No More Chiefs in Malawi - with Guest Author, Blessings Chinsinga

It is time to abolish the institution of chieftaincy for it has clearly outlived its usefulness. This sounds quite a harsh prognosis but it is surely a necessary evil if we are to turn the corner in our quest for a genuine democratic polity. The institution of chieftaincy is increasingly becoming more of a liability than an asset as a dominant mode for our socio-political organization in both rural and urban areas.

This would be a great shock to most of my colleagues. They would find it extremely difficult to come to terms with my rather abrupt change of heart about chiefs. Not long ago, I published an article in one of the international journals, inspired by my doctoral research, in which I romanticized chiefs a potential anchor of the nascent democratization project.

As embodiments of tradition, my argument was that chiefs were better positioned to enable us incorporate new ideals into our body politic without losing the essential elements of our tradition which would make new concepts about democracy easily understandable.

The alternative school of thought brands chiefs as the single most important obstacle to democratization. It has completely no mercy for chiefs. They are condemned as devoid of progress especially in such areas as political organization, women’s rights, social mobility and economic rights.

However, my article gave chiefs the benefit of doubt as potential positive forces in our quest to domesticate democracy the Malawian way. The gist of my argument was that as a western concept, democracy should be anchored by institutional frameworks rooted in African imageries. This would, in turn, provide the basis for discriminating between change as progress and change for the sake of change.

I was entirely wrong and perhaps too much of an optimist. Day after day the institution of chieftaincy is becoming indefensible. The virtues of chieftaincy that I reified in my article as potential building blocks for an indigenous but robust version of democracy are simply unattainable in view of the conduct of chiefs in recent years. It is difficult to see how chiefs can be held as harbingers of progress when they are prepared to mortgage the future of future generations all for short term selfish interests.

Chiefs have distinguished themselves as the most amazing group of people. They almost always share the opinion on whatever issue comes up. This is quite strange. Isn’t it? From Chitipa to Nsanje, chiefs will have the same views on an issue. Dissent voices of chiefs, if any, are heavily censured or denied a platform altogether. Such chiefs are often threatened with dethronement since the Chiefs Act empowers the Chief Political Officer to expel incumbents if deemed necessary in the national interest.

There is, nevertheless, one single important paradox about chiefs. There is a love-hate relationship between chiefs and their subjects. Survey after survey chiefs are amongst the top most corrupt institutions while at the same time they are considered as the most trustworthy among alternative leadership institutions especially at the grassroots.

The main drawback for chiefs is that they have abused the trust that their subjects bestow upon them in search for short-term self-aggrandizement. It is no longer the question of the greater common good but rather the sheer quest for immediate gratification even at the expense of mortgaging the future of generations yet to come.

Chiefs shamelessly took turns on the public broadcasters in support for the third term. This was incomplete disregard of the popular embodied in the 1994 Republican constitution. Presidential term limit was conceived as a means of preventing the abuse of power by incumbents, a common feature when the presidency becomes like an iron bowl of rice.

This is not all. Chiefs have continued to function as handmaidens for promoting the selfish interests of the political elite. They played a major in advocating for the change of the national flag claiming to speak on behalf of their subjects. These claims may actually be valid but it is just surprising that all chiefs could speak with the same mind on the issue. Chiefs have intervened en masse in the current succession crisis in DPP. They have probably less surprisingly overwhelmingly endorsed a single candidate since their minds tend to work exactly in the same way.

Chiefs hide under the cloak of serving the government of the day. This is sheer abuse of the concept of serving the government of the day. Any citizen, regardless of their political inclination, has an obligation to serve the government of the day as long as it is legitimately elected through a free and fair electoral process.

This does not, however, mean citizens including chiefs forfeit their right to constructively engage with a duly elected government. In short, serving the government of the day does not necessarily mean giving it a blank cheque to do as it pleases. Unfortunately, this is the interpretation that our chiefs have chosen to embrace at the expense of the greater common good.

Some chiefs have been reprimanded by their superiors for being excessively partisan in discharging their jobs. However, these chiefs are defiant with a clear sense of impunity. They argue that they will continue to discharge their duties in a one sided political mode on the pretext of serving the government of the day. This is the display of a false sense of consciousness at its best.

This article appeared in the Sunday Times of September 19th, 2010 under the column, "Talking Political Economy"

The two faces of Bingu?

In my recent discussions about Malawi politics with friends and colleagues, a recurring theme has been whether we are now seeing a different Bingu wa Mutharika from the Bingu of 2004-2009. My take is that Bingu has not changed: what have changed are the circumstances of Malawi politics, enabling Bingu to show his true colors more.

Mutharika's first term as Malawi president (2004-2009) has garnered him several accolades. He is is credited for spearheading the fertilizer subsidy, reviving infrastructure construction, getting Malawi's foreign debts wiped off after reaching the completion point of the highly indebted poor country (HIPC) initiative in 2006; promoting new investments, notably in the mining sector, among several initiatives.

