn from it.

I mainly write on socioeconomic, development and political issues. I do not hide from the fact that Malawi is a very poor country, with poor public services and unscrupulous leaders – bordering on fraudsters, think cashgate. I believe Malawi can do much better and I believe the government and political leadership have a critical role in this. Yet, the most recurring point from commenters is that scribes, civil society and the intellectual community are fond of blaming the government while they contribute very little if anything towards national development. Others simply say Malawians are poor because they are “lazy”.

Here, “lazy” implies that Malawians always want their government to provide for them. The argument is in the similar lines to the former USA President, John F Kennedy’s (JFK) famous assertion: “… ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” It is a plausible view but only if taken into the right context. is concerned. There is only so much that citizens can achieve without what economists call ‘invisible arm’ of the state.difference
In her highly acclaimed book, The Entrepreneurial State, (2013) Marianna Mazzucato, economics professor at Sussex University, England observed that some of the most successful innovations of the modern world such as the internet, the web, GPS, algorithm search, which search engines such as Google and Yahoo! use, most of software used in slick Apple products and social networks such as Facebook all benefit from USA government’s huge investment in research and development (R&D).

The core argument of the book is that states have a key role to play in backing new innovations and entrepreneurship, through investment in R&D among other things. In this case, the USA, a home to all the aforementioned products, laid a foundation for success of its citizens and companies. Thus, JFK’s call to his fellow citizens to not only ask from their government but also contribute to its success is justifiable.

Has Malawi government invested enough if at all in R&D? Has Malawi taken right steps to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship? This is a question we must consider, carefully, before start labelling Malawians “lazy”. The “lazy” card must be measured against available opportunities. Majority of Malawians work very hard for very little. Poor Malawians do all the backbreaking farming and dreaded jobs in both private and public sectors. Yet, they remain poor because of unfair economic system at play. It is the political economy, stupid.

In previous column I argued that majority of Malawians have become fatalistic. One of the commenters insisted on “laziness” being the problem. He pointed out that though the majority of Malawians rely on agriculture, they only work about three to four months of year – meaning in their fields. It is a valid argument and I have come across it many times before.

Yet, this overlooks the fact that agriculture in Malawi is not mechanised, and it remains rain-fed – most of it. It is impossible that most Malawians can cultivate more than once a year. Manual farming work is backbreaking, there is only so much folks can do. There is a need for state intervention: investment in mechanised agriculture and make irrigation farming a reality, on a grand scale.

The lack of mechanised farming in Malawi goes beyond manual work in farms. It also contributes to land sales because as it is, land – the only valuable asset that majority of Malawians have, is labour intensive and not capital intensive. This is why most Malawians are happy to sell their land because they see no benefit from it – worsening their poverty. Farming is very expensive in Malawi and the state has done very little to make it affordable and attractive.

There is farm input subsidies programme (FISP) but this is a merely political programme. It is the gesture that matters. No one cares what happens once the subsidies have been distributed. Estimates show that postharvest loss in Malawi is at 30% annually. Yet, the state is not taking investment in technologies to cub these losses seriously if at all. Leaving everything to profit making multinational corporations. No wonder FISP has failed to reduce the number of beneficiaries. On the contrary, the number of beneficiaries has increased.

Calling Malawians lazy for their plight only is misguided and it is self-defeating. I know some who was keeping cattle for milk production. Around 2009 he started investing in equipment for cheese production. He was going to add five to his five and six permanent and seasonal workers, respectively. This would help reducing unemployment, extra tax revenue for the government and more utility bills for its struggling parastatals.

All these plans were abandoned around 2010/ 11 when Malawi economy nosedived, epitomised by dry fuel pumps, lack of foreign currency, constant electricity outages and frozen aid due the late Bingu wa Mutharika’s kamikaze economic policies and poor governance. This is why it is naïve to think that progress and prosperity can be detached from politics.

