The World is Watching Mr President Mutharika - Change

From the Editorial entitled "Wake up wa Mutharika" in Mmegi newspaper of Botswana, April 6, 2011:

"Mr president it is most outrageous of you to say that demonstrations are a privilege and that you want demonstrators to pay between K2.5 million to K5 million (P108,300-P542,000) to stage a demonstration. From what is happening in the Arab world, you know what happens to leaders who repress the human soul. Finally we call on you Mr president to respect the rule of law. The wanton disregard for court orders by your regime is proof that you have derailed in a big way. It is time for you to introspect and go back to the people of Malawi with a view to making amends. Our brothers and sisters in Malawi and SADC cannot afford to have a failed state and it is upon you to ensure that they will not"

read the entire comment on the Mmegi Online website at:
Mmegi Online: Wake up wa Mutharika

...and let he who has ears hear!!

Bordering on Giving Up....

I have very fond memories growing up in the Thyolo Tea plantations, running to school in the mist of cold mornings in our green and khaki school uniforms...
Now, because someone with questionable sanity usurped the trust of Malawians and turned it into a tool for nepotism, all of us Thyolo people are being caricatured as nepotistic individuals. In the spirit of the old Chewa proverb, nsomba ikaola imodzi, zonse zaola (when one fish is rotten in the basket, chances are all are rotten), all of us Lomwe people from Thyolo are- understandably - painted in the same brush.
One wonders what the future holds for the current generation of young minds currently running to their schools in the same tea plantations we used to wonder in days gone by: Will they forever be perceived in the lens of their ethnicity? Will they be trusted again? Will they have to pay for the sins of this our generation? Will they be given the opportunities we have been fortunate to have?
The pronouncements of the Man who is supposed to be Chancellor of the University of Malawi and his defence of the Inspector General's despicable actions, makes our jobs all the more difficult. I am sure it makes the job of the professional managers of the University more difficult as his pronouncements and decrees make dialogue impossible. Or does he really care?
Now, I am beginning to question, do I want to go back to that? How can I seriously go and stand in front of my students and have to censor what I teach? Indeed, Can I even go back when my closest friend and colleague has been as badly treated as Blessings has been? Indeed, are our services even needed at all?
One thing I know for sure is that I will not give in to threats. Like my colleagues, I refuse to be intimidated.
I am passionate about my country. It has given me so much and there is not enough I can give back in return....But maybe, it is time to reconsider whether the country needs what little I have to offer. Maybe I should start looking at those classified ads sections again and look for opportunities elsewhere?

Of clueless and incompetent Cabinet Ministers- Peter Mutharika and George Chaponda among the most incompetent