In his first term, Bingu had to cobble together a disparate coalition of mostly opportunistic defectors from the opposition ranks. Yet, even with this, he did not have complete control of the political agenda, as the combined opposition had a majority share of the Parliamentary seats.

To counter the opposition's influence, Mutharika was compelled to appeal to the public as his primary option for political survival. This resulted in a number of populist projects such as the fertilizer subsidy (which, admittedly, was forced on him by the opposition in 2005). One could also argue that the ambitious (but now since stalled) infrastructure construction boom during Mutharika's first term, were an example of the president's populism. Certainly, in most cases, we saw symbolic, yet popular 'Ground breaking ceremonies' for road projects that are yet to start. These and other similarly populist policies propelled Mutharika and his DPP to victory in the 2009 elections.

Not only did Mutharika personally secure the highest proportion of the presidential vote by a candidate in Malawi's last four elections (see this link for a summary of the 2009 general election results), but his party, the Democratic Progressive Party (which, it must be said, has recently demonstrated to be neither democratic nor progressive, but that is a story for another day), won a significant share of the parliamentary seats. The hitherto powerful opposition parties, meanwhile, have been reduced to role players in and outside the National Assembly.

However, recent developments - which include sidelining the vice president; bulldozing the name of the president's brother, Peter Mutharika, to succeed Bingu in 2014; increasingly dictatorial and threatening language by the president; a rubber-stamp Parliament that has oftentimes been bypassed by an overly-powerful Executive (as was the case in the purchase of the presidential jet); government machinations to undermine the weak opposition parties; irrational and frankly, stupendous policy decisions (read the quota system for university selection; flag change; relocation of the University of Science and Technology from Lilongwe to the President's farm at Ndata in Thyolo etc), have all conspired to not only poison the political environment, but have also eroded much of the public goodwill that Mutharika enjoyed in his first term.

So does all this mean Mutharika has changed? The signs and outcomes have certainly changed, but I do not think Bingu the man himself has. Instead, I am strongly of the view that what we are seeing is the true Mutharika. Because of the political climate in which he had to operate between 2004 and 2009, we could not have been able to see this true personality of Bingu, even if the signs were always there in the background. The threats against the opposition for example, were always there throughout his first term. The current ill-treatment of Vice President Joyce Banda, for example, is an almost mirror image of the treatment of Mutharika's first veep, Cassim Chilumpha, who was confined to Mudi House under house arrest for much of Mutharika's first term. The university academics, the media, business leaders, the clergy, among several groups, were all also attacked by Mutharika at one point or another during this period.

To cut a long story short, I believe Mutharika was forced by circumstances to show a different persona between 2004 and 2009. A good case in point, I believe is the recent flag change – listening to the president's comments on the reasoning behind the flag change, one gets the impression that he has always wanted to do this. However, given the precarious position he found himself in during his first term, he could not have succeeded in doing so until after 2009. Comparing the Bingu of today to the Bingu of 2004-2009, we can actually see that this is essentially the same man – a self centered individual who does not listen to advice; one who is keen to only have yes-men around him; an egocentric man who is intolerant of criticism. The main loser in the process is Malawi's democracy, which, as a close friend of mine said recently, is on life-support.

Let us revisit the issue of a maximum age limit for the President in Malawi

Examining initially the gross changes which occur in the brain with ageing, it can be observed that the normal volume and weight of the adult brain begins to decrease from about 50 years of age. This is due to a reduction in the number of cells in a wide area of the brain: the cerebral cortex, the hippocampus, the substantia nigra, and the cerebellum....". - Martin Blanchard

Some years back, I presented a paper at the Constitutional Review Conference on the Presidency in Malawi (the paper can be accessed on this link). One of the topics I touched on in that presentation was whether Malawi should consider introducing a maximum age limit for the office of president. Although there were several issues that I touched on in my presentation, the topic of a maximum age limit elicited the most comments and discussion. I found it interesting that while many justified the retention of the minimum age limit of 35 on account that one's mental faculties are not fully developed before this age, the proposal for a maximum age limit was resoundingly shot down (although in a later anonymous survey of key political leaders, there was overwhelming support for the proposal).

Anyway, why bring this issue up again now? Much as I respect our traditions and value the wisdom that comes with old age, I am sorry to say, a series of decisions and pronouncements by our President has started to make me wonder if he is not losing it.
During the period 2004 and 2009, the president made a number of rather wacky decisions that we thought could be explained by the pressure of working in a political environment dominated by a very pesky opposition (which by the way, he rubbished on numerous occasions).

