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.

MCP John Tembo's belief in the survival instincts of a cockroach

As if the late submission of nomination papers by Malawi Congress Party (MCP) president John Tembo was not enough, more ghostly spanners have been thrown into the party’s much awaited convention. Just in the past few days, we have seen a series of classic staged acts listed onto MCP’s strained presidential circus.

Tembo, the self-acclaimed protagonist has transformed himself into a proud contender for the party’s flagship even though his presidential bid was until now seen as politically and practically impossible. The MCP guru has headlined media circuits talking forcefully about his 2014 ambition. He has a bazooka in his hands and is already firing pretentious political discourse which he believes will legitimise his bid and turn the tables on his challengers.

One thing is definitely obvious. MCP’s indefinite postponement of its indaba has exposed the naked machinations at the heart of the country’s oldest mainstream party. Disturbing as the evolving events in MCP may be, Tembo has been quick to openly boast about his strong political conviction on Zodiak Broadcasting Service’s  (ZBS) Tiuzeni Zoona program on Sunday, echoing as it were his trademark motto, ‘defeat does not exist in my vocabulary as far as politics is concerned.’

It does not matter what people say or what his party membership, cadres or grassroots, think. For him politics is a bulldozing endeavour not fit for the weak hearted and utterly passive mortals. It is an undertaking in which one has to struggle for own survival, one life after another, by adopting the survival instincts of a cockroach. Tembo is relying on a volley of tricks which, at times, he deploys with subtle shrewdness to enable him wriggle out of grim situations, hence, his befitting ‘puludzu’ nickname.

Under his belt, the MCP leader has a flock of underground obsessive loyalists that are ready to run his errands. Of course, they are not as vocal and omnipresent like those in the other parties, which has helped Tembo camouflage his real intentions this far. Disgruntled MCP membership who continue craving for reform as a matter of urgency must have shrunk into their shells realising Tembo is not stepping down to pave way for young and fresh blood.

Barred by the party’s constitution from making a third run, Tembo initially presented his nomination papers ‘symbolically’ because he was going to retire from politics. That mysterious positioning explains why, like ignorant residents of another planet, MCP convention organisers suddenly realised that there wasn’t enough accommodation for delegates and saw a gaping hole lying in their budget from nowhere. Tembo’s on-going tricks make Kalulu the Hare trickery stories sound real.

Clearly, the MCP leader is more interested in achieving his personal political goal - securing a presidential position in whatever guise in the 2014 polls. We just have to wait and see whether he will succeed in pulling a rabbit out of the hat running exclusively as MCP’s president, or as rumour has it, forging a coalition with President Joyce Banda and her People’s Party (PP). If president Banda is backing Tembo’s current scam in order to have the MCP leader retained as flagbearer and with it pave her own easy ride to power, the best question to ask is: what does that tell about Malawi’s democracy?

Undeniably, Tembo is just being honest. He does not take political fights or struggles lying down on his back. Since the ousting of MCP in May 1994, the MCP guru has been a very crafty politician whose manoeuvrings have helped him prevail in the worst situations and his advocates can claim that Tembo’s foxy posturing has partly saved the party from total destruction. That is the Armageddon which between the 1994 and 2009 general elections deflated the number of MPs for Alliance for Democracy (AFORD) from 36 to 1; United Democratic Front (UDF) from 85 to 17; but MCP from 56 to 26.

As the invincible leader of opposition and longest serving Member of Parliament who served in various portfolios in the country’s first post-independence government of Ngwazi Hastings Kamuzu Banda, Tembo has his experience to draw from. In fact, one of his skills lies in covertly playing the ball.

Up till last Wednesday, the presentation of nomination papers for the MCP indaba appeared to be in full bloom decorated by one of the most open presidential contests of the post-democratic era. Other parties and presidential contenders were (perhaps they still are) inwardly sweating at the potential of MCP pulling out a winning ticket at the convention. It seemed someone had waved a magic wand and exorcised MCP’s curse of the 31-year notorious dictatorship. More importantly, Tembo was not really calling the shots anymore.

Contrary to deep seated prejudice, MCP was in the process of transforming itself from yester years’ repressive outfit to a pro-democracy entity ready to usher in a new era of competitive politics and open party contests. Most of the party’s contenders were energetically waving their bill of ‘clean record’ having not fallen into the political recycling bin nor partaken in the pervasive corruption cuisine of the past two decades.

To everyone’s surprise, Tembo had finally unlocked MCP’s iron-gate marshalling in a spectrum of candidates whose hopes have now been shaken to the ground. Just the idea that one could wake up from a wild dream, retire early from a lucrative job or wander away from the glory of a church pulpit to fill in MCP’s nomination papers was no mean feat. UDF as the leading pro-democracy party of the 1990s was stumbling with utter shame. The same with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and PP. Now MCP’s doubters must have all fallen to the ground with laughter, ‘it was too good to be true.’

