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

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” ~ Thomas Paine

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.

A country is as civilised as its most vulnerable citizen, where is Malawi on this?

In the last three weeks or so I have written few articles as well as commentary on social media, mostly on Twitter and Tumblr, on what I consider social, economic and political injustices in Malawi. I believe there is a silent warfare going on in the country, failure in governance, poor service delivery and security breakdown is mostly blamed on poor people, the marginalised majority of this country. Issues of selective ‘justice’ are not new but constant blaming of the poor people for government’s failures is becoming endemic. It time we have a serious discourse on this.
In the last month also we have seen a ‘security sweep’ by the security forces across the country’s major cities and towns, at least 2119 people were arrested. It is not known how many of these folks have been charged and given a fair chance to defend themselves in courts. The chances are that we will never know because those arrested are nobodies and even the media that reported on their arrest, of course without names, will not report follow-up stories on their cases. Being poor is a serious crime.

These arrests were justified by a number of high profile robberies in the country – including a break-in at the State Vice President’s house and an organised bank robbery in Mzuzu. It takes high profile cases such as these for the state to act, there are robberies happening through the country, in places without address where voiceless people reside and nobody gives a hoot about it. But when high places are hit, you go on the streets and arrest struggling folk in the name of strengthening security. Whatever happened to freedom of movement?

Does anyone serious think the organised bank robbery like that in Mzuzu can be carried by ordinary folks loitering the streets in a broad day light? Serious crimes in this country are committed by executives in their expensive suits, chuffer driven in SUV cars – release names in the cashgate forensic audit report and you will see the real culprits keep this poor country on its knees. As American rapper Immortal Technic aptly said, “poverty makes people do reckless things but [the rich] do worse to protect their [interests]”.

In a similar fashion, one year after cashgate revelations there has been only one conviction and the government still will not release names of those named in forensic audit instituted by the same government in order to bring all the culprits to book. If Malawi is struggling today, failing to provide social and economic security to its people it is because, among other things, government’s failure to curb corruption.

‘Zero-aid’ budget sounds good but in reality you might as well call it cashgate budget, a supposed solution to Malawi government’s failure address the issue of cashgate sufficiently and satisfactorily.

On Monday last week traders on M1 between Bunda Turn, or perhaps Bunda Roundabout now, to St John’s in Lilongwe went to their trading places only to find their goods stalls razed down to the ground by Lilongwe City Council operatives who came overnight, like typical arsonist, to burn the trading places apparently because it was illegal to trade in those places. I understand that Bunda turn off is even outside the jurisdiction of Lilongwe city country and the place where folks were trading is a private land, owned by someone I know.

These traders are simply there to earn an honest living. Those that frequented St John’s market will know that majority of these traders were hardworking women trying to feed their families. It is usually the case that when government is failing to provide basic social and economic services that it turns to the weakest members of the society in order to be seen as doing something. The problem is that this does not solve any problem; it exacerbates the problem if anything. You cannot guarantee national security by taking away people’s livelihoods. Where will these traders earn their living now? Have the authorities provided any solutions?

There is a class warfare going on in Malawi and the country needs a serious discourse on it. Academics and intellectuals must take lead on this. As Noam Chomsky noted, it is responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies. This sounds and straightforward but for the modern intellectual, adds Chomsky, it is not at all obvious. Chomsky quotes Martin Heidegger writing in 1933 thus: “truth is the revelation of that which makes a people certain, clear, and strong in its action and knowledge.” Adding that it is only this kind of “truth” that one has a responsibility to speak.

The deceit, distortion and false ideology entrenched in our society that poor people are the most culpable for social disorder should be publicly challenged and intellectuals should take lead in challenging this notion and set the record straight. People indulging in petty crime are themselves victims of often unpunished high-level corruption.

Yet perpetrators of cashgate are free to roam simply because they have stakes in higher society and can afford legal representation, justice for those who can afford it. Unless this changes I do not see how Malawi can move forward as a country. A country is as progressive as its most vulnerable citizen. Where do we position Malawi on this? A country can have progressive laws and structures but very little progress can be made in absence of social and economic justice.

Malawi tightens budget strings to placate foreign aid donors

The Malawi government has presented its budget for the next financial year, which has been designed to regain donor confidence and encourage political stability at home.

It is President Peter Mutharika’s first budget since coming to power in May, after his victory over Joyce Banda. Mutharika needs to win back the confidence of donors, who are withholding 40% of budgetary support following allegations of corruption and systematic looting of state resources by senior civil servants and politicians.

The budget has been called “zero-aid”, and it has a 107bn kwacha (£167m) deficit. So far, the government has not explained how it will cover the deficit. Curiously, the government has not raised taxes, as many commentators predicted. This could be a way of encouraging stability, by not burdening Malawians with increased taxes during a time of economic turbulence.

But Billy Mayaya, a local human rights activist, says that although as a concept a zero-aid budget is good, this one is not well thought through. “Therefore, the outlook looks pretty gloomy,” he says.

It is not the first time Malawi has had to do without some budget support. During the 2011-12 fiscal year, under President Bingu wa Mutharika (the current president’s older brother) donors withdrew budgetary support because of poor governance and the then president’s increasing autocracy. He resorted to a “zero-deficit” budget in defiance of the donor community, implying Malawi could do well enough on its own. The principle this time is not very different, except that the government is not pretending it can do without donor support.