Some groups of people were accused of plotting a coup against him, while yet others, including the presidents' own deputy at the time, were accused of planning to assassinate him . Civil society leaders, the media, the judiciary, his vice president, his predecessor as President were all accused of one thing or another and publicly chastised by the man. Those of us in academia were similarly dressed down, warned that we could be replaced on a count of three . And there were business leaders who were also hounded by the President for daring to go against his decrees (remember the issue of the tobacco prices and how some CEOs of tobacco companies were deported from the country on orders from the President?)

Come this second term, the man was given a commanding parliamentary majority and yet his eccentric behaviour seems here to stay. Perhaps we should have seen the warning signs earlier when he embraced the establishment of the Mulhako wa Alhomwe to champion the course of his Lhomwe ethnic group instead of becoming a champion of the all-inclusive ethnicity of 'Malawi'.
A few months back he not only ordered the re-introduction of the quota system for university selection, but he went out in public to lambast critics of the new policy which he justified by claiming that it is a way to neutralize what he alleges were the advantages that people from the region of Malawi were getting through some corner of the Chancellor College campus!
In recent times, he has spearheaded the change of the national flag under the false illusion that Malawi has transited from the dawn of development to a full blown developed nation deserving of a full sun (although the white star on the 'new' flag looks like the moon than sun!) Those of us who have been critical of the flag change have meanwhile been ridiculed as drunkards (talk of irony!).

The President is also not content with silencing critics and trumping on the already weak opposition. Instead, he has gone further to embarrass its leadership by ordering a significant reduction in the salary of the Leader of Opposition. A week later, he decides to bring his wife into cabinet - which presumably means she gets all the perks of a full cabinet minister (read that as a Mercedes Benz and a 4 x 4 vehicle, a plush office and salary to boot). Well, perhaps the savings made from reducing the salary of the leader of opposition can be used to pay for part of the salary of the new Minister of Safe motherhood!
In between, he has also tried to incite mob action by not only calling for the deportation of the couple whose dog bit the family's long-serving guard, but he has also tried to frame the matter within the context of race (never mind that dogs are almost colour blind!). Malawi's traditional donors too have borne the blunt of the President's hallucinations. Oh, and by the way, his current deputy - handpicked by none other than the president himself - seems to be falling out of favour (and her predecessor too suffered a similar fate)
Given that there is now no opposition to worry about, why does our President continue to see ghosts where there are none? Why can't a man in his final term of office not seek to build a legacy of a unifier instead of the increasingly divisive character he has become?
As we all get older, sadly, we begin to lose our mental capacities. This is a fact of science. It is perhaps high time we considered bringing back the maximum age limit. But then, as someone once said, every mad man thinks that everyone else is mad. It is perhaps my own madness that makes me think that our country's politics is being led by mad people.

Development ? What Development? An ode to the real Malawi flag

Sometimes we Malawians behave as if we do not know what else is happening outside our borders.
The country builds a simple parliament building (with loan funds), a short dual carriage way, a hotel (where the majority of our 13 million people will never sleep in). Throw in a couple of promises of a 'dream' waterway to the Indian Ocean- we all scramble to give titles to the man in State House- who is already handsomely paid to do his job!

I have not traveled much in the world, so I cannot claim that we all the least developed country in the world. But this much I know - I have been to South Africa, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Senegal on this beautiful continent of ours- and I can say that while poverty does exist in all those countries, my beloved Malawi is behind all of them in terms of visible infrastructural development.
A single hotel, a new parliament building, a few dual carriage way roads here, a uranium mine there and a few patched up roads scattered around don't mean we have all of a sudden overcome all our myriad development challenges, let alone the grinding poverty.
Which is why I am, if you can excuse my French, pissed off that the Malawi government has bulldozed this flag change on the pretext that the country has made significant developmental achievements especially under the term of the current occupant in State House.
My patriotism always longs for a better Malawi. Whatever little achievements we have made, they are just a step towards a far much better Malawi. Which is why this blog will always fly the true flag of Malawi, with its rising sun as a beckon of a new and better day.

The sports fan side of me

Ok, here are a couple of pictures from my attendance at sports events this last year. Enjoy
First, Football (the US version!)

1. MSU v Montana State September 2009. The two teams take to the field (victory for MSU)
2. Half Time of MSU V Montana State

3. Basketball: MSU v IPFW, December 20094. Basketball: MSU V Northwestern (Jan 2010) another win!5. Basketball Whiteout: MSU v Purdue (Feb. 2010 - sadly, a loss for MSU)

The Madness of Malawi politics and my political disillusionement...