I don't usually criticize Malawi Cabinet Ministers. This is not because they do a great job- far from it. The simple truth is that over the years, I have come to expect very little from them. Why else would I expect so much from a bunch whose primary qualification appears to be their ability to shout the most in praising the President and showing up at each and every presidential function? Coupled with the fact that ours is a politics where the president wields so much power and influence that non-performance of government ministries and departments is always blamed on the president and not the responsible ministers?
I should add here that this is not a new tradition. In the first year of Malawi's independence, the country's first president, the late Hastings Kamuzu Banda, demonstrated his strong intolerance for independent minds in his Cabinet when he crashed with a group of progressive political upstarts such as Henry Chipembere, Kanyama, Yatuta Chisiza, Orton Chirwa, Willie Chokani and others and dismissed them from his Cabinet. In the years that followed, Banda's presidency thrived on the appointment of praise-singers into Cabinet, with Ministers fighting to be seen as the loudest and most noteworthy hero-worshippers of Banda.
Although Bakili Muluzi's tenure as president in the mid 1990s started off with the appointment of what could be considered as a truly meritocratic cabinet, he very quickly fell back into the old trap of seeking to place the presidency at the centre stage of Malawi politics. Merit was soon abandoned and replaced with political expediency. Like his predecessor, Muluzi began to appoint individuals on the basis of their ability praise him.
Exit Muluzi, enter Mutharika. At his first swearing in ceremony in 2004, Mutharika intimated that he would only appoint individuals into cabinet on merit. However, over time, this has been nothing more than mere rhetoric. Instead Mutharika has continued with the tradition of appointing praise-singers into Cabinet while ostracizing those that are perceived as political threats. As a result, we find individuals such as Charles Mchacha, Billy Kaunda, Vuwa Kaunda, Aaaron Sangala, Nicholas Dausi, among others, becoming permanent features of Cabinet while the likes of Goodal Gondwe, the late Moses Chirambo, among others, faced the chop. I dare say if one Roy Comsy was still an MP, he would have been one of the bozos retained in the Mutharika Cabinet!
Anyway, I therefore need to be excused for not having high expectations of Malawi's Cabinet Ministers. Even when so many commentators took the view that Mutharika's new Cabinet after the 2009 elections included highly learned and qualified individuals, I still took a deem view. And if the truth is to be told, some of the disappointments have been exactly the supposedly very learned Ministers.
Among the worst disappointments, in my view, is one George Chaponda. Despite his acclaimed academic qualifications, Chaponda's incompetency continues to befuddle the mind. This is an individual who, as Minister of Local Government in 2006, said Local Government Elections were unnecessary because the absence of councillors was not being felt. For a Minister who was appointed to champion local government, such myopia was unforgivable to the extent that I and my colleague, Harold Ngalawa, called for his immediate resignation in our Sunday Times of 28th May 2006. Of course, Chaponda never resigned and continued to enjoy the confidence and trust of his boss, Bingu wa Mutharika.
So the fact that in recent times, Chaponda has 'fouled' Malawi's image by wrongly suggesting that the provision on fouling the air that was part of the recent local courts bill included the banning of farting did not come as a surprise to me. It was frankly terrible that an entire Minister of Justice did not read the bill which had already been circulated to Members of Parliament by his own Ministry. This spectacle not only demonstrated the casual approach that we have in making laws, but it also goes to shed some insights into the laissez-faire attitude of Cabinet in fulfilling its responsibilities. In a normal world, Chaponda would have tabled the bill in Cabinet for extensive discussions. Only when cabinet was satisfied should the bill have been sent for debate in Parliament. And yet, when the line minister had not read the bill, it beggars belief to think that the other Cabinet Members bothered to read it either or that there was any deliberation over it in Cabinet. But, well, Chaponda still enjoys the confidence of his boss, never mind the embarrassment he has caused to the country.
Chaponda's incompetence however, pales in significance compared to that of the man he swapped ministries with, Peter Mutharika, currently the Minister of Education. This supposedly second coming of Moses, as we are being made to believe, comes across to me not only as aloof, but also clueless of what is going on in his ministry. While students at both Chancellor College and the Polytechnic have been out demonstrating over unpaid allowances; my fellow academics at Chancellor College get besieged by the Police; primary school teachers are in revolt over a poorly thought of policy on hardship allowances - the younger Mutharika goes on to claim that he he has no knowledge about what is happening at the colleges and about the striking primary school teachers.
Given that these events have received wide media coverage, I can only assume that the fact that Peter Mutharika knows nothing about them means the guy cannot read and has no advisors to read on his behalf. For someone who professes to be an Academic, the younger Mutharika's handling of events in the Education Ministry has been nothing but a disaster. He could, for example, have intervened very quickly when the Inspector General of Police unwisely decided to interrogate my friend and colleague, Blessings Chinsinga over the content of his lectures. This issue could have been quickly defused if this supposed Professor of Law jumped in and defended his fellow academics from the attempts of Mukhito to take Malawi back to the dark days of interference of academic freedom.
A forward looking Minister of Education should have foreseen that the policy of discriminatory payments of hardship allowances to teachers was bound to cause problems when all teachers in the country- including both those in urban and rural settings- are grossly underpaid. One could make the argument for example, that urban teachers need more resources to cover their rentals and the generally higher cost of living there compared to rural areas. Instead of this stupid policy, government could have offered some forms of general allowances, such as chalk allowance (teachers), risk allowances (medical staff) payable to all civil servants in these lines of work.
But maybe this is expecting too much from a man that we are supposed to coronate as our new Brother President come 2014. You would think Malawi has other better qualified and more competent people than these jokers. Perhaps the fact that the younger Mutharika, despite his obvious limited leadership abilities, is the best that Malawi has to offer, is no more than a reflection of the intellectual limits of the country? I wonder.

