Malawi’s 50:50 campaign Flop

Malawi’s 50:50 campaign Flop

Veronica Maele

President Peter Mutharika’s cabinet reshuffle has yet again shown how politics continues to be a male-dominated domain. Not only has the number of women in the 20-member cabinet dropped from four to three, but the reshuffle comes in the wake of female politicians facing increasing derogatory political rhetoric and hostile nomination processes. 

Though Action-Aid Malawi, Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) and the Coalition for the Empowerment of Women and Girls (Cewag) have rightly voiced their concern, the entire ‘50:50 coalition’ needs to re-examine its strategies if progress towards gender parity is to be made.  Thus, writing to UN Women as HRDC has done with the intention of having Mutharika fired as HeforShe Champion is akin to treating symptoms of a pernicious ailment. Why?

Because, it is not the cabinet stupid (to borrow Bill Clinton’s campaign cliché) but Malawi’s whole campaign for the increase of women in elective and decision-making positions has been a flop. The statistics are depressing whether one compares strides in the SADC region or looks at our national trends.

Having missed the 30 percent target on women representation in parliament and cabinet by 2005, we eventually adopted the 50:50 campaign only to tumble calamitously in the 2014 tripartite elections. The country’s first female president, Joyce Banda lost the poll and the number of women MPs plummeted to 16.7 percent from 22.3 percent in 2009. At 13.4 percent, women representation in local government is critically low.

Judging from current approaches by key players in the 50:50 campaign (government, CSOs and political parties) it seems forensic scrutiny of what is going wrong has not been done. To varying degrees, some appear ill-informed. Others are wedded to tokenism as their focus is on treating the symptoms of what are insidious institutional barriers to women’s participation in high-level politics. Of course, political parties (and leaders) are noticeably the worst offenders.

As next year’s elections loom, women aspirants are once again under intense pressure as their efforts, set against a lacklustre 50:50 campaign, are thrown into the electioneering blitz. Recently, this deep frustration was aptly expressed by ruling DPP aspirant for Nsanje South West Helen Buluma who has called for the campaign to be redesigned. As with the cabinet, some responses to her plea have been cynical. Why do women keep asking for favours? Others have unashamedly exalted politics as a realm for men (chanamuna).

Such remarks are part of a common narrative that dispels historical disparity in opportunities available to men and women be it education and economic resources. One that disregards how retrogressive socio-cultural attitudes and practices continue to relegate girls and women in all echelons of life. The very idea of 'merit' in appointments and elective positions, which is often maliciously parroted by those who do not subscribe to gender parity, presupposes equal opportunity. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case.

Notably, cognisance of women’s right to equal representation and their role in social, economic and political development, our leaders adopted the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development (2008) and committed to an ambitious and achievable target. It is a benchmark on which we can measure our efforts.

Already, some countries within the region have made progress towards gender parity in politics, for example, South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique. According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (2018), Rwanda tops the world, not just Africa, on women representation in parliament. Why then is Malawi lagging behind?

Rightly as observed by Buluma, the 50:50 campaign has suffered from poor timing. As in 2014, stakeholders have rolled out the drive barely a year before the forthcoming polls. This has, again, adversely affected the mobilisation of resources. For one, Mzimba North East lawmaker Olipa Chiluba has been blunt: implementers should provide financial assistance to struggling female candidates to enable them compete effectively with men.  

Sadly, networking and information-sharing among stakeholders (including the women’s lobby) is disjointed, hence, there is no proper coordination of the crucial support aspirants need. Though efforts by the NGO Gender Coordination Network, other CSOs and government are laudable, interventions continue to be defined by short-termism when female aspirants need streamlined, long-term capacity-building programmes that equip and nurture - from funding, political and campaign strategies to mentoring.  

Again, this is because women face obstinate institutional obstacles. It is still difficult for them to stand as independent candidates or find their way onto party shortlists. Few sit at the top of the hierarchy: in NECs, (shadow)cabinet and parliamentary committees but are overrepresented at the bottom where they perform traditionally female roles - dancing and singing. Gender imbalance is a problem in other professions too.

Across the aisle, the attitude of political parties is a major stumbling block. Leaders are uninterested in gender quotas as a commitment to increasing the number of women legislators, councillors - not even the earmarking of some constituencies for all-female shortlists. Despite his pledges on women empowerment, Mutharika has completely failed to match his words with action in cabinet appointment since he came to power in 2014.

Although his brother late Bingu wa Mutharika’s reign was marked by serious concerns over governance, he holds a better record on efforts towards gender equality. Bingu appointed several women to key decision-making positions as firsts: late Mary Nangwale as IG of Police, Jane Ansah as Attorney General, Matilda Katopola as Clerk of Parliament. The number of female MPs increased during his tenure and he nominated Joyce Banda who became the first woman Vice President in 2009 and president upon his demise in April 2012.  

But our attitudes towards female leadership are still stuck in the past. In 2010, DPP regional governor for the South Noel Masangwi told us ‘Malawi is not ready for a female president.’ For all of Banda’s political miscalculations, her loss of the presidency four years later was partly due to our doubts about female leadership. Banda was often called a ‘prostitute’ and a clueless ‘mandasi woman’ (fritter seller).

When Vera Chirwa, a lawyer and renowned human rights activist announced her interest to stand in the 2004 presidential elections, she was described as ‘unfit’ for the role when men with pitiable credentials have never been doubted. During its reign, the UDF harassed Nyandovi Kerr for being ‘too ambitious.’

