Talking about Malawi Politics and other stuff. Occasionally, we journey across the borders and look at what our friends are doing and what we can learn from them...
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.
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)
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.
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 19th 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Presidential Election Results Here's a summary of the presidential elections results, based on the schedule of results released by the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) at 12:228pm on Saturday, May 23rd 2009.
Candidate
Votes For
Share of Valid Votes
Bingu wa Mutharika (DPP)
2,946,103
65.98%
John Tembo (MCP)
1,370,044
30.69%
Kamuzu Chibambo (PETRA)
35,167
0.79%
Stanley Masauli (RP)
33,887
0.76%
Loveness Gondwe (NARC)
32,160
0.72%
James Nyondo (Independent)
27,328
0.61%
Dindi Gowa Nyasulu (Aford)
20,151
0.45%
Total valid votes:
4,464,840
Parliamentary Election Results
I have reconciled the results of the elections of May 19th as released by the Malawi Electoral Commission with those announced on the radio and circulating on the Internet. I did note a couple of errors on the list that has been doing the rounds on the net. For instance, one seat that was won by the MCP candidate in Dowa South East was allocated to a DPP candidate who actually came second. Another seat that was won by an independent candidate in Thyolo South was listed as having been won by the DPP candidate. In yet another case, two independent candidates were both listed as having won the same seat in Zomba Likangala. In Lilongwe Msozi North, the wrong person was listed as the victor yet the winner was a different person, albeit also an independent. Having made these corrections, here's the final parliamentary list:
Party
Seats Won
Share of Seats
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
112
58.33%
Malawi Congress Party (MCP)
28
14.58%
United Democratic Front (UDF)
17
8.85%
Alliance for Democracy (Aford)
1
0.52%
Maravi Peoples Party (MPP)
1
0.52%
Malawi Forum for Unity and Dvt (MAFUNDE)
1
0.52%
Independents
32
16.68%
Total
192
* note that elections were not held in one constituency following the death of one of the contesting candidates.
While the DPP is short of the two thirds majority by 16 MPs, it is worth recalling that a high proportion of the candidates that were elected on an independent ticket were those that were frustrated in one way or another in the DPP primary elections. It is likely that a majority of the 32 independents will side with the DPP when parliament meets. Indeed, already, a number of the new independent MPs have rejoined the ruling DPP, further bolstering the ruling party's numbers before the new Parliament has even met. The opposition parties (MCP, UDF, Aford, MPP and MAFUNDE) between them have a combined total of 48 seats, translating into 25 percent of the seats in the new Parliament.
Parties that will receive Parliamentary Funding
As the numbers currently stand, only the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) with 58.33% and the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) will be the only parties entitled to receive parliamentary funding on account of the fact that they have at least 10% of the seats in Parliament. For the first time since 1994, the UDF will not be eligible to receive Parliamentary funding.
More Women in the new Parliament
The campaign to increase the number of women legislators in the new Parliament appears to have had some success, albeit marginally. The 2009-2014 Parliament will have a total of 42 lady legislators (22%) - up by 15 from the last Parliament which had 27 lady MPs (14%). The new figure of 22 percent is still lower than the SADC gender protocol which called upon member states to have a minimum of 30% female legislators.
High Turnover of MPs
One characteristic feature of the May 19th elections has been a high turnover of legislators. The new Parliament retains only 53 of the original 193 legislators that sat in the House in the last Parliament. A whopping 139 of the 2009-2014 Parliamentarians (73%) are entering the National Assembly for the first time (138 if we exclude Khwauli Msiska, who was a member of the House in the 1999-2004 Parliament). The list of casualties applies across the board. The DPP is returning 26 MPs from the last Parliament, while both the MCP hand the UDF have returned 12 each. MPP's Uladi Mussa, and two independents - Cassim Chilumpha and Billy Kaunda are the other three returnees.