In recent weeks, I have had to explain to a couple of friends why this blog is not being regularly updated. Many reasons really...
The pressure of academic work: As my studies at Michigan State draw to a close, I find myself focusing more on my research work on Personal Rule and Presidential Term Limits in Africa. Besides taking a big chunk of my time, the study is focused on all of Africa. Given the Malawi-centric nature of this blog, it is really difficult to bring in material from my research onto this forum...at the moment at least.
.....and then there is the issue of my spending inordinate amounts of time on sports - College Basketball, American Football (yes, even that!), the NBA, the English Premiership, and now, the World Cup (Actually, I will be posting a few pictures on the sight from some of the sports games attended this last year)
Other than work, I must say I have recently become more and more disillusioned about Malawi politics: a rubber stamp Parliament that has been reduced to leadership-glorification chamber; blatant disregard of court decisions by government; an inept opposition that is completely lost when one is needed most; a crack down on rights (minority rights as well as freedoms of expression and speech, children rights etc); stupid decisions such as the plans to change the national flag; overzealous government zealots who know not the bounds of their authority; the quota system....the list goes on.
I am even more depressed to see the limited critique of government, from civil society activists, fellow academics to the common people. It is as if we are all in a trance. Excuse me for my inability to speak out for there is simply too much to speak out on and very little time and space to do so.
But then the patriot in me feels I have to speak my mind and I will. Meanwhile, let me salute the few but brave sons and daughters of Malawi who still speak and write about the political challenges we are encountering. You will be heard.

One year on- thinking aloud on the first anniversary of Mutharika’s second term

How time flies. It is already more than a year since Bingu wa Mutharika stood at the Kamuzu Stadium podium, Bible in hand and took the oath of the President of the Malawi Republic for a second time. With the passage of one year, Mutharika has already spent 20 percent of his second term, leaving only four more years before he can pass on the presidential torch to a new leadership.

Speaking to the multitudes of Malawians gathered at the Kamuzu stadium on May 22, 2009, it was clear that President Mutharika saw his and the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) victory in the 2009 general elections as a reward for the achievements he had attained in the preceding five years. And in true adherence to the old Chewa proverb that claims "fumbi ndiwe mwini", Mutharika highlighted in his inaugural speech what he claimed were the achievements of his first administration from 2004 to 2009.

The public applauded, sang, drank, danced and went home, jubilant that not only had Mutharika been given a fresh five-year mandate, but also that his DPP had emerged with a huge parliamentary majority that would, on paper at least, enable Mutharika to purse his developmental agenda without the kind of shackles that had been a characteristic of the opposition-dominated Parliament between 2004 and 2009.

One year on though, the excitement has began dissipating. The optimism of May 2009 is gradually being replaced by a sense of a President who is increasingly out of touch with the people he is supposed to represent. In the last year, the most notable of the president's handwork has been the purchase of the presidential jet as well as the recent multi-million Kwacha wedding whose total cost, as well as who paid for it, still remain unclear to date.

Meanwhile in the National Assembly, there is a sense that despite the huge DPP majority, the Parliament has not lived up to expectation. In the absence of a strong and robust opposition, laws are being passed without adequate scrutiny. Meanwhile, there is a fear that the ruling party's huge parliamentary majority is being used to advance the interests of the DPP at the expense of democratic values and the interests of the country.

While the political game plays out, the ordinary people of Malawi, those individuals that were courted by the political elites to sacrifice their time and resources to stand on long queues and expose themselves to the elements in order to cast their votes in the May 19^th elections, have become rank-outsiders, forgotten and discarded until such a time when politicians will again want their votes as the 2014 elections loom closer.

This scenario often leads to regular discussions on the value of the vote. In buses, markets, churches, stores, football stadiums, drinking joints and other similar places, one hears a common question: why vote, especially considering that very little returns accrue to the voting public.

Indeed, within political science, the question on why individuals bother to take time off from what would otherwise be more self-benefitting activities in order to cast their votes, has led many researchers on electoral behavior to conclude that voting is an irrational activity. Put differently, rational individuals should abstain from voting, especially since besides the economic costs, there is an extremely little likelihood that the vote of a single individual can influence the electoral outcome.

Yet, democracy rests on the foundations of people's vote, even if theory tells us doing so is irrational. And thankfully, most of us continue to exercise our right to vote, in part because we see voting first, as a civic duty, but also as an opportunity to influence government policy by choosing individuals and parties that we think are best placed to advance our personal interest to the extent that those are also the interests of the majority of our country-folk.

If voting is a civic duty, then, it follows that those elected into power have a responsibility to the voters to deliver on their promises. Elections, in other ways, entail a form of a contract, where voters put individuals into office and expect them to honour their campaign pledges. Meanwhile, the voters' role goes beyond simply voting to include a duty of holding those elected into various public offices to deliver on their promises. Without such scrutiny, politicians will promise anything, including the moon, even if they know they cannot deliver.

It is in in-line with the foregoing that it might be worth to remind ourselves at this point, the one-year anniversary of the DPP's and Mutharika's electoral victory in the 2009 elections, what the DPP government promised and to start the process of assessing where we currently stand.