The zero-deficit budget led to fuel shortages, erratic power supplies and the scarcity of commodities such as sugar. This was largely caused by lack of foreign exchange to import goods and raw materials. Aid was resumed under Banda’s presidency, after Bingu wa Mutharika’s sudden death in April 2012.

There are fears that shortages could occur again. Rex Chikoko, a news analyst with the Nation newspaper, says the budget has failed to address the basic needs of ordinary Malawians. He is also worried about the huge deficit, saying the government has failed to explain how it will be addressed.

“[The government has] failed to enlighten Malawians where the extra money is going to come from. The government envisages that MRA [a revenue collector] will collect about MWK535bn in revenue. With no prospects of aid the budget was pegged at MWK729bn. There is a huge deficit,” says Chikoko.

The government has avoided the seemingly straightforward route of raising taxes for political reasons. Mutharika still needs to win over the majority of Malawians – 64% did not vote for him. But Chikoko thinks the government may eventually have to raise taxes, increase fees for government services, and resort to local borrowing to plug the deficit. The finance minister, Goodall Gondwe, said in his presentation that the government may present supplementary budgets where necessary. These budgets could provide the government with an opportunity to raise taxes and fees, as Chikoko predicts.

Most local economists however have described the budget as “prudent”, but have warned about fiscal discipline. Economist Thomas Munthali told the Nation that the budget was “prudent because of the assumption of a lack of donor support, the exchange rate and the pledges on economic reforms”. He said the restoration of fiscal discipline was a key issue.

Mathews Chikaonda, a former finance minister and now chief executive officer of the country’s largest conglomerate, Press Corporation Limited, shared Munthali’s sentiments in an interview with the same paper.

Managing fiscal discipline will be a tricky issue for the government. Three months into the office, Mutharika’s cabinet ministers have already demanded a 600% pay increase, which the president has so far turned down. The ministers’ attitude is contemptible, not only because of the financial turbulence Malawi is going through but also because the majority of Malawians live bellow the poverty line and service delivery remains very poor.

For the ministers, these demands are “normal” because of the lavish lifestyles successive administrations have offered. It is what Blessings Chinsinga, political economist at Chancellor College, University of Malawi, calls “incentive culture”. Financial gains are what incentivise people into politics, not willingness to serve their country. To ensure the fiscal discipline that the zero-aid budget demands, Mutharika needs to keep the “incentive culture” in check.

Empty political promises and the fallacy of podium policies in Malawi

“Every politician has a promising career. Unfortunately, most of them do not keep those promises.” ~ Jarod Kintz

Malawians have developed a culture of falling for empty political promises and political leaders are making the most of it. One would think that after 20 years of democracy the country should be at a point where some of the mistakes must not be repeated. Why do we continue to fall for empty political promises our leaders make on political podium, press conferences and meetings with interest groups?

Since 1994 Malawi leaders have been full of promises that are never met, mostly because these promiseswere never genuine in the first place. President Peter Mutharika has been in power for less than 100 days and it is unfair to judge him alongside his three “democratic” predecessors – Bakili Muluzi, Bingu wa Mutharika and Joyce Banda.

President Mutharika
President Mutharika

Peter Mutharika has so far shown some signs that he may do some things differently – again, it is too early to judge. But last week he showed that he is happy to continue with what I call “podium policies”. These are promises that are made on a political podium in order to excite the listening crowds; statements that are made in press conferences in order to gate away with tricky questions or to manipulate positive headlines, there are statements that are made in meetings with interest groups in order to satisfy people’s ego and expectations. Podium policies are rarely, if at all, fulfilled.

On his recent Africa/ US summit in Washington, USA, President Mutharika promised a group of Malawians in diaspora that he would look into their request on allowing dual citizenship in Malawi. The issue of dual citizenship has been around for sometime but Mutharika made this promise in response to a request from the said group of Malawians. As such, it is important to underline the fact that this was not a policy commitment by any means; it was a response to a question the President needed to answer.

President Mutharika may yet be in favour of dual citizenship, after all he has lived in diaspora himself for the majority of his adult life but I would be happy to know why this was not among his campaign pledges, which I must say had some progressive promises.

I am sceptical of this because the last 20 years of democracy in Malawi has given me enough reasons to. The country is full of sad stories of unfulfilled promises our leaders have made, and they get away with it. Part of the reason is that the local media tend to report stories unchallenged and without proper context – what is known as “he said, she said,” reporting. Let us make it clear that president’s promises are not a national policy, yet that can be carried forward even with a change in leadership.

Malawi has had 3 presidents between 2012 and 2014. In a democracy sometimesleadership change can be this swift and chaotic. You cannot follow up personal promises such as this one. If folks want policy changes, it is important to follow proper channels, or institute some if there is not any. As much as the president wields a lot of power in this country, we must realise that a president is not boma, as political zealots make us believe. Presidents come and go; government must carry forward a state policy, regardless who is in power.

Podium policies have never worked in Malawi. Two stories that provide some context and perspective on this were reported in the local press last month. Sunday Times of July 13th 2014 reported a story on the late Michael Sauka’s family. Mr Sauka is a composer of the Malawi Nation Anthem. The headline read: “[Michael] Sauka not fully honoured”.