Politics of Poverty of Ideas: With Guest Author, Blessings Chinsinga

Blessings is still talking. Not even the recent police threats will silence him. Meanwhile, Lecturers at Chancellor College have demonstrated their solidarity with Blessings and also refuse to be silenced. Elsewhere, it in the world, Dictators are on notice. The people will neither be silenced nor will they be cowed. "Vox populi est Vox Dei:" - the voice of the People is the Voice of God.
The following piece from Blessings appeared in the Sunday Times of February 20, 2011. BD

The Poverty Of Ideas

Ideas are at the heart of progress in any sphere of endeavour. Without ideas, the world would virtually come to a standstill. However, ideas have to be competitive in order to steer progress. Any attempt to ‘monotholize’ ideas is disastrous. Even at an individual level, such an attempt can only result in stagnation, if not retrogression.

This reminds me of what one of our Reverends at Zomba CCAP used to say in most of his sermons and I quote “each individual is a walking civil war”. In other words, an individual is a bundle of contradictions which in the final analysis in an epitome of progress. To sin or not sin, one engages in some kind of debate. Rarely is sin not a product of rather protracted debates in our minds.

Ideas are particularly powerful in the world of politics. The evolution of political systems from monarchies through autocracies to democracies is a product of an open contestation of ideas. As Plato would argue, no political order is stable. In his conception of the paradigm of the cycle of change, Plato argues that no political system, even the so called mature democracies, is perfect. People are always searching for the best possible state of society that can harness their creativity to the fullest for meaningful and dignified lives.

This inevitable because according to Plato each society is beholden to the law of degeneracy. The degree to which the law of degeneracy embattles society is very much dependent on whether it entertains is a free market place for ideas or not. The free flow and let alone contestation of ideas allows a society to constantly renew itself. In other words, a society is constantly adjusting itself to new sets equilibria which allows it to fully exploit its potential.

Not many societies would claim to have reached such a stage. It is, of course, not difficult to do so but many leaders deliberately choose to frustrate progress by claiming monopoly of wisdom. They pretend they know it all. Even when the script is clearly off track, they are bold enough to project themselves as having all answers to the problems being experienced. And while some of the challenges are clearly beyond their grasp most of them are ironically self made.

There cannot only be one truth. This is evident even in the current thinking about development. In the era of post-modernism, there is no a universal path to development and prosperity. We can no longer talk of development but rather developments. This clearly underlies the primacy of the free market of ideas as a precursor of development and progress.

Consequently, a society that does not entertain alternative ideas, and in which the leadership projects itself as all knowing, catches up with the law of degeneracy rather rapidly. The decay is even much faster if a regime resorts to suppressing alternative ideas either covertly or overtly.

A regime that suppresses alternative ideas surely digs its own grave. Progress comes to a halt since this tendency creates a generalized and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic which breeds fear and lack of self drive and innovation. The consequence is a culture of conformism which is an antithesis of progress. People simply do things to please the powers that be and not to take society to greater heights.

A society needs fresh ideas, debate and engagement at all levels in order to deal with pressing issues successfully. It becomes worrisome when there is clearly less tolerance to question the norms and values underpinning a society’s democracy. Invariably, universities suffer enormous decline as places for intellectual engagement and debates. They become centres of regurgitation instead of nodes for critical thinking which takes away from society the ability for Socratic questioning, accountability and responsibility.

As the law of degeneracy takes its toll, the public intellectual retreats especially if a regime falls prey to Macheviallian political tactics. Public intellectuals simply shut down. When we talk of public intellectuals, we are not talking only about those with links to institutions of higher learning.

Public intellectuals are everywhere. You can get them from all possible walks of life. They are in civil society, public service, private sector and even at community levels. These are simply individuals who are gifted with thinking outside the box. They are sources of new ideas that drive progress in various realms of life. Society benefits from engaging with their ideas in a civilized fashion even when they dare the mainstream thinking.