In his 20-page inaugural speech on May 22, 2009, Mutharika identified eight themes from the DPP manifesto as priority areas in his second administration. These included agriculture and food security; integrated rural development; education, science and technology; youth development; transport infrastructure development; irrigation and water development; energy development; and fighting corruption.

The one priority area that has arguably received the greatest attention in the last one year has been agriculture, especially with regard to the continuation of the agricultural subsidy component which has been instrumental in ensuring food security in recent years.

However, while the president continues to bask in the popularity of the agricultural input subsidies, he needs to be reminded, as do all Malawians, that the 2009 DPP manifesto promised a more comprehensive agricultural programme that also included promises to introduce and promote modern agricultural tools and equipment as well as the development of an agricultural green belt. Suffice it to say that these promises have been honored more in rhetoric and less in actual deeds.

While it seems a great idea to promise so much during elections campaign, there is very little movement in actual delivery on many of the other eight priority areas. Most of the road construction has stalled, perhaps waiting for the next electoral campaign cycle; the energy sector continues to be beset by numerous challenges as demonstrated by the frequency of electricity blackouts and fuel shortages in the country. Meanwhile, the promises of dams as part of the irrigation and water development sub-theme have remained nothing more than glossy words printed in on expensive campaign manifesto paper read by only a few elites.

Admittedly, one year of five is too soon to make a final judgment on the overall government performance. The direction taken in the past one year, can, however, serve as a useful pointer on where we are headed in the remaining four years. The only way Malawi is going to progress is not through promises borne out of colourful dreams by politicians. Already, we have, as country, seen how some colourful dreams remain nothing more than mere dreams.

We Malawian voters need to do our part in the electoral contract – if politicians are to be judged by their performance, then we need to hold them to account on their promises and call them out when they fail to deliver. And when they do not deliver, we should boot them out and reject any other new promises because these are likely to be false too. The past, in this sense, should give us the basis to decide on the future. That future, meanwhile, can itself be shaped by today's voter vigilance.

Happy 2010

Warm New Year Greetings!
What a year 2009 has been:
The Malawi elections of May 2009 were obviously a major event for Malawi. The results, which gave the Democratic Progresive Party of Bingu wa Mutharika a resounding victory in both the presidential and parliamentary elections were a major highlight and completely changed the political landscape... former President Bakili Muluzi was once again rejected in his attempts to return to State House for the umpteenth time...
As 2010 dawns, there is already plenty to chew and discuss....
....the country is in the middle of a heated debate on whether to change the national flag (as proposed by government) or not...
Meanwhile, the drama involving two gay men that got 'engaged' within the last week of 2009 will continue into 2010 as the two men are brought before court to answer charges...
will there be local government elections or not?...
we will be here again soon to discuss these and other emerging issues.
Once more, a happy and prosperous 2010 to all Malawians and all our friends across the world.

How much do we know about the personal histories of our leaders?

A discussion with a good colleague based in London a few weeks back has gotten me thinking about how little we really know about our leaders.
Hastings Kamuzu Banda (Prime Minister and President, 1961-1994)

Malawi's first President, the late Hastings Kamuzu Banda, might have ruled for nearly three decades, but yet the country knows very little about his personal history. Indeed, his own relations indicated in a Malawi News article in January of 1998 that the first "Ngwazi " did not want, "for reasons only known to himself, his history to be written while he was alive". Well, twelve years after his passing, we still know very little about the man: when exactly was he born? Was it 1906 as the public was made to believe during his reign or was it during the Mwase-Chibisa war of 1896 as has been suggested by some of his relatives? or was it 1898, as Phillip Short suggests in his biography of the man? What was his name at birth? was it Ackim Kamnkhwala Banda as his relations have pointed out and why did he change his name to Hastings Kamuzu Banda? Did he have brothers and were there more sisters? When exactly did he travel to Zimbabwe, South Africa and later to the United States for his university studies? who sponsored him on these trips and why? what else did he do in those countries other than study?
Was Kamuzu ever married? did he have children? If not, why, especially for a man that put Malawi women - his "Mbumba" at the top of his priorities? And what exactly was the role of the "Official Hostess" in Kamuzu's life? Why did Kamuzu always had to speak in English and require a translator (much like many of our numerous pastors today)?

Bakili Muluzi, President, 1994-2004

Exit Kamuzu, enter Bakili Muluzi. Perhaps the only one of the three Presidents that we know the most about. The only one of the three Malawi leaders not to have spent a good part of his life outside the country, so much is known about Muluzi's personal story, from Kapoloma village in Machinga on his journey to the Malawi presidency. His marriages, his political abilities (and weaknesses), his business acumen and failures are all a matter of public knowledge.