The headline is not entirely accurate because history tells us that Mr Sauka won a national anthem composing competition and he was duly paid for his wonderful work. Anything that goes his way is a token of appreciation, not obligation. But you cannot blame Sauka’s for thinking otherwise. For some reason, the former president, Bakili Muluzi went to the family and made promises. To the family, this was a government promise. Bakili ndi boma,after all.

The late Sauka’s grandson, Wisdom Sauka, told the newspaper that the family was concerned a government’s promise to build them a family house has not been honoured. “We tried to pursue the matter through other channels but were pushed from one corner to the other. What else we could have done?”Sunday Times quoted Sauka. The grandson added:

“I do recall that our family was once called to meet the former president Bakili Muluzi at his private residence in 2004. He then started paying our house rentals in Ndirande but that did not last long due to change of government.”

Nation on Sunday of July 27th 2014 reported a similar story. This one was on families of July 20, 2011 demonstrations shooting victims those in the north. “Families want APM to end July 20 lies” was the headline. The “lies” President Mutharika is supposed to end were promises made by the former President Joyce Banda – never a state policy.

According to the paper, in 2012 Mrs Banda ordered the Ministry of Tourism and Culture to construct tombstones for the victims. Now that Mrs Banda is no longer a State President her promises are unlikely to be honoured, it was her own project, not a government policy. “The unmarked graves mirror lies and broken promises that have paved their [families of the victims] futile wait”, the newspaper aptly concluded.

Here we have it: Malawi politicians thrive on people’s misery, desperations and helplessness. As a country, we must learn and depart from this skewed way of think. We must use proper lobbing channels and ways to influence policies instead of dealing with presidents as individuals. A state president is not bom aand government policies are not made on a podium. What is said on podiums is for political ends.

Malawi media at 50: Achievements and challenges

July 2014 is gone. A month that was littered with reports, essays, comments and analysis reflecting on Malawi’s 50th independence anniversary, time will tell whether any of it will help change direction of the country for the better. Conspicuously missing from these reflections is the media, the very vehicle that has carried these messages to the masses.

This dawned on me on 6th July after Gracious Mulinga, a Chancellor College student working with Chanco Community Radio, sought my views on Malawi media in the 50 years of the country’s independence. It is undisputable fact that media, particularly news media is integral part of any state. This is one of the reasons the media is referred to as the fourth estate of the government.

The history of Malawi media is as complex as the country’s political environment. It cannot be fully tackled in a single column entry such as this but there are significant pointers that provide a comprehensive understanding of the profession, just as the rest of the articles analysing various sectors of the economy.

Any analysis of Malawi media must take into account the fact that the country two distinct dispensation in its 50 years of independence. The first 30 years of dictatorship and so far 20 years of multiparty democracy. Media does not operate in a vacuum; they resemble and act in tandem with political environment of the day. This means Malawi has also had two distinct political environments in the last 50 years.

The often cited argument by the latter day leaders of Malawi is that the local media must be grateful for whatever freedom they enjoy today because there was no such a thing as freedom of the press under Kamuzu’s reign, as if there were any freedoms to speak of. Notwithstanding the latter point, the observation is correct but the argument is wrong.

You cannot expect media freedom in a dictatorship where civil liberties and personal freedoms are curtailed. This something that must be expected in democracies. Demanding kudos for providing media freedom in a democracy is, frankly, preposterous. Communications scholar, Dennis McQuail, observed that there has always been a tetchy relationship between mass communication and the conduct of politics in every kind of regime.

He noted that in totalitarian or authoritarian societies ruling elite use means of communication to ensure conformity and compliance and stifle state dissent while in democracies the media have a complex relationship with sources of power and political system in their quest to inform the citizenry on matters of national interest, as the media ought to.

Lack of media freedom under Kamuzu was cruel but in line with the regime of the day. In 1993 we voted against Kamuzu’s authoritarianism and media laws were liberalised in line with the new media environment. The implication of having one party state is that everyone shares ideology of that part by default. Under Kamuzu, the role of the media was simply to report on what Kamuzu and MCP hierarchy had to say and wanted reported. No need for media pluralism.

On the other hand, media pluralism is a must in democratic societies. They must take into account and try to represent as much diverse views and opinion as possible. In democracies, the media act as a connective tissue between citizens and their elected representatives. Traditional liberal media theory asserts that the media must provide a platform for public discourse and facilitate the formation of public opinion.

This must include the provision of space for the expression of dissent without which the notion of democratic consensus would be meaningless; media in democracies have a duty to inform the electorate to allow them to make informed decisions as they choose their leaders; media in democracies have a duty to promote transparency and hold public office holders and corporations into account. The list is endless.

These are among some key areas where analysis of today’s Malawi media must base on. Malawi media have made some great strides, especially providing checks and balances. Malawi has a small but vibrant press that is always willing to publish exposés and guard against abuse of power.

The worrying thing is the missing link between what is exposed in the press and any necessary action from respective stakeholders. This is manly because within the corridors of power media practitioners are still considered as troublemakers and not partners in guarding against corruption, abuse of power and agents of what is called good governance.