Unless, MCP’s presidential contenders are part of Tembo’s plot, they must be feeling like trapped beings and are naturally beating themselves for attempting, like crazy optimists, to catch the whirlwind. Tembo’s ruthlessness in executing political plans matches his occasional outbursts when confronted with questions about the direction of his political journeys by inquisitive journalists. A usually calm speaker, who once served as Kamuzu’s interpreter, he carries a less intimidating demeanour than the wicked image of his political animation.

Among Tembo’s numerous strategies is, of course, befriending his political enemies and sometimes reluctantly embracing them until he makes a handsome bite on their fresh. MCP’s former president, Gwanda Chakuamba can give a good testimony regarding the latter. More so, after all the mudslinging campaign of the 2004 general elections, Tembo found it convenient to team up with ex-president Bakili Muluzi, and with the UDF almost impeached president Bingu wa Mutharika before running vicious shoot-to-kill rounds on his minority government. ‘Section 65… number 1, Budget….. number 2', Tembo emphatically announced as Mutharika anxiously searched for ways to extinguish him.   

The MCP czar is a seasoned fortune hunter who has flirted with on-off ally Muluzi when it suited his ego. But he is fast to purge those he sees as the party’s traitors. He can seek or pledge secretive allegiance within the ranks of traditional and church leaders including well-placed politicians as long as he calculates on getting a reward.

In the aftermath of Mutharika’s death in 2012, he must have worked on possible scenarios for the 2014 presidential race. He appropriately chose to neutralise MCP’s once aggressive voice because, inside, he was calibrating his bearings having decided not to be antagonistic to President Banda. So far, praise has been his byword for the PP administration and Banda has paid him back some privilege. You scratch my back, I massage yours. It makes one realise how late president Mutharika failed to timely and strategically tame Tembo.

But things can change depending on which path his presidential campaign will head to. It is easy to understand though, why PP and MCP could become plausible partners of a coalition jigsaw. Evidently, in politics everything is possible and there are no permanent enemies. But an opposition coalition looks less attractive for MCP. A partnership between Tembo and Peter Mutharika or rather MCP and DPP would be difficult to sell. After Tembo carried Muluzi’s forsaken dream in a last-minute alliance when the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) declared the latter ineligible to contest in the 2009 polls, MCP and UDF remain haunted by their unsuccessful excursion.

That fruitless MCP/UDF coalition further angered Mutharika that after the elections he recruited a pack of mercenaries to oust Tembo as MCP president and leader of opposition in the National Assembly. Abel Kayembe (MP) led the parliamentary mission when DPP installed him as leader of opposition instead, only for Tembo to successfully challenge the move in court. With such personal exploits, the MCP president is not bothered about the future of MCP. He has the party under the armpits and sees its existence through his own lenses - defined by the same personalised politicking that has ruined Malawi’s democratic governance project.

Many people are shuddering at Tembo’s mystifying bid, labelling it as a desperate chore against gravitational force. Tembo is fully aware that with a fresh presidential ticket, MCP has a chance to win the forthcoming elections in contrast to the hard reality of the lukewarm enthusiasm over his candidacy.

However, he is weighing the mood around the country and the critical dynamics of the coming polls. The economy is a single area where many people, even those who resent his candidacy give him high marks looking, for instance, at his impressive stint at state and other institutions, but also his contribution towards MCP’s ‘cautious' handling of the economy. Presently, it seems Tembo can afford to lecture everyone about rampant corruption and persistent hunger in the country because these creatures have become monstrous after the fall of MCP.

Also, there is enough reason to speculate that the next elections might be affected by the 1994 spell: the regional voting pattern. If that was to happen again, Tembo reckons, MCP would mathematically stand to gain because of central region’s proportional voting bloc. He is calculating that DPP, UDF, PP will be tearing the vote in the Southern region.

Though his age, 81 in September this year, appears repulsive to many as is the attempt to change the party’s constitution to allow him stand yet again, he is banking on the supposed approval of his loyalists and whipping the vote from pessimists. Like Zambia’s serial presidential contender Michael Sata who eventually ascended to the helm in 2011, Tembo thinks he might as well be able to get third-time luck. However, his political situation is somewhat dissimilar from that of Sata even though Malawi’s politics has long paralleled that of Zambia.

Overall, if Tembo is to forge a coalition with Banda that will have great repercussions over the forthcoming polls. DPP and UDF will be traumatised and incumbent VP, Khumbo Kachali would possibly end up being pushed to a junior position for Tembo to pair with Banda as running-mate. That would ignite questions over the dominance of south and central region in high profile positions.