The rigour of male-dominated political institutions is off-putting to many women who have to tip-toe amidst jeers of bigotry aimed at battering them to conform to prescribed gender norms. As at now, capable women are being ostracised using hostile party nomination processes presided over by male leaders, for instance, Mutharika and Leader of Opposition Lazarus Chakwera. Whilst ruling DPP Regional Governor for the South Charles Mchacha is proudly scolding UTM female members as ‘prostitutes,’ efforts are underway in opposition MCP to see Juliana Lunguzi and Jessie Kabwila lose their primaries.   

This is why stakeholders particularly CSOs should desist from selective criticism and their obsession with megaphone statements and the sensationalisation of issues relating to gender imbalance. Women are facing major obstacles (cultural, social, economic, institutional etc) which continue to impede on their active participation and equal representation in politics and other arenas. Change will not solely come from the top but dialectical processes that involve grassroots awareness and engagement of all key actors. The 50:50 campaign is up against complex structural barriers and it will only succeed if it reboots and adopts a multifaceted approach, with clear goals to be achieved within reasonable time-frames.

Malawi VP Saulosi Chilima’s HARDtalk Interview - Balancing integrity, populism and political reality

Veronica Maele

Probably Chilima’s HARDtalk interview is not so much about his dismal performance nor balancing his integrity, populist promises and political reality but a call for Malawi to reflect on how political opportunism is eroding the country’s democracy and economy.

Vice President Saulosi Chilima’s BBC HARDtalk interview (19 October 2018) has provided insight into the contradictions that are tormenting his presidential bid. It is these contradictions the host, Zeinab Badawi, seized upon very effectively and managed to force the VP to walk a tight-rope.

What constrained Chilima was not a sudden lack of instincts to rebut the barrage of interrogation from Badawi but his quest to defend his integrity and populist policies within the ambit of the political realities he faces as he journeys into the May 2019 elections. Even by the standards of his ardent supporters, the VP’s waffling was not a helpful political strategy - the exchange was excruciating due to lack of substance, poor presentation and a debilitating inability to seize opportunities.

Until the HARDtalk interview, Chilima had excelled on vague responses and innocuous talking points - thanks to Malawi media’s failure to significantly challenge him during interviews. When Shaka Ssali of VOA’s Straight Talk Africa interviewed him in August, he noted though that the VP ‘danced around just like all politicians.’ All it took therefore was Badawi’s meticulous questioning for Chilima to falter.

Badawi’s opening statement which alluded to Chilima criticising a government of which he is a member as corrupt and running against the man he stood with in 2014 carried enough overtones of ‘betrayal’ to disorient the VP. Instead of recapping his usual bromides, he lurched into self-justification saying, ‘times change’ and it is my ‘constitutional right’ to contest for the presidency.

Such unconvincing and labored responses were in sharp contrast to Zimbabwe opposition leader Nelson Chamisa, who despite being harangued by Zimbabweans, put a persuasive case when he appeared on HARDtalk in May. With impressive eloquence, the youthful MDC leader faced up to the unrelenting questioning of Stephen Sakur. He outlined his vision with strong arguments and contested Sakur’s assertions whilst denouncing ruling ZANU-PF presidential candidate Emmerson Mnangagwa as a remnant of Robert Mugabe’s tyrannical rule masquerading as a ‘change agent.’ But Chamisa did not carry the same burden that weighed Chilima down.

On integrity, the VP struggled to explain whether he is part of ‘collective responsibility’ and does not feel uncomfortable standing against President Mutharika who is not delegating duties to him following his departure from the ruling DPP. Again, Chilima sought refuge under the constitution, of course, because framers rightly intended to shield the office of Vice President from being adulterated by short-term political interests. However, the unspoken truth is that Chilima like his predecessors is holding onto the position out of political expediency than a belief in the constitutionality of his office. Without it, he has no real power.

Ironically, the aggrieved DPP is itself an offspring conceived out of infidelity. Incumbent president Mutharika was an advisor to his brother, late Bingu wa Mutharika when the legitimacy of his presidency was questioned following his resignation from the ruling UDF and subsequent formation of the DPP in 2005. That would qualify Chilima as a student of ‘political debauchery’ - a culture that has allowed political opportunism to flourish since the fall of Dr Banda in 1994. One that has, for example, rendered Section 65 of the constitution impotent. During the interview, Chilima reluctantly acknowledged enjoying the trappings of his post (security, salary, etc.) whilst denying absconding from duties. He further poorly shrugged off the suspicion he is using taxpayers’ money to fund his political outfit - the United Transformation Movement (UTM), saying:

Well, maybe yes, maybe. No. Look, I don’t think that, um, it is entirely correct to say that I am using government money to support, uh, the UTM activities. That’s not correct.

However, questions about Chilima’s decency are not new. In July, a caller on Times Radio phone-in programme hosted by Brian Banda expressed misgivings over the timing of the VP’s resignation from the ruling DPP.  Mr Chipwete (from Thyolo) queried Chilima’s 4-year silence and contended that Leader of Opposition and MCP leader Lazarus Chakwera has ceaselessly spoken about rampant corruption in the DPP-led administration. He went on to doubt Chilima’s ability to fight corruption arguing his UTM is full of people who are implicated.

Badawi, who did not pin Chilima over his associates’ corruption allegations still forced him to balance his integrity and populist platitudes against some political realities. Though the VP’s promises of rooting out corruption and creating one million jobs have resonated well with many people and rattled the ruling DPP, his responses on these issues were self-contradictory. Apparently, he will create jobs in the agro-sector which is idle but employs 60 percent of the people and target existing vacancies in the private and public sectors where people are being laid-off.

On corruption, the VP denounced the tendency of suspects escaping the law because of their connection with government and added ‘if we are going to selectively pursue corruption cases then we are not living our promise.’ Chilima observed ‘everybody that is suspected must be brought under investigation …if the case is proven, prosecuted and sent to jail.’ This response was followed by his vociferous defense of former president Joyce Banda who presided over the 2013 Cashgate scandal.  