The notion of troublemakers may partly be rooted in the fact that the local media sometimes come across as overzealous in our pursuit politicians while we let corporation exploitation unchecked. Politicians are easy targets. For instance, statistics show that Malawi is one of the most expensive mobile phone rates but this is never questioned. Recently I read on Consumers Association of Malawi’s John Kapito pointing out that services from our mobile phones services are not good either.

Alongside poor understanding on its role as a watchdog, this owes it, in part, to political economical of the media. Everywhere in the world media are never entirely free from political and economic interests of the powerful. Tune in to any national radio or open newspapers, you will be greeted with mobile phone companies adverts, they are everywhere. I do not know how much local media make from it but I am sure it is substantial. It is often unwritten rule but only a fool bites a figure that feeds.

This is not limited to corporations. Government and its subsidiaries are perhaps biggest advertisers and they interfere. In 1999 Sam Mpasu, then a cabinet minister in Bakili Muluzi administration admitted to Article 19 that Muluzi administration had a policy of withdrawing advertisements from media organisations that were antagonistic to the ruling party interests.

In 2010 Bingu wa Mutharika government borrowed this policy to deny The Nation newspaper advertising revenue, as he saw the newspaper as hostile to the administration. These threats are real because media organisations thrive on advertising revenue, which most, if not all, news organisations would fold.

The increasing number of broadcasting stations and freedom to publish, online and offline somewhat obscures these points and paints a rosy picture of media pluralism in the country. Yet, this is not entirely the case. Media pluralism itself is often challenged by deeply underlying cultural and religious issues. Media pluralism does not only point to a big number of broadcasting and publishing houses but also diversity and range of views carried.

It was much easy for most Malawians to accept political changes but most people, including the media are reluctant to accept some cultural changes in our midst. Using phrases like Malawi is God fearing nation, national culture and tradition, Malawi has remained intolerant to subcultural and minority groups. Much of the reporting reflects these societal traits.

As I noted earlier, media workers do not live in a vacuum, they belong to the same societies they report on and it is not difficult to see why most of the media content appear to reflect on what reporters think the general public or the majority of the audience and readers wants to hear and see. It is not uncommon to hear media organisations boasting that they report what people want.

Fine, but not enough. Yet, it is also the role of the media to report what people need, and sometimes this means confronting uncomfortable truths and confronting received and accepted wisdom. The local media can do much better on this later point.

As much as media democracy is a game of majority, media content must not only reflect the perceived view of the majority. Media must always seek to dig and report the truth even if it means confronting majority views and going against the grain. To pity minorities against majority is equal to mob justice, not democracy.

It is not enough for the media to only present views of the prominent people such as cabinet ministers, senior men and women of religion etc. a balanced report must also seek and include views of minorities and subordinate groups. Give equal access to all groups, big and small, only this would we have honest and fair discourse on all issues of national importance from which equitable policies could be formed. As a media fraternity, let us build on our gains to promote an equitable and fair Malawi for all.

I write for the love of Malawi

A certain sections of Malawians has what I would call “nauseating culture” whereby people do not want to accept that there are Malawians out there who act purely in the interest of the country and not to please anyone or advance personal political interests. I have observed this through comments on this column and articles I have published elsewhere. This is article addresses the issue.

I started writing this column because I felt I could make some contribution to my country, Malawi. Contribution does necessarily have to be material or financial, the language most Malawians understand better; it can also be intellectual. This is what I try to do, provoking reactions and encourage debate on issues that I consider important.

Yet I hardly write something without someone concluding that I have written on a particular issue, in a particular way because I am from Dedza or because I am a Malawi Congress Party (MCP) member or sympathiser. The assumption here is that because I am a Kainja therefore I must be related to the late Kate Kainja, who died a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) member anyway but was MCP executive member for a long time.

I do not know why this matters to people but I will explain, nonetheless. I am not from Dedza and I am not related to the late Kate Kainja. I am from Lilongwe and, yes I come from a constituency (Lilongwe Central) that, like the rest of Lilongwe rural, always vote for MCP. In fact, others have joked that a dog wrapped in MCP colours would win an election there. I do not belong to any political party, as much as I have freedom of association under the laws of the land.

No political party in Malawi has fully convinced me that it stands for the kind of politics that I value: selfless, people-centred, patriotic and transparent politics. A party with a clear goal and vision on politically and economically independent Malawi, a meritocratic Malawi with fairer distribution of whatever resources the country has.

In the run up to the 20th May tripartite elections I repeatedly wrote on this column on the lack of choice of leaders for Malawians. This happened to be the case even though there were 12 candidates to choose from. It is not too to conclude that the lack of choice is the part of a reason that people vote on tribal lines.

How else would people tell one candidate from another when there are no political ideologies to differentiate candidates? I do not want everyone to agree with my views, that would not be democracy but I want us to have a frank and evidence-based discussion on issues that really matter. I do not think where I come from and my genealogy is that important.

One of the key issues that most folks fail to understand or deliberately choose to ignore in my writing is that I recognise the fact that Malawi has had two political dispensations in the last 50 years of independence. 30 years of Kamuzu Banda’s vicious dictatorship and, so far, the last 20 years of multiparty democracy.