Bingu wa Mutharika, President, 2004-to date
Now, Bingu wa Mutharika. Although less enigmatic than Kamuzu, Mutharika's personal history is also very sketchy. Born Brightson Webster Ryson Thom, very little (that is convincing at least), is known as to why had to change his original names and adopt the Bingu Mutharika moniker.
Does changing ones name from Thomu to Mutharika truly disguise one's identity from the agents of the one-party era as has been suggested? What exactly had he done that required such drastic changes in his life as to not only escape from Malawi, but also to change his entire name? (especially when one considers the most famous victims of Banda's dictatorship like Henry Masauko Chipembere, Kanyama Chiume, Orton Chirwa, etc, did not have to change their names in exile)? Even if we are to he had to change names to escape the one party brutality, did his family (read brother) also have to change names? And does Bingu have any other siblings other than his eponymous brother, Peter?
Where exactly did Thomu/Mutharika do his university studies? Did he physically attend the Universities of Delhi in India and the now defunct Pacific Western University to get his MA and PhD respectively? And did he have a Bachelor's Degree before obtaining the MA at the University of Delhi? If yes, where was this obtained?

We read in the run up to last May's elections, there were so many people showing up looking for jobs by claiming to be related to Mutharika. That is perhaps the price to be paid when very little is known about the background of the man holding the highest office in the land.

The bottom line is that we need to learn more about our leaders. In the absence of credible official information, we are left to rumor and speculation. We need people who are willing to take up these subjects and write up the histories of our leaders while they are still alive, or, in the case of the late Banda, to learn more about the man from those that were close to the late president and are still alive to share what they know of the man. Anyone out there willing to take on this project?

My Two Tambala’s thoughts Quota system and elections for Leader of Opposition

Let me start by apologizing to readers and followers of this blog for the long period of silence. I could not believe it myself to find that my last post was in August – three months back. I have no strong reasons to offer for this silence and can only apologize.

Now to my two topics, starting with the introduction of quota system for University selection.

I must say I agree with President Mutharika on one aspect of this issue: the imbalance in University selection needs to be addressed to malke it more representative. However, I do not agree that the quota system is the way to addressing the root causes of the imbalance.

The solution, in my humble view, rests in the answer to question: why do students in one particular region (the north) fare better in our national exams than those from the other two (and more populous regions)? The fact that our brothers and sisters from the northern region have time and again demonstrated an ability to perform well in national exams is something worth celebrating. To accuse them of cheating – as the President implied in his recent address when he argued that University Lecturers from the north leak exams to northern-students – is not only cheap of the President, but is also demeaning and contemptuous to the professionalism of our esteemed Lecturers from the north – whose dedication and intellect I can personally vouch for any time, any day.

We should look at the strong performance of the students from the northern region as an opportunity, one that we should replicate in the other two regions. In my view, students from the central and southern regions are no less intelligent than those from the north. The question to be addressed by any policy therefore has to be to work towards bringing out this intellect from central and southern students to enable them to stand up on their own with their northern counterparts. The quota system, in my view, merely addresses the superficial aspect of the imbalance, not the root causes.

I do not have solutions to the problem, which needs some deeper research. But I dare say among the issues to be considered are the student-pupil teacher ratios. It is a known fact that there is more congestion in schools in the more populous central and southern districts, with some statistics suggesting that there are twice as many students for every teacher in the central and southern regions than there are in the north. There are also more students sharing a classroom in the central and southern regions than there are in the north. Clearly, these factors contribute to undermining performance of students from the two regions in national exams. A real solution to addressing the imbalance in University selection therefore needs to address these underlying issues - by improving the student-teacher ratio, increasing the number of classroom space and generally making the education system more conducive than is currently the case. Others might argue there is also a need to change the attitude towards education in the central and southern regions, but I am no expert on that.

Otherwise, to the extent that quota system does not address the underlying problems, I would say it is no solution at all.

On elections for Leader of Opposition

I must say I am very saddened to see the turn of events and the direction that our politics is taking. While many celebrated the DPP's landslide victory in the last elections, there were some of us that feared the consequences of such an absolute majority on our young democracy.

There is simply no way I can agree to the view that the ruling party should have a say on who should be the Leader of Opposition. It is a joke and a mockery to our democracy that a Parliament that some had argued had the best brains on the land has chosen to go down this path. The government side should have no say on who should lead those opposing it, much in the same way as the opposition currently has no say on who should be the leader of the government side in the National Assembly.

The recent changes that have allowed the government to have a crucial say in the choice of the Leader of Opposition demeans the value of that office, as the holder now becomes beholden to government and has to answer to them to keep his/her seat. For a government that already has a strong majority in numbers, they could have demonstrated some maturity by keeping out of the infighting among the opposition.

For those who argue that this move serves to teach MCP strongman, John Tembo a lesson – I would say you miss the point. Laws/ rules should not be designed to target a particular individual. They are meant to be timeless. This was the reason some of us strongly objected to the efforts to remove the presidential term limits in 2001/2002. The argument by the UDF at the time that Muluzi was a good leader and a performer (????) was never enough to justify changing a law that applies to all future presidents of the country.

