Malawi on the Internet, It’s Getting Worse

Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net, 2017 report shows that 2017 was, as Wire.com puts it, “terrible year for Internet freedom”. The report shows that almost half of the 65 countries assessed in 2017 experienced a decline in Internet freedoms during the assessment period. Less than one-quarter of users reside in countries where there are “no major obstacles to access, onerous restrictions on content, or serious violations of user rights in the form of unchecked surveillance or unjust repercussions for legitimate speech.”

Malawi is among the countries assessed and it is categorised as “partly free”. This category was arrived at for two distinct reasons: the first one is not much different from many countries assessment in the report; it has to do with direct government interference. The assessment finds that there were few cases where online news was subjected to “government manipulation”; the arrest of three opposition MPs over a WhatsApp conversation; and various provisions in the Electronic Transaction and Cyber Security Act, 2016, which are deemed as punitive and could be used by the government to “censor online content and dissent.”

The second reason is what the report calls the “availability and ease of access”. The report indicates that average connection speeds in Malawi have decreased from 1.8 Mbps (mega bit per second) in 2016 to 1.3 Mbps in 2017 – comparing the average connection speeds to global average of 7.0 Mbps, one could argue that Malawi really doesn’t have Internet to facilitate any meaningful development. The report observes that this means that Malawi has one of the “lowest and slowest growing rates of the Internet in the world, in stark contrast to the exponential growth in access among its neighbouring countries on the continent.”

For patriotic and proud Malawians these finding are unwelcome, of course yet the real problem is that Malawi government and its policy makers still treat access to the Internet as a luxury that should be punished with punitive tax measures ignoring the fact that Internet is a key driver of socioeconomic activities and therefore, national development. In this day and age, a country cannot attract investors if it doesn’t have stable, affordable and standard Internet connection speeds. Gone are the days when Internet could be viewed through the lens of Facebook and other social media platforms where citizens go pastime, entertainment and gossip.

The only time one hears Malawi government officials talking about the Internet is when someone in the position of power, usually politically connected wants social media regulated or some aspects of banned. Do Malawians really want to start this conversation when the Internet has not really taken off in the country? Such approach only reduces the discussion to issues of social media abuse, which only begets the questions of censorship and tight control while ignoring the crucial issue of access and infrastructure development that would increase access quantitatively and qualitatively for all Malawians and not the privileged few.

The Freedom House reports notices that the poor growth rates of Internet and mobile phone access in the country are largely a result of the high service costs for consumers. This include “a 17.5% VAT on mobile phones and services, a 16.5% VAT on internet services and an additional 10% excise duty on mobile phone text messages and internet data transfers.”

If one adds this, it comes up to 44% duty on Internet and mobile phone access in the country, ultimately making Internet and mobile phone access a luxury for the majority of Malawians; and, as noticed by the report: “shutting [majority of Malawians] out of an increasingly digital world of important services like mobile banking and money services that could help lift them out of poverty, as well as access to essential communications platforms.”

It is easy to blame poverty in such cases, as the report has done to an extent, yet measuring by the amount of tariffs Malawians pay to access mobile phones and the Internet, Malawi government policies have not been helpful in trying to bring Malawians online. This is not only reducing Malawi into a disconnected country but also a tiered society between the haves and the have-notes. Unfortunately, even the haves have little to celebrate as the expensive Internet speed is “frustratingly slow” and is decreasing due to “poor infrastructure management and lack of investment.”

Interestingly, Malawi government is aware of the importance of ICT for national development, this is clearly stated out in Malawi’s National ICT Policy, 2013. In its preface the policy states out: “ICT is essential for the sustainable development of Malawi … Implementation of ICT policy is encouraged by the prevalent political will existing in the country, which has seen the ICT sector being recognised as on the priority areas with potential of turning around the economy….”

Similarly, Malawi’s telecommunication regulator, MACRA has indicated in its 2015 – 2020 Strategic Plan that its “vision” is “universal access and usage of ICT services in Malawi.” And its “mission” is “to facilitate the development of the ICT Sector through efficient and effective regulation and research.”

The irony is that access to ICTs, particularly mobile phone and Internet services has not improved since 2015 when Malawi government imposed 10% VAT on an industry. This suggests that all these policy documents on ICT are merely a window dresser. The amount of VAT the government is getting from the industry indicates that Malawi government is mainly interested in making money—through taxes and operating licences while ignoring the benefits of ICT to the socioeconomic development of the country and its people.