Any company, organisation or business venture needs healthy, educated and workers, it is the state that is entrusted with providing good health and education services. Businesses need reliable electricity, reliable communications infrastructure, good road networks etc. All these services are provided by the state. Where these services are patchy or absent entrepreneurship will struggle. This subject can take so many angles; this is one of them.

President Mutharika must not demand from Malawians what his govt won’t do

It looks like the reality of the so-called Zero-Aid Budget is slowly sinking in; it is now at the intersection where wishes and reality collide. For the first time President Peter Mutharika has publicly appealed to Malawians and corporations to honour their tax obligations as his government is slowly coming to terms with absence of up to 40% of budgetary support, which donors are withholding due to Cashgate, and the government’s subsequent failure to satisfactorily address the issue by bringing to book all the culprits and ensuring the donors that there will be no repeat of such a systematic looting of state resources by civil servants, politicians and private business people close to the ruling elite.

President Mutharika reportedly told a public rally recently in Balaka that: “let us all pay taxes to have some money to run our country. We are now on our own there is no one who is going to give us money.” Of course Mutharika is referring to the aforementioned frozen budget support. What is also important to note here is the fact that donor countries and donor agencies continue to fund some of the country’s key programmes in health sector, education, food security and many other areas.

This is important to acknowledge because it shows that donors are not out to punish Malawians in whose name the budgetary support is given. On the contrary this shows that donors are merely demanding accountability and transparency in how Malawi government run its finances.

Cynics would have questioned whether it was a coincidence that President Mutharika’s statement was made around the same time that his government finally released the much anticipated Cashgate audit report, which was instituted by the Joyce Banda administration as a way establishing exactly what happened and who was involved in the Cashgate scam.

I find it hard to believe that the audit report has genuinely been released for the benefit of Malawians. It is a curious report that makes you wonder what was it exactly that the government was trying to hide from the public because the report has very little if anything at all that was not already a public knowledge. Perhaps the secretive culture within Malawi government is now so entrenched that the government is even happy to hide empty information from Malawians just because it can.

Successive administrations in Malawi have ruled and do things with impunity, to the extent that now Malawi government or whoever is in power feel belittled when its taxpaying citizens demand what belongs to Malawians, including information. Yet, Malawi leaders are always happy to ask Malawians to be patriotic and make whatever contribution they can towards the advancement of the country.

Curiously, Malawi government has always felt more obliged to answer or make themselves more accountable to the donors, not its citizens. Well, expect when donors stand in the line of one’s political ambitions, Bakili Mulizi’s third term and Bingu wa Mutharika’s fallout with Joyce Banda when he wanted Peter Mutharika to succeed him comes to mind. Yet donors only contribute up to 40% of the budget, Malawians make up for the rest.

Perhaps Malawi government is aware that unlike Malawians, donors have the clout to act. Malawians are only good at whining. Perhaps this is where the government’s “so what” attitude towards its people comes from? Perhaps this is the same reason President Mutharika had the audacity to ask Malawians to honour their tax obligations when his government fails to take any steps towards ensuring transparency and accountability.

If Malawi government was willing to do things transparently there could not been any problems with be donors by now. This is all the donors are asking for. I am sure it is the same thing that every honest and patriotic Malawian would ask for.

Of course paying tax is a noble duty, as painful as it is. Yet, it also has to be said that paying tax is a social contract between government and its people. People pay tax in exchange for efficient public services delivery. Taxpayers have a right to demand receipts if they feel services are inadequate or if not rendered at all. Simple. Yet, demanding this kind of openness in Malawi is a controversial thing.

So, Mr President, please improve transparency and accountability within the government before you could ask for honest from the overtaxed Malawi taxpayers. Passing access to information bill, which I understand has been gathering dust for over a decade, and opening up on political party funding and political campaign expenses is a good start point. Otherwise how can you demand from your people what your own administration is unwilling to do? It is a give and take situation, not one-way traffic.