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

 

Malawi President Joyce Banda on a bumpy road to 2014 polls

President Joyce Banda’s one year in power, which over the weekend coincided with the recollection of late president Bingu wa Mutharika’s legacy, has historically heralded the beginning of what is going to be one of the most treacherous elections. If Mutharika’s repressive record was the only determinant, Banda should at the moment be having a slight advantage over the other presidential aspirants. She doesn’t. The euphoria that greeted her rise to power has been shrinking fast.

 

Asked to grade her one-year performance in a recent BBC Focus on Africa interview, Banda did not want to just ‘ponder’ but rather highlighted Malawi’s dire circumstances when she took office and the difficult decisions she has had to make. Her hesitation when pressed further on her score was enough indication of how things have turned-around within one year.

Though many people would want to frame Banda’s opaque performance through gender prejudice, it is fair to say that the decisions and actions she has taken this far have not been influenced by her femininity. She has made them as any ordinary leader and politician. And that is where her problem lies. Whilst Banda inherited immense economic problems, many people are beginning to doubt if she really has answers to the country’s challenging problems. Banda has in short failed to usher in a ‘new era’ of clean politics and dynamic interest and approaches to transform Malawi.

In the emerging cut-throat campaign, Banda faces four serious challenges: a perverse political environment from which she graduated; an economy still haemorrhaging and needing pragmatic and quick-witted solutions; as well as enigmatic tribal politics and gender bias.

First, although her People’s Party (PP) government has touted an austerity budget, the gist of her economic framework, the Economic Recovery Plan (ERP) is already tainted by acute wastage of tax-payers’ money. Her government’s expenditure of K1.6 billion on a new fleet of four-wheel-drive, Toyota Prado TX models for 35 ministers and their deputies is one of the insults poor Malawians cannot bear when they are suffering from the pangs of her bare devaluation and floatation of the Kwacha.

But equipped with the usual arrogance of politicians, Finance Minister Ken Lipenga has defended the imprudent purchase saying the cars were budgeted for. Of course, we just need to believe that Banda is cutting all corners, at least, when we hear that she’s looking around for empty seats in foreign presidential jets in order to carry the country’s begging bowl in her never-ending trips abroad. For sure, after previously misleading the country, no-one trusts Lipenga when he claims government will recover the cost of the soon-to-be-replaced Mercedes which have been used for less than 5 years.

Banda might be thinking she is buying patronage from the team of recycled politicians in her cabinet. But these are the mistakes which are making people have a favourable look at opposition political parties which should be struggling on life-support.  More importantly, many people are infuriated by allegations of corruption in the PP government. All of a sudden ruling party cadres are getting richer and the party is awash with costly paraphernalia. Besides, PP officials have become the latest untouchables who are priding themselves in pursuing arbitrary actions.

But having fallen under the armpits of the west, there is another whip on PP’s head flung by donors forcing their diktat down government’s throat. The European Union (EU) recently threatened the country with suspension of around K9 billion of aid irked by government’s decision to decrease the road levy on fuel by about 63%. Does that ring any bells about Mutharika’s hostility towards the west? Banda’s assurance though is that Malawi is calling the shots - the country is not being run from Brussels or the shadows of Bretton Woods’ debriefing rooms. 

Nevertheless, some analysts might say that the economy will not really matter in the 2014 polls, because in essence, the campaign will not be issue-based but rather a personality contest. As another power struggle, the electioneering will be driven by retribution and desperate character assassination. That might be true. But people in towns and villages nationwide are seriously thinking about the financial woes they are experiencing.

If late Mutharika’s repressive regime mishandled the economy leading to shouts of regime change from the rooftops of anti-DPP conferences then the mammoth crowds at Peter Mutharika’s chala m’mwamba whistle stop tours indicate that something has gone horribly wrong.  Of course, it has become convenient for many scholars, political and media pundits in and outside Malawi to dismiss DPP’s ‘resurrection’ and isolate Mutharika’s dictatorship from the country’s defective political context which continues to prevail today.

And yet, that is the major hindrance to the consolidation of democracy, the realisation of good governance and economic development. As a fertile ground for the nurturing of Malawi’s chronic dictatorships, it remains one single obstacle to the emergence of progressive and good leadership. The critical question Banda should be asking therefore is: how different is PP from DPP, UDF and MCP?

The most honest answer is simply - there is no difference. This is why politicians can casually defect from one party to another. It is certainly not cynical to conclude that since the multiparty dispensation, Malawi has had one political party broken into various factions. It explains why Banda hired her first cabinet from the vestiges of DPP.

Furthermore, does it surprise anyone that the three party front-runners for the presidency were handpicked? Joyce Banda and Peter Mutharika by Bingu, and Atupele Muluzi by his father, ex-president Bakili Muluzi who imposed Bingu. For some people who are yearning for young and fresh blood in Malawi politics, Atupele is possibly the best representation.  But his ‘Agenda for Change’ is a familiar cliché dressed in rudimentary clothes. When Atupele recites his plan during his rallies, it is the political sins of his father that are causing many Malawians develop fever.