Justice Anastasia Msosa has done it again! having overseen the successful 1994 elections, she has once again ably led the team that has handled these elections. There have been numerous challenges yes and there is always room for improvement. from talking to people in Malawi, it appears the electoral Commission has done a wonderful job, making these the best organised elections since 1994. The calm way that the Malawian public conducted itself on polling day and the manner in which the results have been received also deserves our appreciation. We should not take this for granted - we know elsewhere on the continent, election results have sparked violence that in the worst cases, has resulted in multiple deaths. We deserve to pat ourselves on the back for maintaining peace throughout the process.
In my previous post, I was predicting a victory for incumbent president Bingu wa Mutharika. I must confess I did not expect the margin of victory that appears to be emerging from the election results as currently being announced. For all intents and purposes, Mutharika appears to be headed for a strong landslide performance. While Bingu is performing strongly in the northern region as predicted, he has also performed just as strongly in the central region and the southern region. perhaps the biggest surprise is coming in Parliament. While a number of independents are outperforming some DPP candidates in a few areas, by and large, the strong performance of the DPP is being repeated in the Parliamentary race. Indeed, even among the independents that are winning, most are among those that were frustrated in the DPP primary race. In other words, these are essentially DPP candidates that are most likely to go back to their DPP home. The people's verdict is in - some of us will be talking about what this bodes for the future of the country's democracy, about the future of the opposition, about voting trends in a country long used to regionalistic politics. All that should be put in the context of what the Malawi people want. They cannot be expected to vote for individuals who have failed them just for the sake of maintaining an opposition. they cannot be expected to vote for people from their region even if they are deemed failures. It is the dawn of a new politics.
The elections are a mere three days away. The official campaign period ends on Sunday, May 17th at 06:00am. Being so removed from the ground has meant that I have been unable to make any independent judgments and predictions on the entire process. It is the second election that I will be missing and this gives me a heavy heart. I can only hope that those that have the vote use it on Tuesday and decide on who should be entrusted with the power to exercise the role of President for the next five years and who should also be entrusted with making laws for the same period. There is just no excuse for not voting. So who are the likely winners and losers from these elections? My predictions, I should stress, are based on second hand information, reinforced by the live radio coverage from Zodiak radio and Capital radio's daily news summaries - two of Malawi's best radio stations). President: Bingu wa Mutharika faces a tough challenge from MCP's John Tembo, whose electoral fortunes have been boosted by his coalition with the UDF. An Afrobaromter survey conducted late last year gave Mutharika a commanding lead over both Tembo and Muluzi (standing as individual candidates). While the coalition gives MCP and UDF the chance to consolidate their vote, I am not convinced this gives them enough to overturn Mutharika's lead from last October's survey. Yes, a couple of decisions on the DPP side - including running mate selection, confrontational and sometimes ill-advised choice of language that disparages opponents and their supporters alike, might have eroded Mutharika's support among a section of the middle class. However, while this will make the presidential race a tighter race than the Afrobarometer survey data suggested, I still feel Mutharika will sneak in. Verdict: Mutharika for President. Parliament: The selection of candidates for the DPP in the primary elections left a lot to be desired. candidates were imposed, while some winners were discarded in favour of preferred names. While DPP is going to increase its numbers in the new Parliament from the six it had in the previous one, it might yet again fall short of a majority. I am also somewhat unsure of the impact of the UDF/MCP coalition on Parliament. Listening to the campaign coverage on Zodiak radio, I cannot help to think that voters are bound to be confused when you have John Tembo / Bakili Muluzi introducing candidates for both parties in the elections that will be competing against each other. This might have an impact on their performance in the elections. Verdict: another split Parliament