Kamuzu was a vicious dictator. You can look-up on any list of African dictators, past and present, and I am sure Kamuzu would match any of them, one way or another. If Malawians today look back at Kamuzu’s era with nostalgia, it is because the subsequent leaders have failed Malawians miserably. If we acknowledge Kamuzu as a dictator and grade him as such, he would sure get a decent grade. Could any of our ‘democratic’ leaders also get a decent grade for being democrats in a democratic state?

Yet, on 14th June 21 years ago Malawians decided, via a referendum, that we have had enough of Kamuzu’s tyranny. Thus, we voted for multiparty democracy. And, let’s face it, Kamuzu acted like a democrat by admitting defeat, twice, in the referendum and in the 1994 general elections. After 20 years, it is pointless, even unfair to sit hear criticising Kmuzu for not acting as a democrat because he was not and he never pretended to be.

We have democracy now and the task is to ensure that our leaders act as democrats. We cannot compare Kamuzu the dictator with ‘democratic’ leaders; that is missing the point. You do not compare dogs and cats even though both are domestic animals.

A 2011 – 2013 Afrobarometer survey conducted in 34 of the 54 African countries showed that people in 32 countries on the continent are in favour of democracy over other forms of government. Only Madagascar and Swaziland, Africa’s last absolute monarchy, are against it. 76% of Malawians are said to be in favour of democracy. This is huge. No winning presidential candidate has ever got anywhere near it.

This shows that there is no way back to dictatorships, not any time soon anyway. Yet, this does not mean everything is taken care of and folks can relax. Democracy is a process; it does not begin and end at the ballot box. Democracy demands that we ensure accountability and transparency from the people we put in power.

This can only be achieved if enough of us speak or acting against injustice, corruption, abuse of power etc. You will be neglecting your duty as a citizen if you decide to look the other way when something wrong is happening. Those with political affiliation do a disservice not only to the country but their political parties as well when they ignore injustice and abuse of power. The yes bwana advisers are the ones who betray leaders and that is how political parties fall.

Malawi democracy has been resilient so far and this is one of the success stories of the last 50 years of Malawi independence. Among other things, it has survived Bakili Muluzi’s failed third term bid, survived the “midnight six’s” attempted to stop Joyce Banda succeeding the late Bingu wa Mutharika and it has always had successful and peaceful change of power. Elsewhere on the continent these events would have translated into bloodshed. We saw it in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Ivory Coast between 2007 and 2011.

However, the blight spot is that service delivery in Malawi remains very poor. Less than 10% of the population have access to electricity. Education standards remain poor and getting worse, the health sector is in perennial crisis, we are yet to achieve food security despite the ever-expensive farm subsidies programme, the list is endless. These are issues that concern me, and must concern you, too. I know Malawi can do better and Malawians deserve better. This is why I write about it, it is for the love of my country, not hatred for anyone, let alone those in power.

Malawi at 50: There is more to celebrate than you think

Vera Chirwa, a Malawian former political prisoner and human rights activist, observed in her autobiography, Fearless Fighter, that it took Malawi 30 years to achieve a Malawian democracy and expressed her hope it should not take another 30 years to make Malawian democrats. This is an observation rooted in her experience of a repressive past and inspired by her hope of a better future, informed by the promising present.

In these few words, a full political story of Malawi is told. Chirwa was writing when Malawi had just emerged from 30 years of Kamuzu Banda’s ruthless dictatorship, which had been preceded by 71 years of colonialism under the British. Under these regimes, leaders were seen as demi-god to be feared, revered and worshiped.

Generations of Malawians have grown to believe this is the natural relationship between leaders and people they lead. It would take at least a generation or two to undo this mentality. Chirwa may have undermined this perspective; it may yet take longer than 30 years to make Malawian democrats. Yet, there is enough evidence to show that Malawi democracy is headed in the right direction.

On 6 July 2014 the country celebrated its 50th anniversary. It is a moment of celebration but more attention is also given to analysis of the country’s achievements in this period of self-rule. First because 50 years is a landmark, second because of the dire state of the country’s economy.

Commentators and analysts are raising questions like is there “anything to celebrate?” These questions are not without justification, especially considering that up to 40 per cent of Malawi’s national budget come from donors. It is easy to get fixated on negatives and not positives because poverty is more pronounced than success, especially in a country that has poor service delivery still leaves a lot to be desired. Yet, you cannot shape a better future by concentrating on negatives. You build on positive and Malawi is not short of it. The fact that Malawi has achieved an admirable democratic climate within these 50 years cannot be underestimated. This is something to build on.

In June 1993, Malawians voted in a referendum to decide whether to continue with one-party rule or adopt multiparty democracy. 64 per cent of Malawians voted against a one party system – ending Kamuzu Banda’s dictatorship. This paved the way for a 1994 general elections where Banda lost to Bakili Muluzi. Banda conceded defeat before the counting was finished.

The significance of Banda’s concession is often overlooked but connecting the dots today you realise that it laid a foundation of future presidential successions based on respect for the rule of law.

After doing his two terms in office, via re-election, Muluzi tried to amend the republican constitution so he could compete beyond the constitutional two terms. His attempt was rejected by the Malawi parliament. Though reluctantly, Muluzi respected the outcome and stepped aside.

Bingu wa Mutharika, Muluzi’s successor, died in office of heart attack. His succession was yet another test for Malawi. The late Mutharika’s inner-circle tried to stop Joyce Banda (no relation with Kamuzu) fulfilling constitutional mandate and succeed Mutharika with whom she was a running mate, when he came to power. Joyce Banda peacefully succeed Mutharika two days after his death.