Chilima claimed to have a ‘similar vision’ with Banda - that ‘she is not a convict… and to say her corruption record was poor is unfair conclusion.’ Following their meeting last month, this seems to be the clearest indication yet that the VP’s electoral strategy might lay in his UTM forming an alliance with Banda’s People’s Party. In other words, if Chilima was to win next year’s polls, Banda like current DPP cronies will join the bandwagon of UTM acquaintances suspected of corruption who he will shield in lieu of their support.

Would that be surprising? No. Chillima has learnt key tricks from Bingu wa Mutharika’s school of politics. Bingu conveniently used the anti-corruption crusade to justify his resignation from the then ruling UDF but also to mobilise support for his newly formed DPP. Subsequently, he unleashed a ‘witch-hunt’ on his political enemies whilst shielding those who joined the DPP, among them, Joyce Banda who was suspected of involvement in fraud at ADMARC where she was Board Chairperson. The ACB, whose operations continue to be politicised rounded Muluzi as the chief suspect. But with a handful of convictions this far, Muluzi’s corruption case has stalled while his son, Atupele Muluzi and the UDF anchor the current DPP government.

Thus, Chilima is tuning a populist message on corruption and the economy to unquestioning patrons in the media, civil society and western donors. He has already taken his dispatch to Scotland where in November 2005, Bingu told lawmakers that during Muluzi’s reign (1994-2004) ‘corruption and bad governance had become entrenched and … permeated the entire system from top to bottom.’ By Bingu’s second-term in office, the corruption stench he so passionately talked about had blighted his own government. And, upon ascending to power as ‘the savior of the people’ following Bingu’s demise and more than two years of estrangement as VP, Banda presided over the most grotesque looting of state coffers which led to the suspension of donor aid.

Joyce Banda becoming Malawi's worst President

Until Malawi’s May 20 tripartite elections, President Joyce Banda’s reputation was only deeply tarnished by the cash-gate scandal. But as it became clear that she had completely been rejected at the polls, the nastiest of her political manipulations began to appear.

As soon as results started trickling in showing that she was losing, Banda set rolling the current election-gate scam by complaining bitterly about electoral irregularities. She then rushed to issue a shocking presidential decree last Saturday which was supposed to nullify the polls so that new elections could take place within 90 days. It has taken the courts to enlighten her that she does not hold such powers. As if her self-interested intentions were not obvious, Malawians and the international community were to judge her decision against the fact that she was not going to stand in the postulated elections.

What is surprising is that several observers, both local and international, have clearly corroborated that despite some hiccups, Malawi’s elections were free, fair and credible. And yet, the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) claims it has received numerous complaints and discovered serious irregularities which justify a recount. As the Council for Non-Governmental Organisation (CONGOMA) has reasoned, MEC should have convincingly outlined the gravity of electoral irregularities to substantiate a recount.

It is not difficult to see that MEC is trying to engineer the so-called irregularities and deliberately inflame the current electoral turmoil in order to strengthen the pretext for overturning the poll results. Following Banda’s cues, MEC has been shifting its claims over irregularities from the initial 19 polling centres to 42 and now 58. Nullifying the results will, thus, fulfil Banda’s original wish.

There is no denying that the suspicious electoral developments are being instigated by president Banda and have led to MEC’s stubborn refusal to respond to demands from local and international observers that official presidential results be released. MEC is also failing to answer valid questions about the security of ballot papers some of which have been recklessly transported after being duly counted and verified by stakeholders at polling centres.

In the meantime, Joyce Banda has embarked on a desperate struggle to ‘cling to power’ in whatever guise by mobilising the support of disgruntled parties, Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and United Democratic Front (UDF). She is relying on the patronage of some MEC officials, a legion of sympathisers of her People’s Party (PP) within the media and civil society and a few nervous and unprincipled donors. It is a situation which has created horrifying electoral chaos with MEC failing to announce results as the electoral body is being intimidated to change the outcome whilst a logjam of court injunctions between the warring parties is clogging the electoral process.

Shockingly, some people are failing to see the present electoral pandemonium through the prism of President Banda’s failure to acknowledge defeat and her attempt to use MCP and UDF against what can be considered as the will of the majority of the sovereign people of Malawi. Unofficial results have consistently shown opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leader, Peter Mutharika as the winner with 1, 789 364 followed by MCP’s Lazarus Chakwera  1, 387 500 and Banda’s 1, 042 686 whereas UDF’s Atupele Muluzi garnered a dismal 665 816.

Zodiak Broadcasting Station (ZBS) is therefore right to stand by its broadcasts of unofficial results which have shown Mutharika leading and correspond to the Malawi Electoral Support Network (MESN) tally including MEC’s own tabulation. These very results are at least in tandem with Aforbarometer’s prediction which the pro-Joyce Banda media bashed unashamedly.

Banda is pegging on one of the following outcomes: either that Mutharika’s 400 000+ votes can be overturned in favour of Chakwera or that anomalies will be ‘doctored’ enough to warrant the nullification of the entire election results. If a re-run is to be held, would it surprise anyone if she was to form a coalition with MCP and or UDF?

Reliable sources indicate how Banda has managed to enlist MCP’s Chakwera whose quest to assume power continues to blind him from the rational realisation that he holds the key to ending the present predicament by conceding defeat and letting Malawi move forward. Chakwera, a former pastor who has just been baptised in the muddy waters of the country’s school of dirty-politics wants to get into power regardless because power corrupts even those who preach the word of God.