I am intrigued by the High Court's decision to reject Madonna's application to adopt Mercy James. I must say I am torn on this matter: a Big part of me is sympathetic to little Mercy and the opportunities that would have been opened for her if she were to join Madonna's household. I can just imagine how little Mercy will feel when she learns as a grown up that she was denied the opportunity to experience a totally different life from the challenges of living in an orphanage where she seems destined to spend a good part of her young life now. I am not naive of course. Mercy is just one of thousands of kids like her in Malawi. Just because Madonna sought to take her to join little David does not change much for the plight of orphans in our country. Adoptions like these, in other words, much as they change the lives of the single individual kids, impact very little, if at all, on the challenge of orphans in our country. We need a more holistic approach other than celebrity adoptions to solve the problem. This does not mean though we should frustrate well wishers like Madonna and other unheralded individuals who want to help by adopting some of our less fortunate children like Mercy. I am a firm believer that the opportunities we get very strongly influence our destiny. While David Banda might have been condemned to a life of underachievement, he now stands to fulfill his full potential and perhaps more due to the world of opportunities opened for him under Madonna's roof. Otherwise, we have too many children growing up in our beautiful country who have so much potential yet they are never given the opportunity to translate this potential into meaningful lives because it remains untapped. Let me state here though I do not in any way blame the High Court for making the decision it has. It is not for the Court's to make laws for the country- theirs is simply one of interpretation. The blame, in my view, ought to be placed squarely on the feet of our politicians. The problems in our adoption laws were exposed when Madonna first adopted David Banda a few years back (or most likely earlier when other less glamorous foreign nationals might have faced similar challenges). After that episode, we should have woken up and been proactive to address the deficiencies by amending the law accordingly. Instead, we were preoccupied with the trivial political games that appear to be the hallmark of our politics at the expense of addressing serious issues that affect us. It is thus hypocritical for all manner of politicians, including cabinet Ministers, to make noises against the ruling when it is precisely their fault that they did not act. To hear the likes of Patricia Kaliyati and Anna Kachikho speaking on the matter makes me realize these people have no clue as regards what their role is in law making. Had the law been changed, the Court's would have ruled differently. It was not.It it would thus be unfair to blame Judge Esmie Chombo - she was simply doing her job and applying the law as it stands. That is called the rule of law.
This has been a very interesting week for Malawi. After a game of hide and seek, the presidential contenders have finally revealed their hands and declared their running mates. I must confess I have been gripped by the events as they have unfolded this week. It is moments like these that I miss being at home. Just my two tambala's worth on the process: 1. I feel the electoral commission needs to come up with a better system of submissions for the presidential candidates. as the system currently stands, it gives a slight (emphasis intended) to the candidate that is last to present their nomination papers. Considering the secretive nature of these processes, the candidate who presents their papers last has a chance to change his/her ticket as a response to the choices of the earlier candidates.They could all come together and present their papers at the same time (am sure there are ways to prevent chaos and any violence in such circumstances - wasn't this the way it was done in 1994?) 2. Talking of secrets, I have been bemused by how all the major parties not only stage-managed the selection of their presidential candidates, but also how they have been united in the secretive nature of choosing their running mates. wouldn't it be better for the candidates to go to their conventions and contest for the presidential ticket with a running mater already in place? this way, a very strong candidate does not end up choosing their son / wife / brother etc as their running mate. 3. As regards the candidature of former President Muluzi, that is now up to the Electoral Commission now to make a decision. Suffice it to say my own interpretation of section 83(3) - the presidential term limits is influenced less by the letter of the law and more by the 'spirit' behind the provision. But even looking at the letter of the law, I fail to read : a "Maximum of two consecutive terms" in any other way but to say a maximum of two terms, one following the other. No more. Otherwise, I feel we have a strong field of candidates, all of whom in my view have the qualities to lead our beautiful country. The field of running mates is equally strong, and all of them are patriotic Malawians that can step into the shoes of the presidency if required. No one will have an excuse for not going to exercise their right to vote. I just hope the candidates will demonstrate a level of maturity in the campaign and focus on issues rather than character assassination. It is time our democracy is built around issues, not personalities or emotions. May the best team win!
It is not every day that I agree with former President, Bakili Muluzi. Looking back, I can only recall only one moment when I publicly agreed with a decision of his - sending a couple of Malawi Army Helicopters to help in the humanitarian efforts during the devastating Mozambican floods of early 2000.
Be that as it may, I must say I agree wholeheartedly with Muluzi’s recent calls for a reduction in fuel prices in the country and only wish more people joined him on this crusade to compel the government to takeaction on the crippling and yet unjustifiable high prices of petrol in Malawi.