Joyce Banda complained of malpractices and alleged vote rigging in the 20 May 2014 tripartite elections after losing to Peter Mutharika, Bingu’s younger brother. In the end however, she accepted defeat and congratulated the winner.

These cases show how tolerant Malawians are and it is something to celebrate and build on.

The biggest problem in Malawi at the moment is lack of service delivery. Access to clean water is still a problem; less than 10 per cent of the country’s estimated 15 million people have access to electricity; education standards are remain poor; food security remains a perennial problem; health care needs sorting out and unemployment is rife. Yet, the country’s voting pattern indicates that the direction of a democratic Malawi is a promising one.

Underperforming politicians, especially at parliamentary level, continue to lose elections. Of the 193 parliamentarians, no more than four of them were MPs in 1994 when Malawians first voted. Similarly, people have shown a disdain for lack of intra-party democracy. Political parties tend to impose candidates on the electorate instead of conducting open and fair primary elections to allow people to choose their own candidate.

In 1994 there was no single independent MP; 10 years later there were 40 independent MPs; 20 years on 53 independent MPs have been elected, beating all the political parties. Historically, most independent MPs end up joining ruling parties but this does not take away the fact that the Malawi electorate have shown more democratic maturity than their leaders.

Looking ahead, Malawi will do just fine. The only gulf is between the maturing democracy and poor service delivery, which has undermined socioeconomic progress in the last 50 years. Overtime time this gulf will narrow down, especially since the electorate are increasingly showing that they are not prepared to reward under-performing representatives.

Until the international celebrity circus arrived with Madonna’s adoption of two children in Malawi, perhaps not many people had heard of this country we proudly call The Warm Heart of Africa. This is due to its peaceful coexistence and tranquillity. For many countries on the continent and indeed elsewhere, elections and a push towards democracy have meant perennial political violence and chaos, but not so in Malawi.

Malawi: 50 years after independence education remains a big challenge

Malawi celebrates 50 years of independence from Britain this week, and though the country has made great strides after emerging from decades of authoritarian rule and underdevelopment, it still faces many challenges.

Although GDP rose from 2% in 2012 to 5% last year, donors fund up to 40% of Malawi’s annual budget – the UK being the largest contributor. The UK is also a key sponsor of crucial programmes in social development, health, education and agriculture.

As much as independence day should be seen as a time to celebrate Malawi’s achievements, it should also be taken as an opportunity to analyse its challenges and assess how they can be overcome.

Malawi remains one of the least developed nations in the world. According to the UN children’s fund, Unicef, 61% of the population live below the poverty line of less than $1.25 (£0.73) a day. Locally, there is a general realisation and acceptance that the country has failed to improve living standards compared with neighbouring countries of the same size, such as Zambia, which has graduated from a low-income country to a middle-income one.

As many studies and research papers over the years have pointed out, education is key to developing any country. The main way it can help people, women especially, to escape poverty is by raising their incomes. Education allows women in paid employment to earn higher wages, and offers better livelihoods for those who work in rural areas.

But it also offers broader benefits. According to the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) (pdf), if all women in sub-Saharan Africa completed primary education, the maternal mortality rate would drop by 70%, from 500 to 150 deaths per 100,000 births. Women with higher levels of education are also less likely to get married or have a child at an early age. At current levels, half of girls in Malawi will be married by 18.

For its part, the government recognises the importance of education. In the 2012-13 fiscal year, 24% of the budget was allocated to education – 60% of which was spent on primary education – according to figures from the education ministry.

Since the government introduced free primary education 20 years ago, enrolment rates at schools have been steadily rising. Despite this, though, the education ministry admits the millennium development goal of achieving universal primary education by 2015 will not be met.

Also, many schools are ill-equipped to cope with the number of students they have. In some schools, class sizes reach well beyond 100 children – the global recommendation is 40. The number of qualified teachers is dwindling, and a vast number of new classrooms are needed.

Education has received a greater proportion of state funding over the years, but it seems a lack of resources persists and is hampering efforts by the ministry to raise education standards. There is also the issue of the government financial scandal at the end of last year that led to a freezing of UK aid, and which could further harm the education sector if Britain does not resume funding soon.

Every child has a right to education, and the Malawi government is mandated to ensure that right is upheld for all children in the country.

Government policy papers clearly show it is aware of this mandate. To encourage primary enrolment, the government asked the World Food Programme in 1999 to roll out a school feeding programme (pdf). It initially targeted 23,000 pupils in 24 schools in Dedza district, in Malawi’s Central Region. Following a successful review, it was expanded in 2000 to include a further 31,500 children in 58 schools in Ntcheu and Salima districts.

NGOs, among them Mary’s Meals, Millennium Villages and Land O’Lakes, have also rolled out school feeding programmes. As of 2009, the programme was running in 17% of primary schools, feeding 30% of all primary schoolchildren.

The government has its own feeding programmes within the ministry of education, through a department of school health and nutrition initiative.

The success of the feeding programme indicates that to achieve universal education for all, Malawi must look beyond education alone in forming policy. It must also look at social welfare services and food security policies at the household level. These initiatives will reduce the strain on the education sector, by reducing the amount spent on feeding children.