In fact, what is becoming a coup by the ‘PP-MCP-UDF alliance’ is in the interest of notorious bedfellows: ex-president Bakili Muluzi and John Tembo. Not surprising that the news that MEC will announce election results after 30 days has pleased their followers even as Malawians wait anxiously.

To understand Malawi’s present electoral mess, one needs to go back to the pre-election ‘grand narrative’ that President Banda was likely to win the polls which the unquestioning mainstream media parroted. Thanks to the poll estimates of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and Research Tech Consultants, Banda was supposed to win this election even with a handful of MPs and after being humiliated in her own backyard.

The fact though is Banda has been booed out of power even though her campaign was the most resourced and she went round the country throwing hand-outs to bribe the electorate. Her campaign strategy was disjointed and message without any real substance after her defiant devaluation of the Kwacha left the majority of the people struggling to make ends meet.

Balancing her ticket with Sosten Gwengwe on the misguided fear of Atupele Muluzi’s youthful appeal made things worse because Gwengwe himself lacked political clout. Gwengwe has been trounced in his own constituency and as the unofficial results stand, Joyce Banda and Atupele Muluzi were the only presidential candidates whose chances were excessively exaggerated.

However, Banda’s devious plan which she is implementing through MEC is tantamount to instigating post-electoral violence like that of Kenya in 2008. Her impulsive and undemocratic behaviour can only be equated to that of Ivory Coast’s former leader, Laurent Gbagbo who refused to hand-over power after opposition Alassane Ouattara won the 2010 presidential polls. Banda might end up like Gbagbo who is currently at the International Criminal Court (ICC) answering to atrocities committed in the post-election era.

Her conduct is also comparable to Nigeria’s Ibrahim Babangida who cancelled the results of the 1993 presidential elections which could have seen Moshood Abiola become president. Like Babangida, Banda is not considering the repercussions of her actions which she is forcefully carrying through MEC because what matters to her is political power and personal interests.

Unfortunately, civil society organisations such as the Public Affairs Committee (PAC) including churches have decided not to condemn Banda’s actions even as it is becoming evident that the emerging ‘PP-MCP-UDF alliance’ is trying to circumvent the choice of the people. Banda is being allowed to create a constitutional crisis and her backers are willing to see the country descend into anarchy.   

My view is that, although some people might say they ‘HATE DPP’ because of its bad record in power, there is no party: UDF, MCP and PP that can claim to be without a blemish. The atrocities committed by each of these parties and the stinking corruption rackets they ran can only be differentiated by time. So, for some media pundits, civil society activists and politicians to argue that they cannot allow one particular party to take power even when people have voted for it, is utterly silly and myopic as far as democratic principles are concerned.

For the record, Joyce Banda has been immensely humiliated because she chose to be like most African leaders who are self-interested under-achievers who practise politics of the stomach and pocket and not for the good of the nation. Consequently, MEC is being misled by her selfish interests and unfounded fears. It is now time that those who love this country and the international community raise their voice of reason and stop Banda from trying to unconstitutionally ‘take power’ with the other political parties.

Let Joyce Banda accept that she squandered the opportunity to demonstrate good leadership in the past two years. She needs to be dragged out of power before she tears the country apart. But for what she has already done, she goes down in history haunted and hounded for plunging Malawi into chaos and tarnishing the country’s image in the world.  

Chakwera right on people-funded campaign

Malawi Congress Party (MCP) president Lazarus Chakwera’s call on followers to contribute K100 or more should be hailed as the best approach to campaign funding. Chakwera’s strategy marks the beginning of an era of people-funded political party activities rather than the current ‘big-man’ and ‘sole-financier’ model which is largely to blame for stifling Malawi’s democracy. 

And yet, critics have ganged up throwing insults at Chakwera and MCP equating the approach to former president late Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s awful desire for compulsory gifts. It is not and this is why. Kamuzu’s fundraising technique for MCP was based on forcing people to buy party cards, give donations including grabbing livestock: goats, cows and also eggs etc. Anyone who did not comply broke the four-cornerstones and was punished brutally.

In contrast, Chakwera is not forcing people to give money to MCP. Just as is the tradition in advanced democracies, the party is seeking to let its followers own and have a stake in the party’s 2014 electoral campaign. Lest we forget. For the past 20 years, the country’s multiparty democratic dispensation has been held up by the ‘big-men’ who by funding their political parties have had the exclusive right to own them as personal estates. This has supressed intra-party democracy and at election time curtailed the emergence of alternative leadership.

More importantly, ruling parties have abused public funds to promote their supremacy, which has led to the suffocation of political opposition and demeaned the idea of the ‘opposition’ as a viable alternative - a government in waiting. During elections, the ground has always not been levelled a situation which has left the electorate with limited choice on who to vote for.

As it were, when Bakili Muluzi (with the UDF) came to power in 1994, he rebuked Kamuzu’s mandatory gifts and in its place introduced hand-outs which he himself gave in form of K50 notes and fat brown envelopes mainly as a bribe for political mobilisation and the buying of votes. Everyone wondered where Muluzi was getting the money from. Unsubstantiated rumours flew around; government coffers were being swindled and the Reserve Bank of Malawi (RBM) was printing the ‘free’ notes.

A more plausible answer came after the 2004 elections when then president late Bingu wa Mutharika launched his anti-corruption crusade and started arresting UDF cadres on graft charges. The subsequent fallout between Mutharika and his former mentor and ex-president Muluzi unraveled the worst campaign funding syndicates. Angered by Mutharika’s resignation from the UDF, some senior party members revealed that [the party] had invested huge amounts of money in Mutharika’s campaign.

