Demonstrations and the impeachment of Mutharika necessary in Malawi
Veronica Maele
President Bingu wa Mutharika’s government is facing growing condemnation over worsening democratic governance and violation of human rights. Whereas many Malawians are angered and the donor community greatly concerned about Mutharika’s dictatorial rule, the president is accelerating in full gear, confident that he is indispensible. He is adamant about consolidating own power and systematically paving way for his brother to ascend to the helm in 2014.
The situation has reached epic proportions that no sane Malawian can ever believe that Mutharika can change. So far, Mutharika has created enough conditions to incite peaceful anti-government demonstrations and also, built with own hands, a solid case for his impeachment. Bewitched by the urge to share the spoils of power with his sibling, Mutharika has drawn critical institutions into his fold. Parliament is haphazardly passing unpopular bills. Politically motivated arrests have increased and the Malawi Police is bent on harassing and intimidating government critics as well as blocking opposition rallies.
Mutharika has restrained media freedom and freedom of expression using different approaches, the latest being the sanctioning of the media repressive bill, while the Mutharika Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) is obsessed with misinformation and enacting the ode to Prof. Arthur Peter Mutharika - ‘The Road to 2014’ in its programming. This, as MEC has been thoroughly seized by Mutharika himself. Currently, the presidential candidature of ‘young’ Mutharika is draining a lot of the country’s resources whilst the president is exulted that he has managed to long shelve local government elections.
As he brings about oppressive laws, Mutharika is ever prepared to scorn the courts and court rulings as well as disrespect the Republican Constitution. In this crusade, Mutharika is surrounded by a small but loyal clique of opportunistic ruling party activists and senior public servants interested in maintaining the status quo so as to secure their jobs and businesses. It is common knowledge though that when Operation Bwezani comes back to Malawi, these very people will be the first to desert the Mutharika duet.
Surely, Mutharika is aware that it has taken ‘people power’ for Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, a man whose 30 years rule rested in the tanks of one of the world’s biggest armies, to be ejected from power. Consequently, Mubarak’s son previously groomed to succeed his father has had his dream evaporate in the ‘Egyptian revolution’. Tunisia’s Ben Ali, praised by the West for bringing about ‘economic growth’, to the country (like Mutharika) fled last month with the stroke of popular protests against his autocratic regime.
Not surprising that Libya’s ‘mighty’ brother leader, Muammar Gaddafi is at present battling anti-government marches demanding his ouster due to decades of his iron fist rule. Gaddafi’s expulsion is inevitable, in spite of Libya enjoying the highest per capita GDPs in Africa. Mutharika, whose economic agenda is quickly melting, cannot even argue that the DPP regime has been built with a gristly ‘ideology’ compared to Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya? And Peter Mutharika must have seen how Gaddafi’s chosen son desperately popped up on the global television circuit last Sunday looking shell-shocked over Libya’s pro-democracy protests.
Thus, Mutharika might not have overstayed in office like Gaddafi, Mubarak or Ben Ali, but the harm he has caused to the country’s democracy in the past years is substantial that he cannot be allowed to continue. The current agitation for protests on pertinent issues authenticates mounting dissatisfaction against the DPP government. In fact, the traces of dissent within the ruling DPP is an indication that if MPs from across the political divide were to heed the country’s outcry and act as the people’s agents, democratic transformation is possible in Malawi.
However, any thought of prompting ‘genuine democratic reform’ is illogical if we do not reflect on the dynamics which have aided Mutharika’s dictatorship. In my opinion Malawi’s main problem lies in the failure to ceaselessly hold leaders accountable. As a country, we have utterly been lazy in demanding for and actively taking the stake in the building of democratic culture, institutions and processes.
Instead of guarding our democracy we have wasted much time nurturing dictators by failing to make our rulers realise ‘they also need to be ruled’. This state of affairs has elevated a cycle of the personal-rule paradigm and stifled democratic governance. Mutharika will soon be commemorating his birthday, thanks to taxpayers’ money and performances from school children. Next thing, we will all be drenched in Mutharika National Day celebrations.
However, when all this happens, we cover ourselves in a cloud of apathy saying ‘what can we do about Mutharika’s dictatorship?’ As at now, one foolish claim, which needs to be deconstructed, validates our incumbent’s misconduct - because previous leaders did the same: Kamuzu did it. Muluzi did it. Why can’t Mutharika do it?
In this regard, Ralph Kasambara might be right in stating that Malawians are peaceful people who rarely voice out concerns (Nyasa Times 20/02/11). But after riding the Mutharika wagon, isn’t Kasambara best placed to also accuse the ‘elite’ for being the vanguards who support dictatorship out of mere materialistic pragmatism?