It would be very surprising if Tembo was to accept the position of 2^nd VP in a PP/MCP coalition because such would be trading the party’s electoral chance at a very cheap price. With the misfortunes that have consecutively befallen the country’s VPs though, Tembo might not fear being relegated to the bench as long as his name is prefixed with stately honour. Certainly, he also has the stamina to fight on if such was to happen.

The role Tembo is trying to assign himself at the upcoming MCP convention will either build or break MCP. That role has the capability of hugely changing the course of the 2014 elections. MCP delegates, therefore, need to consciously think about the party’s future and that of the country by upholding democracy.

 

After DPP crash landed, Peter Mutharika surfaced as the Trojan horse: Malawi Road to 2012 elections

 Following the death of President Bingu wa Mutharika, his young brother Peter Mutharika faced a nation deeply angry about the highhanded conduct of the Democratic People’s Party (DPP) government. However, the young Mutharika quickly rushed from the mourners’ wake to take over the leadership of a party in ruins. That swift but manipulative move, unlike the failed devious one to unconstitutionally seize power, rescued the DPP after a fatal crash landing.

The DPP was confronted with a bitter verdict of its brutal repression, of course, though some of its fanatical and loud-mouthed supporters who today form a web of angry yobs would never want to admit. For the young Mutharika, nothing could be further from the truth. People were totally unhappy that he was handpicked; and this was one critical factor that contributed to his brother’s downfall.

Countrywide, the overwhelming conclusion was that DPP had died with Mutharika. It was finished! Seasoned politicians on the other side of the isle could only laugh: how could an exile with less experience in local politics and holding hidden ‘American citizenship’ bid for the Malawi presidency? But, here was great misjudgement on how political events were to unfold and the determination of young Mutharika in reviving, not reforming the DPP, despite his brother’s dark legacy.

As history is only told by time and its course determined by events: predictable and unpredictable, major 2014 twists and turns haven’t happened yet. But DPP like an ancient army under siege has Peter Mutharika at the front as a wooden horse ready to be pulled by loyal Trojans. For better or worse, the young Mutharika has walked back into the underworld of Malawi politics, carrying his own dream and the DPP scorned project on his shoulders possibly to also finish the unfinished vision of his late brother.  

Over a year on, Mutharika has become a formidable presidential candidate who any of his contenders from other parties can only ignore at own peril. In part, he has been helped by circumstances - a nagging economic problem which the People’s Party (PP) government of President Joyce Banda is reeling from resolving.

It is a situation which has left his opponents wishing a speedy trial of his ‘treason case’ and a harsh conviction. His wings should be clamped, they pray, before May 2014. The fear being that it might be possible in the present context for him to benefit from a sympathy vote like Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta who won the presidency despite being indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The battle for 2014 is boiling and emotions running high. The rules of the game haven’t changed. The actors have. After all the shuffling, eyes are on the DPP indaba on Wednesday the 17^th of April which most certainly will be taking its anointed candidate through an obvious rite of passage because the backroom caucuses have favoured him.   

Behind the convention curtains though, Speaker of the National Assembly, Chimunthu Banda, Mutharika’s arch challenger is lamenting about harassment. But he has himself to blame. Until now, Chimunthu Banda never really saw anything wrong with DPP because the majority of the party’s rank and file was interested in a Mutharika dynasty. It was going to safeguard their political survival.

Chimunthu Banda and his supporters should therefore not pretend. Peter’s candidature materialised before their watchful eyes and most of them put up zero resistance. It was perched by Noel Masangwi’s infamous July 2010 declaration that Malawi was not ready for a female president and DPP National Governing Council’s (NGC) endorsement of Mutharika in 2011.

Besides, prior to the forthcoming make-believe contest, Chimunthu Banda had sealed his mouth from DPP’s woyee slogan possibly in an attempt to examine the waters before jumping to the greener pasture. To add weight to criticism from his DPP enemies, he has sat on Section 65 like a wolf in a sheep’s skin, shielding defectors from a discernible constitutional stipulation. Which is why his supporters, genuine or commissioned (aganyu) would be first to be shocked by his victory.

Despite all the praise for charisma and calmness, Chimunthu Banda has played the mainstream opportunistic politician promoting yes-bwana politics for his masters only to realise that some party members have been bad-mouthing him and throwing tribal overtones onto his face. As it were, it is people like Chimunthu Banda who fortified Peter Mutharika’s privileged position in DPP. He might be mourning about helping found the DPP, but the young Mutharika did not fall from the skies.

Peter Mutharika started his journey into active politics riding on his brother’s back in full glare of DPP members. The young Mutharika had contributed to the efforts towards the country’s 1992-94 democratic change and served as a ‘special advisor’ to Bingu since the 2004 campaign. Not long after Bingu’s rise to power, he was drawn close to the presidency with a formal appointment as Chief Advisor to the President on Constitutional, Legal and International Affairs. Perhaps president Banda’s sister, Anjimile Ntila-Oponyo has put her feet on a similar path.