Removing Tembo from the position of the Leader of opposition should have been an internal MCP matter. Those MCP MPs/members not happy with Tembo's leadership should have taken their battle to a party convention. Otherwise, in my view, despite the validity of their protestations about lack of democracy in their party, they are no better than the man they accuse by choosing to take a non-democratic route themselves. Those who celebrate that Tembo's removal is good for democracy, I would: what democracy? The people that have orchestrated Tembo's removal are not democrats themselves. I personally would rather live with people that are democratically elected, even if their democratic credentials are questionable than applaud the removal of a democratically elected leader by non-democrats.

It is a sad day for democracy in Malawi and I for one, am not celebrating.

Diploma Mill Economics

Pacific Western University (PCU) of California, USA is described by Wikipedia, the web based, free content encyclopedia project, as "an institution criticized on multiple occasions as a substandard educational institution or 'diploma mill'. Among the ranks of its alumni is our own President, Bingu wa Mutharika who obtained a PhD in Development Economics from there.

In the last couple of weeks, a number of economic decisions made in Malawi in my view, have gone to confirm the questionable of economics one would expect from a diploma mill like PCU. On July 31st, the Daily Times run an article headlined "Forex Shortage affects Unilever". According to this article, Unilever, is struggling to procure raw materials for its products from outside Malawi due to forex shortage. As a result, the company is currently unable to produce enough products for the local market.

Two days before the Unilever story, the same paper had carried an article chronicling the struggles of one Eunice Kendulo, a fifty-one year old cotton farmer from Salima district in central Malawi. This story reports that cotton buyers have 'voted with their feet' by staying away from buying after the President imposed a minimum buying rate of K70 per kilogram while the buyers were offering half of that. The end result is that the likes of Ms. Kendulo are stuck with a commodity that they cannot sell or consume.
President Mutharika's responses to these episodes? Closing down of forex bureaux and threatening cotton buyers with deportation (never mind that none are currently buying) if they refuse to pay the set minimum price. Tobacco buyers have in recent years faced similar threats of deportation when the President has, in his wisdom, set minimum prices for the tobacco crop.
The President's desire to ensure Malawian farmers get the most for their produce is a noble goal. Similarly, the refusal to float the Malawi Kwacha is being justified as an attempt to cushion local consumers from price increases that would result from devaluing the local currency.

While I am not a believer in unfettered laissez-faire economics, it surprises me to see the levels of protectionism that the Bingu government is undertaking in Malawi (perhaps the outcome of 1960s protectionist economics?). For one, the resistance to liberalize the currency exchange market is as ridiculous as it is self defeating. Not only are Malawian companies unable to procure necessary raw materials for their domestic production, but it also results in the very thing that Bingu is trying to avoid- price increases as fewer goods are produced in a market that demands more. Additionally, an overvalued currency also makes Malawian goods very uncompetitive on the international market, reducing the inflow of foreign currency, further perpetuating the forex shortages.
As for the minimum price settings, the President would do better to convince the farmers not to sell below his preferred minimum price. Let Ms. Kendulo and her fellow cotton farmers decide whether to sell at lower prices or keep their cotton harvest unsold. The President should not adopt this self-defeating know-it-all attitude.

As for these constant threats of deporting foreign investors, well, who is the ultimate loser? While I am not naive enough to assume that all 'investors' have the good of Malawi at heart, I strongly feel this scare-them policy only serves to scare away other investors, depriving hardworking Malawians of employment opportunities. And frankly, all this gives the impression of a leader who is not in control.

Where was President Mutharika? Gone AWOL?

President Bingu wa Mutharika just returned home this week from a hashed-up holiday in an undisclosed location. That the President is entitled to a holiday like the rest of us is not an issue - and after a grueling and ultimately successful campaign season, who can even begrudge Bingu a breather - perhaps on the seaside in swimming costumes and a glass of beer on the side!
Be that as it may, I feel as a country, we should have been told - at the minimum, that he was going on holiday, even if the destination remained a secret (for whatever reason). But it seems in the typical mode of the Big Man leadership style, the President is not even comfortable saying he is going on holiday to nurture the impression that the Big Man never rests.
The sad part of all this over-secrecy is that rumour quickly fills in the void. Is the President sick and in hospital somewhere? Did the grueling campaign cause some slipped discs requiring unforeseen medical attention? Perhaps he is getting a regular medical check-up? where is he being treated/ checked? In a hospital or is he being prayed for by some faith healers somewhere? Perhaps getting attention from a sing'anga akunja? ?
The long and short of it is that all this unnecessary secrecy, far from propping up the Big Man image that our President and his advisers seem so keen to cultivate, only serves to undermine it. The President would not lose any authority by openly stating that he is going to take a short holiday or even stating that he needs to go for medical check up. He is human after all.
If I am to go on holiday, I just don 't go attending conferences and then decide to extend my stay by taking a holiday. As taxpayers, we are the President's bosses and need to be told what he is doing, and preferably, where. For all the tax-payer money he gets to spend at our expense, the least he can do is to let us know what he is up to. That is not too much to ask.