When public intellectuals shut down, a society experiences systemic failure. This is what ultimately breeds politics of poverty of ideas which is quite dangerous. There is often no going back even when it is very clear that a society is headed on an outright regressive trajectory. A society invariably finds itself stuck in an auto pilot mode since people are rewarded for conformity and dressed down for taking initiative that appears to threaten the status quo even when it is in the best interest of society.

Public intellectuals are indispensable since their role is to suggest alternatives, to make comparisons, to question orthodoxies, to interrogate motives so that an informed debate on public issues can take place. However, for this to happen, a society needs a new mindset, attitude and renewed energy besides progressive leadership.

Leaders have an important role to play in this revolution. Not any other type of leadership though; it requires a leadership that is well versed with the servant paradigm of leadership and genuinely believes in it. Primarily, incumbents must view leadership as a service to be provided to the people and not something to be exploited for selfish gains.

Not until then can leadership boldly challenge their followers that they cannot trade their nationality for any other place because their country is the best place on earth. This was a hit in Barack Obama’s recent State of Union address. How many leaders can boldly emulate Obama? Surely I can count them on my palm.

Mutharika's dictatorship hits a new low: Unima's Blessings Chinsinga summoned by Inspector General of Police

Things continue to get worse in Malawi on the governance front. The arrogance and disregard of the rule of law and people's rights demonstrated by the Mutharika regime continues unabated. This is despite recent donor actions to suspend aid due to poor governance as well as crippling shortages of fuel, forex, water and electricity, to mention but a few ills.
Now it has just come to my attention that my good friend and occasional contributor to this blog, Blessings Chinsinga, was this morning (12 February, 2011) summoned to appear before the Inspector General of Malawi Police to respond to allegations that he has been inciting students to demonstrate against the government.
Needless to say I am so mad to hear this story and enraged that the Bingu government is sinking so low as to threaten University academics with serious yet unfounded accusations. In any case, the right to demonstrate is enshrined under Section 38 of the Malawi Constitution so it should be no crime to even contemplate organizing one (as indeed is happening with the Monday demonstration organized by HRCC and others). To his credit, Blessings, is taking a more philosophical and reflective approach to this sad episode. I can only hope this does not silence him and other critics who courageously speak in defence of Malawi's hard-won democracy.
From my understanding of the matter at hand, it would appear the Inspector General is using students to act as informers on their lecturers and report any criticism of government made in the lecturer rooms. And judging by the fact that the IG had to travel all the well from Lilongwe to meet Blessings in Zomba suggests that the police hierarchy are taking these informants very seriously. Blessings' alleged 'crime' is to have given examples about the ongoing difficulties of lack of forex, fuel etc as examples of issues that can instigate the kind of demonstrations recently seen in Tunisia and Egypt.
In my view, the lecture room is the academic's sanctum - one needs to be free to speak and provide concrete, relevant and contemporary examples - preferably local ones - without the fear of being summoned bto appear before the Police. I have to say that inspite his ineptitude, the former President, Bakili Muluzi never resorted to such grotesque tactics to silence us. And we will not be silenced.

White Elephants: when World Inland ports are reduced to swimming pools

On 23rd October 2010, Malawi’s wise and dynamic leader, Ngwazi # 2, Bingu wa Mutharika, opened the Nsanje World Inland Port in the presence of the Presidents of Zambia and Zimbabwe (bringing back memories of the potential revival of the old Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland?).

Even if the small and unresolved issue of a feasibility study had not been conducted, the all-knowing reincarnation of the Ngwazi commissioned the start of the construction of the port at a reported cost of K3.9 billion. Well, even the simple fact the Mozambican government – in whose territory most of this new 238km route to the Indian Ocean passes - had not granted their full authorization for the project, Mutharika went ahead and invited his federal colleagues to join him in launching the project on that sunny and hot October morning.

It is now almost four months since that colorful launch and no single ship, nay, boat/badge is yet to arrive at Nsanje port. And if the above picture of the port taken in January 2011 is to be believed, no badges will be docking at Nsanje port in the near future.

At least the people of Nsanje have found other uses for the port.

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.