Peter Mutharika’s suspicious involvement in his brother’s government started as a rumour. Later it was reported that he had taken leave from USA for the 2007/08 academic year and on return, he was to serve as Washington University School of Law’s Charles Nagel Professor of International and Comparative Law. The Mutharika brothers eventually became an act comparable to Poland’s Kaczyński brothers, late Lech and Jarosław who at one time ruled as president and prime minister respectively.

Whilst president Mutharika persecuted Vice President Cassim Chilumpha effectively making him redundant with treason charges, the young Mutharika was the only person next to the president - the de facto, VP. According to Washington University in St. Louis, Mutharika’s role was ‘advising his brother on the constitutionality of his decisions as president and constitutional reforms’. In fact, he was also working as special presidential envoy to other heads of state and leaders of international organisations. His words:

‘Over the past several months, I have been on diplomatic missions to six countries on three continents…….What is challenging about the job is the fascinating interplay of law, politics and diplomacy. We are doing our best, and Malawi’s efforts are now receiving international recognition.’

It made political sense because president Mutharika was facing constitutional dilemmas and court cases. Besides picking the legal brains of his sibling, he needed moral support to be able to run a minority government threatened by Section 65 after a vicious impeachment quest ignited by his resignation from the UDF in 2005. However, this was the beginning of an apprenticeship for the young Mutharika.  

With his brother at the helm, he was gradually getting great respect and gaining more power within the DPP that some almost felt the urge to kneel before the heir apparent. They all saw him as a composed workaholic who moved with the air of benevolent leader on top of his head.

DPP members were impressed by his high-level of education and vast experience of lecturing in the USA and beyond as well as knowledge in international legal systems, even as some doubted his grassroots attachment. It was reckoned, he needed to become a Member of Parliament and the Thyolo North East seat came handy in the 2009 polls.

In August that year, Professor Peter Mutharika, then serving as Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister, amazed participants at a Human Rights Consultative Committee (HRCC) forum with his eloquence and deep comprehension of legal matters - he gave a persuasive lecture on the issue of death penalty at Capital Hotel.

By this time, the clock was ticking down on Bingu’s presidential tenure and Peter his bloodline had already been earmarked as the safest option. It was the best reward for his young brother’s support and contribution. Besides, the senior Mutharika would effectively rule from behind the throne and dodge any prosecution from his unexplained wealth accumulation.   

As the DPP politburo was pledging their loyalty, the senior Mutharika calculated that an early nomination for his brother would clear doubts about his long-stay in USA and commitment to Malawi. He anticipated opposition from his antagonists but not on a colossal scale.

Mutharika, thus, took advantage of his landslide victory and overwhelming parliamentary majority to create a conducive environment for the ascendancy of his young brother to power. Specific legislation was targeted and Chimunthu Banda as Speaker presided over the bogus deliberation and passing because Speakers do not take sides! He wouldn’t have thought of blasting DPP’s dirty antics on the side-lines. When Peter Mutharika’s MIJ Radio backstabbing conversation came up, the Speaker did not want to rock the boat. He kept his ambition close to his chest.

Increasingly DPP infuriated many Malawians. The Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) Radio and TV effected The Road to 2014 in their programming and their Makiyolobasi caricature verbalized captions to support the outrageous bid. Traditional chiefs were recruited on three course meals and brown envelops and paraded to galvanise young Mutharika’s candidature. He kept his lips tight though to authenticate - people were freely advancing his candidacy.

But the UNIMA Academic Freedom impasse broke out with full vigor smashing Peter Mutharika’s leadership credentials as equally his hands were scolded by partaking in the Malawi Housing Corporation (MHC) cheap-houses rip-off.

The storm brewed fiercely with DPP harassing then VP Joyce Banda. As criticism mounted over fuel and forex scarcity, young Mutharika’s candidacy and the persecution of DPP detractors, president Mutharika could not tolerate any dissent. The party’s red-eyed panga wielding cadets and devoted Malawi Police officers pounced on critics.  

For the Mutharika duo, there was definitely no going back, hence with Malawi’s foreign relations damaged after the expulsion of British High Commissioner, Fergus Cochrane-Dyet, president Mutharika reshuffled his cabinet sending his brother on a mission to repair diplomatic ties. The stakes were high then. They are now.

The powerful force of Malawi politics is spinning. In it is the shadow of late Mutharika and his young brother’s anxious dream. Whatever happens on Wednesday and after, Peter Mutharika cannot escape answering serious questions about DPP’s murky legacy and the role he played in it.
 

 First Published by Nyasa Times www.nyasatimes.com 15th April 2013