Who are Malawi's Real Achievers?

The recent awards recognizing the 'achievements' of a few Malawians dished out during the 45th Independence anniversary celebrations raise a number of questions, three of which immediately come to mind.

Hail to Malawi's newly crowned Excellent Grand Commander!

The first question from these awards is how we as a country define achievers? The list of Malawi's supposed achivers that were recognised this last July 6 is dominated by politicians and their closest friends. The first Head of State, the late Kamuzu Banda and the incumbent Bingu wa Mutharika, were both accorded the honorific titles of "Excellent Grand Commander". Didn't Malawians reject Banda in the early 1990s because, as the Catholic Bishops' said in their oft cited Pastoral Letter of 1991 "the majority of [Malawians] live in circumstances which are hardly compatible with their dignity as sons and daughters of God". And hasn't Bingu himself claimed that he had to free into exile to run away from Banda's dictatorship? Didn't some on the list of achievers suffer national ridicule and forced to live the lives of exiles under the very Banda who is being accorded the title of Excellent Grand Commander? And by granting both Banda and Mutharika this highest title, are we to assume their achievements are at par? Now, I do not want to ignore Bingu's achievements in the last five years, but are we as a country satisfied with what has been done so far? There has been some progress in terms of road infrastructure, some bumper maize harvests (paid for the tax payer, not from the President's pockets). But If anyone tells me this merits a double adjectival description, i.e., excellent and grand, I have to say it is so depressing that we have to be satisfied with so little. In my view, Mutharika's achievements, notable as they are, are neither excellent nor grand. They merely stand out because his predecessor set the bar so low, so much that we are seeing a mountain in achievements that are nothing more than an anthill.

My second question is who decides these awards? In the ideal world, one would hope for a more neutral panel to select the awardees. However, looking at the list, it is quite clear that a group of politicians with obvious party leanings sat down and decided who to award and who not to. That Bingu looks up to Kamuzu's as his hero is no secret (despite claiming to have fled the country because of Kamuzu's authoritarian rule). It comes as no surprise then that besides Bingu, Kamuzu is the other recipient of the highest honor a sign that the student feels he is now at the same level with his teacher/ hero. The majority of the names on the list are politicians, both dead and alive, who, although not necessarily affiliated to the ruling DPP, are at least not associated with the current political opposition. While I don't want to begrudge the contributions of most of these sons and daughters of Malawi the recognition they deserve, I am at a loss to understand what a number of the people on the list have contributed to justify their recognition over and above the contributions of others. In particular, what is so special about politicians? My former primary school headmaster, in my view, worked so hard and achieved much more than what most of the people that were recognized last Monday. The likes of Allan Namoko, Archbishop James Chiona, Levi Ziliro Mumba, John Chilembwe, John Gwengwe, Daniel Kachamba- to mention but a few are, in my view, great and genuine achievers that truly stand out, even if a dodgy group of party loyalists overlook their contributions because their recognition does not generate any political mileage for the ruling party.
The third conundrum is the criteria for granting these awards. Does a criterion really exist? Does it make sense to award individuals that are still living, and thus potentially with a lot more achievements yet to come? Is there a clear criteria on measuring what amounts to an achievement that is to be nationally recognized? For example, what have certain opportunist Chiefs achieved other than bestowing meaningless titles on leaders in return for patronage? How do we explain the recognition of Malawians that played roles that are polar opposites to each other, such as those of a former "Life President" and those of a freedom fighter who was imprisoned for standing up to the very same dictator? And further, how does one recognize the achievements of individuals who served as faithful deputies and yet ignore the contributions of the very people they deputized? (Now, this should not be taken to mean I endorse those who suggest former President Muluzi should also have been recognized. But it seems to me if Muluzi's deputy achieved so much, then common sense would imply Muluzi too must have achieved something (whatever that is).
The long and short of it is that these political awards are ridiculous and unnecessary. There are millions of Malawians that are contributing in many meaningful ways. Parents that strive against odds to provide meals to their kids every day; Teachers that continue to educate Malawi's future generation and yet get paid next to nothing; medical practitioners who struggle and improve to serve hundreds of lives in our poorly equipped hospitals; volunteers that are trying to find ways to reduce poverty in our land; poorly paid police officers who are trying their best to bring about peace and security in our midst; pastors and church people that bring comfort and solace to people when politicians are busy sharing the national cake. There are better achievers out there that are simply doing their work and do not expect to be given any awards or titles. The sad part is that these people are made to feel that their contributions are meaningless when we have national events that honor wannabe achievers.