Veronica Maele
Thursday, 5th April 2012 was the day when Malawi experienced the greatest sudden change ever in the course of its politics and history. The unexpected collapse of State President Bingu wa Mutharika at the New State House (Kamuzu Palace) in the Capital City, Lilongwe and his eventual death due to a heart attack marked the end of his dictatorial regime which had presided over a crippling economic crisis and an appalling record of human rights. Mutharika’s death came at the foot of a political journey in which with a larger-than-life conviction he rode through immense contradictions, fierce public anger as well as intractable battles; some of which he fought and won but others which he fought but eventually lost.
Mutharika’s 8-year reign was a graphic portrayal of the
typical and unsavoury notion of ‘African governance’ which in modern history has become a clear epitome of bad leadership mainly characterised by the personal-rule paradigm. It was a familiar
trajectory exemplified by the curse of dysfunctional leadership succession. Contrary
to the assertion in the west that Mutharika was another eccentric African
president, he was in actual fact an overly ego-centric and stubborn leader
whose entire rule was defined by reactionary political behaviour and actions
aimed at ensuring his political survival. In this regard, the worst
misconception about Mutharika’s rule which continues to inform media and
academic analysis is that he became a dictator in his second-term.
For a fact,
Mutharika’s presidency was a poisoned chalice right from inception because it
was founded on undemocratic grounds. By accepting to be handpicked by
ex-president Bakili Muluzi as the 2004 successor, Mutharika had openly
demonstrated that he never believed in democracy. There were inevitable
political consequences to his ‘imposition’ whether he allowed Muluzi to rule
from behind or not. It was therefore, a matter of time that Malawi was to
experience the full entrenchment of his dictatorship. Noteworthy, Mutharika’s
repressive rule thrived on the
mismanaged post-dictatorship transition of 1994-2004 which has since led to the
erosion of the liberal constitution, chocked the manifestation of a culture of
constitutionalism and consolidation of democracy.
Having weathered widespread resentment that surrounded
his candidacy, in part aided by Muluzi’s abuse of incumbent advantage and
rigged elections, Mutharika used his 24th May 2004 inauguration to declare a new era of economic
growth and zero-tolerance on corruption. His resolve for self-determination
was very obvious in his moving speech ‘The Road to Prosperity - a new vision for
Malawi.’ However,
he quickly began to exploit
the strings of political patronage to establish a notorious club of
self-serving, recycled and corrupt politicians - a wicked political class which
covering itself with a blanket of impunity was interested in self-enrichment than
pursuing a national agenda.
Evidently, following Mutharika’s
initial fiscal approaches the ‘fundamentals’ of the macro-economy improved.
Annual economic growth rates increased averaging 7.5 per cent between 2006-08 though
the trickle down effects were not manifesting for the majority of poverty-stricken
Malawians. Inflation was on a downward trend onto single digits and the Kwacha stabilised against major currencies.
The qualification of Malawi under Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)
initiative confirmed Mutharika’s eagerness to turn around the economy that IMF
and World Bank parroted his achievements with back and forth appraisals.
But Mutharika had an unbending
mind of his own. His stubbornness to implement the Farm Inputs Subsidy Programme
(FISP) against western donors’ disapproval earned the country a bumper harvest
in subsequent years since 2005. He reckoned that food security was critical to
economic growth and that maize as a highly politicised commodity was a strong
currency for the Democratic People’s Party (DPP) political mobilisation and
‘buying of votes.’ Even though benefitting poor smallholder farmers, FISP was
blighted with deep corruption at all levels and Mutharika’s ministers and
cronies in the business sector were profiteering from both fraudulent contracts
and structural flaws of the programme.
Originally seen as a calm and measured man who many in
the United Democratic Front
(UDF) saw as lacking
touch with its grassroots membership and poor Malawians, Mutharika slowly
graduated into a vocal politician who frothed with aggressive language to
intimidate his critics. He never took kindly to political threats and in a tit-for-tat
campaign ‘deflated’ real or imagined opponents including the vanguards of his 2005
impeachment bid: Lucius Banda and Maxwell Milanzi. His crusade led to denying his
mentor, Bakili Muluzi an unwelcome presidential comeback when MEC barred him
from contesting in 2009. Mutharika who enjoyed one-man rule sought to ‘abolish'
the position of Vice President creating constructive
resignation and later treason case for Vice President Cassim Chilumpha and afterwards
harassed then VP Joyce Banda in his second term. It was only then that various
actors woke up from their deep sleep.
