How Malawi’s Leaders Keep Choosing Optics Over Justice

Malawi’s leaders have perfected the politics of evasion. Faced with complex national problems, they reach for quick fixes that seem decisive but solve nothing, much like bandaging a boil instead of treating the underlying infection. Problems are not confronted; they are wished away. Crisis after crisis, Malawi survives not through resolution but through delay. The result is a country permanently suspended between emergency and exhaustion, always living to fight another day.

Recent events expose this failure with brutal clarity. First came the barbaric killings of people with albinism for their body parts. Then, in the middle of a collapsing economy, the University of Malawi Council announced a steep hike in tuition fees. Predictably, students protested across the university’s four colleges. Predictably, the state responded with force, clashes with police, destruction of property at Chancellor College, and the closure of the campus.

These are very different crises. But the political response to both reveals the same governing instinct: suppress the symptoms, manage the outrage, and move on.

Punishment Without Justice

Public debate on the killings of people with albinism has been reduced to one loud demand: harsher punishment. Calls for the death penalty have dominated social media, rallies, and parliamentary corridors. A ruling party MP, Boni Kalindo, even organised a “naked” protest to pressure Parliament into legislating capital punishment. Parliament responded by amending the Penal Code to impose life imprisonment.

This approach may satisfy public anger, but it is intellectually lazy and politically dishonest. These killings are not acts of madness; they are acts of commerce. People with albinism are murdered because their body parts are believed to have market value in ritual practices. Where there is demand, supply will follow. No sentence, death, or life will stop a trade driven by belief, money, and desperation.

Yet the state refuses to ask the most dangerous question of all: who is buying these body parts? When someone is arrested with bones, the public debates whether the sentence is long enough, not whether the crime was committed, who profits from it, or why these networks remain intact. Anger replaces investigation. Vengeance replaces strategy.

If Malawi were serious about protecting people with albinism, it would focus less on symbolic punishment and more on dismantling the demand side of the trade, through intelligence-led policing, regional investigations, and confronting the political and economic interests that keep these networks alive. But that kind of work is slow, difficult, and politically unrewarding. So it is avoided.

Education as a Privilege, Not a Right

The same cowardice defines the university fees crisis. The standoff between students and the University Council is not fundamentally about MK400,000 versus MK100,000. It is about whether higher education in Malawi is a public good or a private privilege.

Even at lower fees, thousands of students would still be locked out of university because their families are poor. Malawi’s leaders, many of whom benefited from heavily subsidised public education, now preside over a system that quietly excludes the very people it claims to uplift.

This is not a new problem. For years, the media has reported rising dropout rates due to unaffordable fees. Instead of structural reform, the state has offered theatrical interventions: ordering students back to campus, promising temporary funding, and issuing statements. The boil was covered. The infection spread.

Today, the crisis has returned in a new form, more explosive and more violent.

A Crisis of Leadership, Not Events

What links the killings of people with albinism and the university fees standoff is not a coincidence; it is a governance failure. Malawi is ruled by leaders who fear long-term solutions because they do not fit into election cycles. They prefer gestures over justice, punishment over prevention, force over dialogue.

Activism must reject this politics of distraction. Malawi does not lack laws; it lacks courage. It does not lack faith; it lacks accountability. Until the country demands leadership that confronts root causes rather than manages outrage, crises will continue to multiply, and the most vulnerable will continue to pay the price.

Bandaging boils may stop the bleeding for a moment. But untreated infections eventually kill.

Africa Needs a Collective Thinking Space

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Media is Alright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.