Muluzi and his inner circle thumped their chests as to how ungrateful Mutharika was to dump the party in February 2005 leaving it with an enormous debt to repay. Who did they expect to pay? The real drama unfolded when Mutharika moved in to arrest Muluzi on having embezzled public money and deposited the funds into his personal accounts amounting to K1.7 billion from Republic of China (Taiwan) Libya, etc. The money, meant for government, was also used in the campaign which UDF senior members put down to Mutharika being too difficult a candidate to sell. Though the party massively lost parliamentary seats.

In the 2004 campaign, the UDF was awash with yellow cars, caps, T-shirts, bicycles and their dancing women guild dressed good enough to scream lyo-lyo-lyo. Muluzi left power having equipped his party with a fleet of almost 100 duty-free vehicles aided by the Presidents Salary and Benefits Act. Only for the Malawi Revenue Authority (MRA) to impound them.  

Having been catapulted to power, thanks to public endowments, Mutharika himself found the DPP courtesy of the same public purse. A 2005 investigation by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee exposed Mutharika as having presided over the involvement of then Secretary to Treasury Dr. Milton Kutengule and DPP top-officials in the creation of a bogus K20 million Credit Scheme Account in the Ministry of Finance aimed at financing the activities of his new party. In 2007, as Mutharika’s DPP administration was ‘persecuting’ Muluzi the Weekend Nation revealed that he had acquired five Nissan pick-ups duty-free which had become part of DPP fleet.

During the 2009 elections Mutharika modernized the DPP campaign with state-of-the-art Hammers, luxury coaches and screened automobile. After his death, Mutharika like Muluzi left MRA screeching its teeth in an attempt to confiscate 41 vehicles which he purchased duty free. But the High Court recently quashed MRA’s decision to seize the vehicles, at least in good time for the Road to 2014 campaign. 

Hence, Chakwera is right to seek an alternative way of campaign funding, be it Obama’s aggressive style, because MCP and other opposition parties have been financially disenfranchised. It has eroded their electoral platform and day-to-day operations. Due to lack of proper laws and guidelines on party funding, ruling parties have relied on incumbent advantage to use parastatal vehicles to ferry supporters around the country, slot campaign adverts and programmes on MBC and get business cronies who are corruptly awarded government contracts as anonymous donors.

This, in addition to diversion and embezzlement of big sums of public money from state coffers which is given to the people in small tokens whilst senior ruling party officials take the chunk to enrich themselves leaving the country orbiting the cycle of poverty. The inability of political parties’ to find modern, effective and creative ways to fund their operations is draining our democracy. It has been the main reason for the continued failure of separation between government and ruling parties: UDF, DPP and presently PP.

Lack of people-based party funding has also helped promote personality politics by allowing parties foster a cosmetic relationship with their membership. Members have remained voiceless and passive participants. Muluzi was thought (or he thought) he was the only credible candidate for the UDF until he handed the reigns to his son, Atupele Muluzi.

Though there is public funding for political parties that amass one tenth of the total electoral vote it is very minimal to sustain day-to-day operations more so expensive electoral campaigns. With a fragmented political party system, the beneficiaries of state funding are mainly mainstream than small parties.

Some critics are blasting Chakwera for being mean and not being like former party leader, John Tembo who footed the bill for MCP. Really? Rather than quashing Chakwera’s idea, MCP members and the public should be asking critical questions bordering on transparency and accountability. How is the party going to use the funds? MCP should develop a comprehensive policy guideline (if it hasn’t already) outlining its target, budget lines, systems of disbursement and how it sets out to be answerable in the entire process. Is the party going to explore active volunteering of members to help with door-to-door canvassing, leaflet dropping and ushering at political rallies etc.?

One hopes that the party is not trying to use its supporters during the campaign period only and thereafter fall back to business-as-usual. The party should not use the fundraising to just gauge its popularity but to embrace followers, mobilise voters and build a solid connection with the grassroots.  MCP has the chance to model a modern campaign fundraising technique but also usher in a democratic system of ‘political party funding’ drawn from membership and well-wishers. With this, the party could become people-centred and further demonstrate its commitment to separating its activities as a ruling party from that of government if elected.

Kamuzu’s non-negotiable stance on sovereign ownership of Lake Malawi

On his return from the United States, former Malawi President late Hastings Kamuzu Banda made a crucial statement to Parliament on 27 June 1967 in which he described the country’s borders with its neighbours as wounds inflicted by colonialism and imperialism. Turning to Tanzania’s simmering claim over ownership of part of Lake Malawi, Kamuzu declared:

‘As to the claim that the Lake should be divided between Malawi and another neighbouring country, I should like to say here and now that we will never recognise or accept this claim; we will never agree to the suggestion or proposal. Lake Malawi has always belonged to Malawi.’ 

In fact, writing on the Malawi-Tanzania Lake dispute in the Journal of Modern African Studies published by Cambridge University Press in 1973, James Mayall underlined that both before and immediately after independence; Tanzania accepted that no part of the Lake fell under its jurisdiction. And yet in the past week, opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) president, Peter Mutharika’s remark that Lake Malawi is non-negotiable ignited the worst possible bickering surrounding government’s stance and handling of the Lake dispute with Tanzania.

A growing bandwagon of critics wearing masks of political correctness have since come to the fore criticising Mutharika’s hard-line view. They have labelled it warmongering whilst lauding government’s apparent ‘soft diplomacy.’ The usual pundits, Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR) and Centre for the Development of the People (CEDEP) added their loud voice towards the end of last week by highlighting that Mutharika’s remark was divisive and insensitive.

The two organisations have claimed Mutharika’s declaration has no place in a democracy, well, though it is clear that the most democratic nations of the world have a ‘no nonsense’ diplomatic approach with regards to national issues and interests. Which is an indication that non-negotiability is a standpoint which embodying ‘hard diplomacy’ is an approach which could help ensure that Malawi’s sovereign interests are safeguarded out of the Lake wrangle.