An ardent admirer of Malawi’s first president,
Hastings Kamuzu Banda, Ngwazi Mutharika
was a rigid technocrat who had a fair attachment to pursuing grandiose projects,
examples being construction of roads, the ‘Shire-Zambezi
Waterway Project’, the magnificent but controversial Malawi University
of Science and Technology (Must) etc. But as a pan-Africanist who believed and theorised about
African solutions to the continent’s problems, he was defeated by the same
problem that has struck Africa’s post-independence leaders - bad governance.
One critical marker
of Mutharika’s rule was the fallout with his god-father and his resultant resignation
from the UDF - the party that initially sponsored him
into power. Undeniably, the moment Mutharika dumped the UDF his position as
president became politically untenable because he only had 6 MPs out of the 193-member
legislature. Though the opposition held a sinister
motive to oust him from power, there was no realisation that Mutharika had
helped create a political problem and therefore that he needed to find a
harmonious political solution. Accordingly, he was seen as a
victim of political vengeance when in truth he was both a victim and an
architect of his own political fate which unfortunately had serious repercussions
on the country.
In a 5-year
conflict-ridden term, Mutharika managed to recruit traditional chiefs as DPP
advocates who continued to back his political agenda in his second term. As the Section 65/National Budget parliamentary
deadlock unfolded, civil society equally adopted the DPP agenda keeping vigil and
hooting - in effect encouraging Mutharika to disregard the constitutional
stipulation on runaway MPs who in recent times have reduced parliament into a
house of nomadic wanderers. Not surprising that Mutharika lost the opportunity
to draw on the people’s goodwill in order to establish a political consensus.
For example, by negotiating for a Government of National Unity (GNU) based on a
proper memorandum of understanding so as to maintain the sovereignty of the
constitution.
Though
Mutharika’s initial arbitrary actions were aimed at fighting off the inevitable
consequences of the faulty foundation of his presidency, he was at heart driven
by immense personal interest to eventually gain absolute power. During his very first term, Mutharika began
to systematically sow
seeds of dictatorship by violating the Republican Constitution, disregarding the
judiciary, suppressing parliament as well as abusing public funds and
institutions. However, stakeholders never
took seriously the revelations that Secretary to the Treasury, Milton Kutengule
had been pressured by DPP officials to divert K20 million and create a bogus
Credit Scheme account to fund the party by among other things ‘buying off’
opposition MPs.
This is besides Mutharika’s
campaign purportedly benefitting from the K1.7 billion which Muluzi allegedly deposited
into his personal account from donors. Ironically, he interfered in ACB’s corruption
cases and opportunely used the anti-graft campaign to target his political
enemies whilst his own DPP government was soaked in rampant fraud. After prosecuting then Minister of
Education, Yusuf Mwawa for using K170,000 government funds to pay expenses for
his 2005 wedding, Mutharika later pardoned Clerk of Parliament, Matilda
Katopola for awarding K87 000 worth of procurement contract to her own
firm, Monick Trends.
At least, civil
society was busy hooting and the Chichiri media echoing the president’s accomplishments
from memorised scripts, when Mutharika was building his luxurious Ndata mansion,
receiving gifts from Mota-Engil and
signing a rip-off for Kayelekera Mine with Paladin Energy Ltd. At the time, a powerful narrative was
constructed around Mutharika’s economic feats that civil society, the media, the
church and academia ignored the president’s excesses. It was the equivalent of
terming a poisonous snake as a pet. Stakeholders argued Mutharika was better left
to rule as his amayi a Bingu would
sing (alekeni a Bingu alamule)
because people would not eat politics. In other words, one could separate
politics from economics.
Although the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) as a blueprint
looked plausible, it was juxtaposed by incoherent policies and several of its
critical components were unsustainable in the long term. In fact, some local actors including misguided
donors observed that Mutharika had been able to ‘develop’ the country without
local assemblies. So that when Mutharika halted democratic processes such as local
government polls, everyone stayed put because the Messiah of the Malawi nation, alias modern day Moses (Mose wa Lero) had the best interests of
the country. As Mutharika aptly proclaimed,
‘Let the work of my hands speak for me.’
No comments:
Post a Comment