The rationale behind the demand for fuel price reductions is simple and straightforward. In June this year, the price of a barrel of crude oil on the international market peaked at a whopping $147 a barrel (approximately 159 litres). Understandably, the pump price for petrol products across the world skyrocketed. In Malawi, the pump price for a litre of unleaded petrol shot up to the current K251.20. In neighbouring Zambia, the same was selling at ZK9,646 (equivalent to about MK 420) a litre. In the United States, the cost of a gallon (about 4 litres) shot up to a record $4.20.
Since the peak of June, the price of oil has plummeted by more than 200 percent. By mid December, a barrel of crude oil was selling at the price of $42 (about K6,300).
In response to the declining prices of oil on the international market, most countries have responded by reducing the price that motorists pay at the pump. In the United States, the pump price for a gallon has fallen to as low $1.42 (about K213 or equal to MK53.25 a litre).And, contrary to the uninformed claims by our Finance Minister, Goodal Gondwe, the price of petrol within the region has gone down as well.
In Zambia the government has reduced the price of petrol twice within the last couple of months. In mid September, the price of unleaded petrol was reduced by nearly ZK 2,000 to ZK 7,691. And on 22nd December, the Energy Regulation Board recommended another 24% reduction in the cost of petrol, bringing the price down further to K5, 818 for a litre of petrol. Thus all combined, the cost of petrol in Zambia has fallen by about ZK4,000 between September and December this year.
Elsewhere in the region, Mozambique, Energy Minister, Salvador Namburete announced a 10.2 percent cut in the price of petrol in late November in what he claimed to be a response to “the decline in the oil price on the world market”. Meanwhile, across Malawi’s northern border, Tanzania the country’s Energy Minister, Kiraitu Murungi promised in early December that the government would very soon effect “a major reduction in the cost of petrol”.
Malawi, it would appear, is one of the few countries in the region and perhaps the globe, that seems to be bucking this trend of reducing fuel prices. A few weeks back, our Minister responsible for Energy, Ted Kalebe, responded rather casually to calls for a reduction in fuel prices by claiming that the country will have to wait for another two months or so before a decision is made on whether to reduce the price of petrol or not. And recently, Finance Minister Goodal Gondwe has come out to state that there won’t be any reductions in the near future, giving as an explanation, the unfounded and erroneous argument that other countries in the region have not reduced their prices. What a lie from an otherwise capable custodian of the national purse.
For a country that is as landlocked as ours, oil drives the economy. The bulk of both our imports and exports are transported by land , which effectively means that our trade costs are significantly affected by oil prices. Locally, the cost of living, from bus fares to basic groceries, are determined by the cost of petrol at the pump.
If we are serious about attracting investors, we need to be more proactive, especially in current economic circumstances when there is cut throat competition for investment. By being slow to respond – or indeed, as is the case, not responding at all - we might make some quick gain from the extra revenue that innocent motorists and other consumers of fuel products have to pay and yet pay a heavy price for dissuading potential investors from coming into Malawi.
At the end of the day, I would argue that the system for determining fuel prices in this country is archaic and not at all suited to a 21st century economy. Considering that we are at the mercy of global market forces, let us come up with a mechanism that would lead to the automatic adjustment of prices (both upwards and downwards) in accordance with these global market trends.
The whole set up of having uniform pump prices across the length and breadth of Malawi also needs to be reviewed. I would contend that we need to abandon the whole idea of setting a uniform national price when it is very clear that the cost of shipping oil to all corners of the country differs from place to place. Again, Zambia already has a differential price formula depending on location of the country’s major towns.
As for the larger Malawi public, it is perhaps a reflection of our timidity and inability to challenge those entrusted with exercising government power on our behalf that they act with so much impunity and arrogance.The Ted Kalebes and Goodal Gondwes of this world know that the majority of us will suffer in silence that they can give the flimsiest excuses for not reducing the fuel prices.
While not putting my own country down, I can say with certainty that the excuses given by our leadership to not reducing prices would not be accepted in neighbouring Zambia where the people are more engaged and take particular interest in government decisions and demand credible explanations for decisions that affect their lives. And they don’t come any higher than prices of petrol.