Whereas a few self-acclaimed government advocates seem to suggest that Malawi’s diplomats shuttle back and forth Lilongwe and Dodoma preparing talking points using the simplified version of A fools guide to soft diplomacy, Tanzanians have been tearing apart the legality of the Anglo-German Treaty of 1890 which Malawi’s argument for sovereign ownership of the Lake is based on, for instance, the treaty’s article I (2).

What was worse the whole of last week was the jitteriness in government quarters after hearing Mutharika’s pronouncement at one of his whistle-stop tours. State media, MBC immediately responded to the newswire with paranoid news broadcasts and analysis which must have excited Tanzania’s analysts and legal experts who are continually screaming in support of their country’s claim.

Equally, their diplomats must have toasted on MBC self-defeating propaganda looking at the host of water bodies that Tanzania already enjoys ownership of: Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika, the ubiquitous Indian Ocean and now glasses up! Part of Lake Malawi as the Nyasas are busy squabbling.

MBC’s wayward programming was not unexpected in an election year which is still failing to depart from the politics of mudslinging to an issue-based campaign. But if truth be told, the lax view of a few pundits supporting government’s posture on the Lake wrangle contradicts popular opinion which is weary that the current soft stance might end up costing Malawi a dear portion of the Lake of Stars - the third largest in Africa with an enormously rich and diverse ecosystem.

Previously, traditional leaders from Lower Shire urged government to adopt a tough stance on the issue and warned that any suggestion of surrendering part of the Lake to Tanzania will not be tolerated. But government’s ‘real tough talk’ came not long ago from Minister of Information, Moses Kunkuyu who vehemently underlined that successive regimes in Tanzania have come and gone comforted by the false belief that they own part of Lake Malawi. Only to have their hopes fall under historical facts.

Mutharika’s intention might have been to gain political capital a situation which has given chance to his cynics to continue weighing in equipped with the benefit of semantics. But his underlying argument carries substance. Actually Tanzanians laugh at any mention of Malawi’s tough stance by glorifying the military prowess of their army and former leader late Julius Nyerere’s who successfully attacked Uganda (1978-1979) following Idi Amini’s declaration that he had seized Tanzania’s Kagera region.

With the prospect of massive gas and oil reserves under Lake Malawi’s seabed, Tanzanians are not taking the border dispute lightly. They argue that the Heligoland Treaty considered under international law and granting Malawi the Lake was simply a reckless result of colonisation and therefore fraught with arbitrary interests though at best it has helped with peace maintenance.

Their fingers have been picking international customary law, jus cogens, which widely accepted by the international community (than agreed upon between states) has imperative powers. The standing treaty is being quashed as having inferior authority and contradicting jus cogens. Thus, Tanzania’s solace lies in relevant principles of various contemporary international conventions governing trans-border waters.

The most attractive premises for Tanzania obtained from these modern-day legal instruments governing trans-boundary waters is that they provide for the equitable utilization of resources and the obligation not to cause substantial harm to the people of both sides of trans-boundary water bodies. Therefore, on the disputed part of Lake Malawi, Tanzania argues it is entitled to 50% or so.

However, Malawi government’s strong claim not only lies in the treaty but the fact that the borders drawn by colonialists on the continent were espoused and sanctified by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) at its formation in 1963 and endorsed by its successor the African Union (AU). In fact, the Heligoland Treaty predates various formulations of contemporary International Customary Law.  Any resolution contradicting the standing treaty would have great implications on other borders. For instance, can we overturn all boundaries for being unnatural and illegitimate because they were arbitrarily drawn by colonialists?

Though Dodoma also banks hopes on ‘inconsistencies’ of colonial territorial maps to justify an existent anomaly, former president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Rosalyn Higgins determined in 1988 that Malawi owns the entire Lake by pointing out that historical maps show that Lake Malawi was excluded from German sphere of influence. Looking at such overwhelming evidence explains why the average Malawian is cynical that by agreeing to sit at the negotiation table, government has in principle almost granted that there is a fault on the demarcation of the boundary on the disputed part of the Lake.

Otherwise, the underlying facts should give impetus for the use of a ‘hard-line approach’ where necessary, because, many countries have learnt through the lessons of history that in disputes over resources or borders, a smart combination of hard and soft diplomacy where necessary is crucial in the pursuant of national interests.

The very dichotomy between soft and hard skews options: one being seen as conflict preventing and positive while the other conflict promoting and negative. But a nation that pursues ‘soft diplomacy’ without any attention to how this is perceived by its adversary or aggressor can find that the other nation is taking advantage and placing obstacles in the way of its sovereign interests.

Simply put, this can mean one nation state ‘illegitimately’ being given a chance of acquiring part of the territory of another. The only plausible analogy would be allowing a greedy aggressor grab the land from his/her adjacent neighbours. ‘Smart diplomacy’ in essence should be learning better how to combine soft and hard stance by evoking the ability to use the best of any of these approaches as is required.

In fact, there are times when the use of soft diplomacy obstructs the legitimate utilisation of hard-diplomacy. Kamuzu would most definitely have concluded the Lake dispute with a powerful speech on the bitter pains of colonialism and imperialism and how Malawi borders with its neighbours were drawn.

Understandably though, the evolution of the ‘modern nation state’ and inter-state system to a great existent is grounded on the desire to pursue peaceful and democratic approaches through the adherence to accepted international norms. Negotiations and court arbitrations which Malawi is pursuing appear to be politically right and morally rational paths.