Its resources could instead be channelled into areas such as infrastructure development and buying learning materials. This would not only ensure learners stay in school, but would also improve education standards. These are issues the country must take into account as it takes stock of the past 50 years.

Malawi’s democracy is more mature than it is given credit for

On June 14 1993, Malawians voted in a referendum to decide if they wanted to continue with one-party rule or adopt multiparty democracy. Sixty-four percent of Malawians voted against a one-party system. The referendum ended an over 30-year ban on all other political opposition in Malawi. Prior to this, the then ruling party Malawi Congress Party (MCP) was the only legitimate political grouping.

By opting for multiparty democracy, Malawians did not only reject the one-party system but departed from a certain ideology. Malawi now had a population that was no longer, if this was ever the case, united under one ideology. And when people are ideologically divided, tolerance provides key social threads that knit the societal fabric together.

This past weekend marked 21 years of multiparty democracy in the country. A number of social, economic and political factors indicate that Malawi has some way to go before it can become a truly tolerant society. Like all societies, Malawi has a historical context in which these issues must be understood.

Malawi attained democracy on the backdrop of 71 years of colonialism followed by 30 years of authoritarian rule. These regimes made Malawians inward looking: any concept, culture and way of living deemed unfamiliar to “Malawi culture” was to be rejected and avoided at all costs. This is what sustains oppressive regimes. It is a huge ask that Malawians become a tolerant society overnight. However, a sober look at the last two decades of Malawi’s democracy shows it is more mature than most critics would give it credit for.

Malawi has faced challenges that have tested its strength, maturity and resolve. One of the most notable of these challenges is former president Bakili Muluzi’s (in office between 1994 – 2004) attempt to increase presidential term limits so he could give himself a chance to seek a new mandate. Though a close vote in the end, Malawi’s Parliament stopped Muluzi’s bid and democracy ultimately prevailed.

Bingu wa Mutharika, Muluzi’s handpicked successor whose sudden death in office on April 5 2012 triggered a political transition, was another key moment that put our democracy to the test. Mutharika’s loyalists attempted to block Malawi’s then vice-president Joyce Banda’s succession of Mutharika as per constitutional stipulation. Again, the rule of law prevailed and President Banda was sworn in on April 7 2012 as the fourth president of the Republic of Malawi.

Joyce Banda lost this year’s elections to Bingu wa Mutharika’s brother, Peter. Banda finished a distant third, Lazarus Chakwera of Malawi Congress Party finished second. She is the first sitting president to lose an election since Malawi adopted multiparty democracy. Banda alleged electoral flawed and failed in her attempt to call for a re-run. It took eight tense days before the national electoral body finally announced the winner and Banda conceded victory to Peter Mutharika. This was yet another stern test for Malawi’s democracy, and the country passed it.

It is not unheard of that sitting presidents refuse to accept defeat and settle for power-sharing deals. It happened in Kenya in 2007-2008, in Zimbabwe in 2008 and in Côte d’Ivoire in 2010 when Laurent Gbagbo refused to concede electoral defeat, plunging the country into violence.

Recently, Mail & Guardian Africa published an article attributing Banda’s acceptance of the election results and the fact that she allowed fair contest to her gender. The logic of this argument is questionable and is not fully supported by facts. For a start, the history of presidential successions in Malawi shows that Banda’s acceptance of electoral defeat, albeit reluctantly, is in line with the trend of Malawi’s democracy. The change of power in the country has always been peaceful but not without minor resistance.

Malawi, like many African democracies, has a long way to go, especially in the areas of social, economic and human development. There is too much politicking in the country, which takes more precedence than service delivery. Fifty-two percent of Malawians live below the international poverty line. Service delivery remains very poor – a 2010 World Bank report indicated that only 9% of 14.8 million Malawians had access to electricity by 2009.

Findings by Water for People, an NGO advocating for safe drinking water in the country since 2000, show that only 62% of peri-urban areas have access to water that meets government standards, while in rural areas only 45% of people have access to safe drinking water.

These are the areas where democracy has clearly failed to deliver in Malawi. If left unchecked, it could result in voter apathy, which is harmful for a developing democracy. We need people to continue participating in politics, but if voting patterns are anything to go by, Malawians are already losing trust in political parties.

The number of independent parliamentarians in the country has grown with every election. There was no single independent MP in 1994 when Malawians voted for the first time. Ten years later, 40 independent MPs won elections. The 2014 elections produced more independent MPs – 52 – than any political party.

There is this general perception that African democracies are flawed, which is not without justification of course, but which democracy is perfect? The danger of this view is that we tend to concentrate on the negatives only. Malawi’s democracy has shown resilience when faced with tricky situations. Service delivery and the Cashgate scandal continue to cast a shadow but when it comes to succession, politicians in Malawi have always respected the rule of law, which is a good sign for any democracy.

Malawi’s new govt must ensure the people – not MNCs – benefit from its mineral wealth

In 2007, the Malawi government licensed the Australian and Canadian registered mining company Paladin Africa Limited to open Malawi’s first uranium mine.

As the first foreign company to get a mining license in the country, Paladin Africa’s general manager Greg Walker called his company a “path finder”.