Indeed, the critical question for Malawi at this crucial moment is: has Bingu wa Mutharika turned into a dictator overnight? The answer is definitely no. The genesis of Malawi’s deteriorating democracy goes way back to ex-president Bakili Muluzi’s reign to 2003-04 when Mutharika demonstrated that he did not believe in democracy by accepting to be handpicked as UDF flag-bearer. By agreeing to be imposed as the ‘next president of Malawi’, Peter Mutharika is telling all Malawians that, he also, does not believe in democracy.
Needless to say, during the endorsement of wa Mutharika the country was largely on the right course in detesting UDF’s undemocratic choice, only for MEC’s sham polls to help Mutharika rise to power. What did we do next? Showered Mutharika with undue goodwill and praise as we closed our eyes to the president abuse of power. He built the DPP with public resources and bought off opposition MPs.
Furthermore, different stakeholders (media, civil society organisations, the church and traditional chiefs) shouted the loudest supporting Mutharika as he disregarded the Republican Constitution, (in particular Section 65), blasted judges and disrespected court rulings plus wantonly bullied parliament because, apparently, it was in the ‘public’s interest’ for the president to remain in power. Blinded by IMF and World Bank wild reports, those in privileged positions reasoned that ‘economic growth’ could be realised without democratic practice.
Now, MISA Malawi has justly reprimanded government upon Mutharika’s nod to the oppressive media bill and bemoans the giving of powers to the minister of information to ban publications deemed to be contrary to the ‘public’s interest’. MISA goes on to lament that this development is contrary to the freedoms enshrined in the Republican Constitution and correctly sees it as a threat to media freedom. Well, said.
Perhaps MISA needs to go back to radio/newspaper editorials, commentary and news items on Section 65 to look at the posture of the press and realise that the media directly or discreetly condoned Mutharika to disrespect one part of the Constitution. How can we possibly allow any Malawi leader to choose which section/s of the Constitution to abide by? Of course, the opposition majority might have been full of vendetta politics. But the political deadlock then, confirmed that Mutharika’s presidency had been established on undemocratic foundation!
In addition, traditional chiefs, brained washed and palm-oiled by government, have not been ashamed to tow the DPP line. Buoyed by the media, church and civil society organisations to demand that Section 65 be shelved so that Mutharika is given the chance to develop the country, the ‘wise men’, have comeback like overdressed clowns declaring the president’s brother is the rightful heir.
In fact, during the Section 65 conundrum, some activists even proposed that Section 65 be abolished because Mose wa Lero Mutharika was the best thing that ever happened to Malawi. Of course, if HRCC’s Mavuto Bamusi was not trying to protest against fuel shortage but hoot noisily in Blantyre against opposition National Budget/Sec 65 antics, Police Inspector General Mukhito himself would have walked to Blantyre to give his thumbs up. And Mutharika would not have laboured to isolate Bamusi as the bad-guy on MBC wires.
More importantly, when Mutharika bombarded former Vice President, Cassim Chilumpha with fictitious cases, the church, media and civil society organisations did not see anything wrong in the calculated developments. Certain civil society activists went as far as suggesting that Mutharika could manage the country alone and that actually, Malawi should consider scrapping the post of VP. What happens next? Mutharika has disproportionately harassed VP Joyce Banda. As we speak, a good number of civil society advocates are totally silent on Mutharika’s excesses. Others have sought shelter under the DPP umbrella camouflaged as advisors to Ngwazi Mutharika.
Whilst the Catholic Church is reputed for playing a critical role in changing the country from one-party to multiparty democracy, the church as a whole has failed to stand firm and united on the issue of democratic governance. Though the church was initially sceptical about Mutharika’s 2004 candidacy, all was forgotten when the president came to power in a manner which sounded like ‘we are all sinners’. Possibly when Peter Mutharika ascends to power we will just need to kneel down and forgive his undemocratic sins.
Nonetheless, how can the church explain the arrest and sedition charge of Reverend Nyondo and the voluntary work of CCAP’s reverend M’mangisa in blasting the Catholic Pastoral Letter that censured Mutharika and his government? From mercenaries wearing the DPP heart ready to randomly blast anyone condemning Mutharika over bad governance, we now have a pool of spies eavesdropping on any potential anti-government sentiments.
Undeniably, during the 2009 general elections, civil society organisations, the church, media and traditional chiefs showed an inclination towards the DPP by ignoring to vigorously criticise Mutharika’s government and MEC’s conduct. All because there was a public narrative they had helped construct which was supported by political pundits predicting a Mutharika landslide victory. On the president’s re-election these very actors claimed Mutharika’s parliamentary majority was a catalyst for political stability which was to enable Ngwazi carry on with his ‘meticulous economic agenda’.
No-one denies that in the last elections Malawi faced a very difficult choice. But simply put, the poisonous snake which some short-sighted and self-interested Malawians have tamed over the past years has come back to bite them as well as haunt all of us. With all this in mind, how possible is it to salvage the country’s deteriorating democracy?