Speaking ahead of the SADC Heads of State Summit about to take place on 17^th-19^th of August in Lilongwe, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Ephraim Chiume has just indicated that in the event of unsatisfactory recommendations from the SADC negotiators on the Lake Malawi dispute, the two estranged parties ‘have agreed’ to take the matter to the ICJ.

Many Malawians find Chiume’s calmness unusual and Government’s posture strangely causal. Somehow, the two countries will hold hands and sit through ICJ’s potentially lengthy arbitration and pray for a favourable verdict. What if, given the solid facts Malawi’s interests are not upheld?

The Lake Malawi dispute had remained dormant for decades but with prospects of gas and oil it now carries economic, security and diplomatic implications. It has to be resolved once and for all. No sane Malawian wants to experience war because its repercussions are tragic. Memories are still fresh of the devastation and trauma of the Mozambican civil war between FRELIMO- RENAMO (1977-1992) as of bloody conflicts elsewhere.

However, what is unacceptable is the occasional adoption of soft diplomacy by Africa’s nation states and regional bodies as a euphemism for a dysfunctional approach to tackling disputes and conflicts. The Malawi government has various options: it can and should calibrate as necessary to uphold the sovereign interests of its people.

Paladin and Malawi government: act on Kayelekera uranium raw deal now!

Veronica Maele

Since last week’s stinging observation by United Nations (UN) Special Raportuer on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter regarding Malawi’s Kayelekera Uranium Mine deal, two elusive culprits remain pretty much intact in their hard shells. It is as if the country’s most guarded contract between government and Australian company, Paladin Africa Ltd has not been unravelled as the worst possible swindle.

De Schutter’s rebuke of the Kayelekera agreement might have further dismantled the whole concept of ‘tax incentives’ to foreign investors in poor countries, but, there is one thing still buried - suspected bribes.  We all know that for decades, the extraction of Africa’s precious resources has become a hideous lucrative business flourishing on the corruption of Africa’s political elite by western investors.

Just recently, you just had to look at the stubborn faces and dodgy speak of government officials when asked about the Kayelekera uranium deal and listen to the jumpy rhetoric from Paladin officials to appreciate the existence of black spots in the pact. According to Paladin, ‘the original request for the Development Agreement to be kept confidential was made by Government.’ The two have evaded transparency and used secrecy and misinformation - a mentality that might not be subdued by the UN Raportuer’s damaging criticism.

Despite growing public dissatisfaction purporting to the full-terms and conditions of the Kayelekera mining contract, Paladin angrily reiterated that Kayelekera is a done deal at the beginning of this year. It cannot be renegotiated until the expiry of the 10 year period of the current contract. Of course, to poor Malawians the only thing that explains such savage attitude of greed and exploitation is the parasitic motivation enshrined in ‘bad capitalism’ that it doesn’t matter whether one is milking the thinnest hungry cow.

The company’s General Manager (International Affairs), Greg Walker, good at his job has often walked out of the Kayelekera labyrinth waving this or that piece of information, explaining a jargon and technical processes or putting across a strong declaration that anyone listening would have thought his aggrieved audience must be residents of a fire-lit cave of the Dark Ages. In the past, Walker was quoted in the media as saying:

‘The fact that Malawians think they got a raw deal doesn't necessarily mean they did get a raw deal.’

Until De Schutter’s remarks, opposition politicians and civil society activists who have ceaselessly highlighted Kayelekera as a raw deal were being mocked as a bunch of noise-makers seeking undue attention and lacking the intellect to understand the economics of mining. By the way, Kayelekera has been operating on massive losses due to low world uranium prices!

When in 2011, former Reserve Bank Governor Perks Ligoya lambasted the Kayelekera deal and outlined that Malawi gave out ‘a lot of concessions and funny conditions’ to Paladin, the company responded putting up its usual card. Kayelekera was a ‘high risk investment’ and concessions to the company, which the Government of Malawi voluntarily granted, reflected the company’s role as a ‘pathfinder.’

Now, Government and Paladin, the two evasive culprits who have long played hide and seek in front of poverty-stricken Malawians have been thoroughly undressed and forcefully given bitter tablets of shame to swallow. And who is the first to partly pull his head out of the sand? The Minister of Mining, John Bande, of course.

Bande has already jumped to the rescue and in his attempt to wipe government’s embarrassment revealed last Wednesday that actually, ‘ignorance’ is the major reason why the country signed bad contracts. He has further underlined that efforts are underway to tighten laws to curb ‘mineral robbery’ and ensure proper handling of mining deals.

But Bande seems to deliberately confuse ignorance, lack of mining expertise, poor negotiation skills with negligence and corruption. Hand on heart, didn’t kickbacks loosen the bolts and nuts of the Kayelekera contract? Possibly following De Schutter’s frank talk one ruling party ‘village idiot’ might reveal how he was flown to Sydney on the sidelines of the Kayelekera deal where his promised suitcase stashed with US dollars was never given to him. Does government really care about negotiating a fair win-win deal for its people? Of course, not.

When confronted by exploitative western negotiators who talk through their noses government representative find themselves giving away the bargain more so when they have been palm oiled with foreign-currency denominated tokens. It does not occur to our leaders that they need to maximise the return on our resources by signing fair deals because their personal interests matter most. The Keyelekera scam has shown that lack of national interest in our leaders is the underlying reason why Malawi remains poor.

Thus, De Schutter’s is right to condemn Malawi for failing to collect maximum remittances from Kayelekera because of ‘too favourable’ incentives to Paladin. Why is Government pampering foreign investors with incentives and intrinsic loopholes which are aiding tax evasion and illicit financial flows? All of that leading to loss of funds which could have been allocated to critical national programmes, for instance, food security in poor households who at the moment are vulnerable due to rocketing maize prices and looming hunger.