Today, the Kayelekera mine in Karonga, northern Malawi is the largest in the country although since then, the government has issued no less than 26 mining licences across the country, including licences to explore for rare earth minerals.

Mining has the potential to turn around the economic fortunes of Malawi, a small southern African country of approximately 15 million, which for the past 50 years has relied heavily on tobacco, sugar and tea as its chief export commodities.

Last year, the Financial Times reported that Malawi’s extractive industry was so promising that it could become Africa’s largest rare earth elements producer.

The article further observed that if managed efficiently, proceeds from the industry could produce significant socio-economic benefits for the southern African country which – with a GDP of US$4,264 billion per capita – is frequently cited as one of the poorest on the continent.

But the experience with Kayelekera suggests that Malawi, like many other African countries, still has a long way to go before its mineral resources translate into economic wealth for its entire people.

Earlier this year Paladin Africa announced suspension of operations at Kayelekera, citing low uranium prices on the global market following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.

It was the final blow in a controversial deal that had come under harsh criticism from the start.

As well as concerns over contamination and radiation-related health issues, local activists and the general public were also outraged that Paladin, which was granted a 12-year concession to run the mine, had never declared any profits and therefore never paid any tax.

For most Malawians, it is inconceivable that Paladin Africa could run such a big mine at a loss. Thus, the suspension of the operations simply looks like a way for Paladin Africa to avoid honouring its full contractual obligations.

A local NGO, the Centre for Social Concern (CfSC), accused the government of orchestrating what it called “the Keyelekera natural resource plunder” and has mobilised the local community in protest.

But that hasn’t stopped over 300 people from losing their jobs.

In a country where the unemployment rate lies unofficially at 70 per cent, and where decent work and skilled jobs are even rarer, this is not an insignificant number.

The people of Malawi are angry that their government signed such an exploitative deal, leaving ordinary people to pay the price.

But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the suspension was completely legal.
So the question becomes “how could the government have signed such a bad deal?”

No experts and no experience

Part of the problem can be attributed to the fact that the Malawi government lacks the qualified personnel to negotiate contracts and run the mining industry effectively on a policy and technical level.

Despite decades of Malawian migrants working on the mines in South Africa and Zimbabwe, they were almost entirely manual workers. And mining is still relatively new to the country.

Last June, Malawi’s former mining minister John Bande admitted that this critical lack of expertise left the country vulnerable to being “ripped off” by foreign mining companies.

His solution was to engage experts from Scotland to come and train Malawians on mining law and mining engineering.

But if the government acknowledges a knowledge gap in mining, why does it continue to new licences in the absence of indigenous experts working to ensure the best possible outcome for the people?

Last year, a joint study by Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) and a local Catholic NGO, Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP) established that Malawi loses US$43.87 million annually through what they called “corporate incentives” – otherwise known as tax avoidance.

US$43.87 million is over 60 per cent of Malawi’s current health budget. It is nearly half of the US$103.7 million allocated to the country’s influential Farm Input Subsidies Program which helped to reduce poverty and food insecurity. And it is more than enough to finance last year’s bill for public universities, which was pegged at US$34.98 million.

Looking at these figures, one would think that mining would be at the top of the political agenda in Malawi, but it is not.

In fact of the 12 political parties running in the recent May elections, only the winning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) discussed mining at length in its manifesto.

The manifesto emphasised that mining policies should protect the rights of citizens to fair access to natural resources. To ensure this, the DPP government promised to develop and implement transparent, accountable and efficient utilisation of natural resources for the development of the country.

But talk is cheap. Now it is time for action.

The government needs to be held accountable to the people and the mining companies need to be held accountable to the government.

In Malawi, where over 80 per cent of the population makes a living through agriculture, this is crucial. Mining uses the same land as people use for agriculture, so a lack of long-term vision means that local communities are forced to suffer long-term consequences.

But Malawi is not the only country struggling to benefit from its natural resources.
What happened at Kayelekera – the dubious mining contract, the total lack of transparency surrounding the deal by both the mining company and the government, tax evasion, transfer pricing and (not necessarily in this case but definitely elsewhere) corruption – happens all over the continent.

And this only serves to undermine the transformative socio-economic potential of the mining sector in Africa.

In 2013 the former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, took the issue to G8, calling for help to end the “unconscionable exploitation of Africa’s resources.”

He referred to the 2013 Africa Progress Report which sets out a comprehensive agenda for the resource-rich continent to end poverty.

Malawi’s newly-elected President Peter Mutharika must heed these calls and not merely pay lip service to the issue as Joyce Banda’s administration did for the two years it was in power.

Even though it was his brother, the late Bingu wa Mutharika, who signed the original Kayelekera deal, the new government appears to have got off to a promising start.

It is encouraging that Botswana, which is one of Africa’s best examples when it comes to the effective management of its natural resources for the benefit of its people, has offered to help Malawi in this regard.

Mutharika must gladly accept this offer.

If the government does not have experts on mining then the new government must not sign any more mining contracts until it does.

And once those experts are in place they should follow the lead of countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mozambique who have renegotiated a number of bad contracts.

The cold, hard truth is that mining corporations are not in Malawi to develop the country. They are there to make a profit.

But it is up to the government to ensure that these companies are reigned in so that the country’s natural wealth can benefit its own people for generations to come.