Even With Access to Information, Malawi Needs Whistle-blowers

On 6^th August 2016 one of Malawi’s two dailies, The Nation newspaper reported that Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs had started an exercise that would result in all public servants taking oath of secrecy in all government Ministries, Departments and Agencies. The Justice Ministry did not speak to the media but the then Minister of Information and Civic Education, Patricia Kaliati confirmed of the development to the newspaper, telling the newspaper that Malawi government was trying to “bring about sanity and dignity to the civil service.”

It is not a public knowledge whether this has yet been effected but Kaliati then emphasised that this was a “normal” exercise, which indicates the eagerness of the government to see this being put into operation. Kaliati argued that this was a routine thing as “every officer when taking office takes an oath of secrecy.” Even ministers, added Kaliati, “also take the oath of service and allegiance and that is normal.”

The motive here is to criminalise whistle-blowing, while at the same time ensuring that spokespersons and public relations officers whose job is to airbrush and sanitise information is the first and last call for journalists, civil society organisations, academics and members of the public looking for government held information. Kaliati sought to defend this by questioning why would anyone want to get information from a driver or a Principal Secretary when the Information Minister is a government’s spokesperson.

Is Malawi really committed to providing access to information?

What Kaliati said seven months ago is more relevant today with the enactment of Access of Information (ATI) Bill into law. That ATI is now guaranteed is a big deal for Malawi. No doubt about it. And all the people and institutions that have doggedly fought for it over the years must be congratulated. But to understand what this actually means in practice it is important to look at it from historical perspective.

American dissident, the late Howard Zinn argued: “if you don’t know history it is as if you were born yesterday. And if you were born yesterday, anybody up there in a position of power can tell you anything, and you have no way of checking up.” As Malawians and those concerned are celebrating the enactment of ATI into law, Kaliati’s perspective makes you wonder: is the government really committed to provide access to information, or the enactment of ATI into low is a mere window dresser, just another piece of “good” public relations?

These are pertinent questions, especially given the fact that Kaliati emphasised that the oath of secrecy by public officials would remain intact even when the ATI bill became law – perhaps unconstitutional given that the republican constitution is the supreme law of the land but what Kaliati said shows the stance of the government insofar as government’s commitment to provide public’s access to information is concerned.

Kaliati said: “only responsible persons would have authority to release information to members of the public or media and not anybody else.” Of course there has to be a formal channel of accessing information and I know the ATI law provides for this but these “responsible persons” are surely not through government spokespersons and public relations officers.

What now?

Malawi journalism needs to adjust according to the changing times. The question of news sourcing is hardly discussed. Yet, it is crucial for journalism. Emily Bell, C.W. Anderson and Clay Sirky argued that journalism that really matters “exposes corruption, draws attention to injustice, hold politicians and business 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 economics.”

For this to happen journalists have to go beyond the usual “he said, she said” reporting, which heavily relies on formal sources of information such as spokesperson and public relations officers. In Malawi journalists and public relations officers comfortably call each other as “colleagues”. Perhaps this is because the vast majority of spokespersons and public relations officers in Malawi started out in journalism before joining public relations where remuneration and conditions of service are considerably better.

Yet, journalists and public relations officers are not colleagues. The relationship between these is similar to that of a cat and mouse, whereby the job of the cat is keep the mouse out the house – the job of public relation officers and spokespersons is manage the kind of information that journalists can and cannot get from their institutions. Now that ATI is law, it should be easier for journalists to get information – bypassing gatekeepers. Yet this can only happen if journalists appreciate the cat and mouse relationship between them and public relations people.

We must appreciate that even with access to information granted, whistle-blowing remain very important for accountability and transparency. Journalists and those seeking public information still need whistle-blowers. You can only demand information if you know what is going on – you need tips from those with inside information. Whistle-blowers are paramount, good journalism thrive on this – not just access to information. This means that contrary to what Malawi government thinks, journalists must speak to drivers, Principal Secretaries and other civil servant – and whistle-blowing has to be encouraged and whistle-blowers legally protected if Malawi government is indeed committed to transparency and accountability.

Never Expect Governments to Promote Freedom of Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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