Little wonder, with the begging bowl out and about, government has failed to allocate K18.3 billion to the National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA) to purchase the requisite 80, 000 metric tonnes of maize in the 2013/2014 national budget, and instead only assigned a meagre K1.3 billion. This, against the loss of revenue from special tax incentives to Paladin estimated at almost K67 billion (US$205 million) since the installation of the mine. 

More obscene is the projected loss of almost K92 billion (US$281 million) which Malawi will incur over the company’s 13-year tenure. In contrast, the country is presently still experiencing drug shortage in hospitals including serious lack of crucial clinical equipment, medical supplies as well as school blocks, teaching and learning materials. Over the past six months, government has accrued K1.3 billion of un-paid salaries for 7 849 newly recruited primary school teachers.

Of course, after swindling poor countries like Malawi, western companies bank their profits in global capitals and off-shore tax havens. They buoy their shares, making a fortune as their listed firms stand perched on the guild of stock exchanges. Then, western governments concomitantly apportion proceeds from their financial systems lubricated by revenue from poor countries and patent ‘aid packages’ back to the so-called poor countries.

Tax incentives which have been part of an unfair economic paradigm promoted by western fiscal pillars IMF and World Bank, have helped the west control business and own capital in poor countries. But, with western economies in turmoil and surviving on cut-throat austerity budgets, aid dependency is no longer a viable option for Malawi. Tax revenue matters more than ever before.   

The Kayelekera fiasco speaks volumes of domestic negligence and international exploitation. At one point, it was reported the Malawi Government did not know the quantity of uranium which was being exported by Paladin. In fact, Paladin bought vital geological information regarding the Kayelekera Uranium Mine from a USA firm, PRI at a cost of US $10, 0000 (K3, 973, 583. 63). This, after government’s failure to provide the key geological information for Kayelekera through the Department of Mines, a situation which led to loss of revenue including inability to further collect 15% withholding tax.

 Did it surprise anyone that two western companies: Paladin and PRI sold each other sensitive information which should be owned by the Malawi government. No! Because government was sleepy enough and the rest is the normal modus operandi called ‘reaping off poor countries.’  To cleanse its image off mounting bad press, Paladin in April this year announced that it was to unveil to the public details of the ‘confidential agreement’ that it signed with the Malawi government. Lo and behold! Paladin had been instructed by the Ministry of Mining to do so in a bid to prove that Malawi did not get a ‘raw deal.’

Besides environmental concerns, Paladin has been dodged with reports of salary disparity between local workers and expatriates. One would speculate that though employees have resorted to striking before, they have also feared aggressively demanding better working conditions because if they did, they would either be fired or if they vehemently protested, find themselves facing a similar fate like South Africa’s 2012 Marikana mineworkers shot randomly by police. That is the story of how African governments continue to neglect the very needs of their people in favour of satisfying the gluttonous desires of foreign investors.

In this respect, one cannot underestimate the ‘politicking’ surrounding foreign investment. There is the brainwashing and fear that African leaders endure in their struggle to appease donors who are sometimes capable of clamping on aid or trade deals if a poor country like Malawi is ‘hostile’ to western investors. In the un-coded diplomatic language of foreign investment it means, treat business clients from the west well and we will handle your aid and loan cheques accordingly. 

Western leaders have continued to hypocritically talk about fair trade and dealings with Africa whilst winking an eye to their investors. And, tightening the shackles of neo-colonialism on their behalf has been IMF - convincing poor countries to lure foreign investor with a portfolio of incentives. Just last year, IMF advised poor Gambia to reform its tax system so that the country avoids discouraging foreign investors with many taxes. Resident Representative, Meshack Tunee, noted:

‘Our assessment through the technical assistance of IMF in The Gambia [has] indicated that the tax system is a little bit outdated. There are so many taxes that don’t even yield enough revenue to warrant collecting them’.

In De Schutter’s observation, customs and excise duty exemptions, value added tax on mining equipment and special deals on the rate of royalty owed to government have proved to be fiscally absurd. With growing ridicule over western-imposed economic policies, some poor countries have started to abandon incentives to foreign investment. It has been an inevitable shift with the entrance of the aggressive Chinese dragon into global trade. Equally exploitative but offering a new approach to trade and investment China might, however, like the west be wantonly reaping off Africa.

On his recent African tour, US President Barack Obama tried to dampen suspicion that his country is threatened by China’s growing trade and investments on the continent and instead advised that Africa should strive to get a fair deal, of course, as if his government would have said the same 20 years ago.

Interestingly, with increasing mobility of investors and fading barriers to global capital flows rich countries are assertively reforming their tax infrastructure to ensure maximum collection of revenue from foreign companies. Speaking on 15^th June this year at the pre G8-Summit, British Prime Minister David Cameron openly advocated for ‘proper companies, proper taxes and proper global rules’ that guarantee transparency so that both rich and poor countries equally benefit.

In his 'Open for Growth - Trade, Tax and Transparency' speech attended by some African leaders, Cameron emphasised that the issue of tax matters because when companies don’t pay their taxes we all suffer as a result. But lacking similar seriousness are poor African countries like Malawi.

 In the wake of the Kayelekera scam, Malawi needs to realise that tax is a governance issue. Aid has failed to develop poor countries. It never will. The cost of tax incentives given to Paladin is enormous. We can’t sustain it. Everyone agrees, our tax framework should be completely overhauled to stop existing revenue drainage. Instead of a haphazard ‘mining policy’ we need a robust ‘mining code’ that offers transparency, accountability and is in tandem with development goals. The demand from poor Malawians to Government and Paladin is clear now: act on the Kayelekera raw deal accordingly. It is a matter of urgency.