This takes us to another potential problem for Banda. In the 2009 polls, Mutharika ‘broke’ the regionalistic voting boundaries even though he used nepotism as a tool for enhancing political loyalty and mobilisation. He ignited and left behind simmering ‘tribal grievances’. Critically so because ethnicity has been a defining factor in modern African politics and political manipulation of tribalism a toxic factor in elections. Banda needs to be careful to avoid ‘inflaming’ tribal passions as they have the possibility of working to her disadvantage particularly when there are fears that she is favouring people from one region. 

Having broken the hard walls of male domination in politics Banda should be aware how the notion of gender can be harsh for women. For instance, there are still those who continue to nurse the myth that ‘Malawi is not ready for a woman president’. This cohort is creating scepticism about women leadership, depicting it as weak and incapable of managing the rigorous demands of the office of president (chanamuna bambo!). Already unpleasant sexist innuendos are being thrown at Banda. ‘She is suffering from confidence crisis’ some detractors have concluded, as if Muluzi or Mutharika never pinched themselves upon entering the gates of state house.

Which means Banda needs to play the ‘gender card’ wisely and avoid giving ammunition to chauvinists who have the potential of putting doubts about her candidacy into some voters. She needs to show that she is strong but also level-headed and pragmatic. The best weapon is to distinguish herself from her predecessors (the country’s three male presidents who led repressive and corrupt governments) by formulating a progressive manifesto for a ‘new Malawi’.  

 

Malawi's Chronic Dictatorships: The Rise and Fall of Bingu wa Mutharika

                                                                 Veronica Maele

Thursday, 5^th 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 24^th 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.’

 

Demonstrations and the impeachment of Mutharika necessary in Malawi

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?

Popular protests and the impeachment of Mutharika ripe

How far is Joyce Banda from becoming Malawi's first woman president?

Debate continues unabated over the sacking of Vice President Joyce Banda from the ruling Democratic People’s Party (DPP) on 12^th December 2010. Many people are keen to see the next move the VP is going to make. Anger is also being expressed at how she has been treated. Besides, there is the suspicion that the political manoeuvring, witch-hunting, harassment and insults that Banda has endured (and will have to brave until 2014 polls) is due to the fact that she is a woman. 

In my opinion, Joyce Banda is both a victim of gender discrimination as she is of the undemocratic politics which she has for sometime been a part of. These are critical issues which Banda needs to confront. For example, DPP Noel Masangwi’s now infamous declaration that Malawi is not yet ready for a female president is an indication of the scale of patriarchal attitudes that Banda faces. Measure that to Malawi’s deteriorating democracy and the fact that Joyce Banda has consecutively served in the DPP and UDF governments: both riddled by maladministration and corruption. Now, how far is Banda from becoming Malawi’s first woman president after her dismissal from the ruling DPP?

By lacking the support of a mainstream party, Banda is considerably disadvantaged, though her approval rating as potential president of Malawi looks substantial. It remains to be seen whether she will form a new party, or with great risk, go back to UDF or dare ‘join MCP’. I feel that Banda’s chance partly rests in that, the ruling DPP could easily be dislodged from power if the level of agitation for ‘political change’ was comparable to that of 1992-94 which ousted MCP and former dictator Ngwazi Kamuzu Banda. Currently, there is significant public dissatisfaction towards incumbent Bingu wa Mutharika’s regime, which means, Banda just requires a practical and far-reaching political strategy to galvanise towards such change. The recent Catholic Bishop’s pastoral letter ‘Reading the Signs of the Times’ aptly sums up the country’s frustration and aspirations.

In addition, Banda’s firing from DPP is a culmination of Mutharika’s growing dictatorial rule, and indeed, the president’s dire efforts to remain in power by creating a ‘Mutharika dynasty’ through letting his brother succeed him. Moreover, the VP’s saga comes after Ngwazi  Mutharika enjoyed ‘one-man’ rule (2005-2009) by politically incapacitating the then VP Cassim Chilumpha through the creation of constructive resignation and later treason case. Where was Joyce Banda during ex-VP Chilumpha’s political tribulations? DPP! Cabinet minister! In fact, Banda is likely to answer treason charges if Mutharika sees her as a ‘real’ political threat.  

The only difference between Banda and Chilumpha’s chronicle is that Mutharika’s undemocratic conduct then, was unfortunately, seen in the context of: a mismatched presidential ticket, the president’s resignation from UDF and fallout with his mentor ex-president Bakili Muluzi. But, the sad development is: during Mutharika’s two-terms in office, the vulnerability of the position of VP has increasingly been exposed. It is also easy to see Mutharika’s obsession for ‘monopoly of power’ just like Ngwazi Kamuzu. 

However, another crucial factor in the row between VP Banda and the president, as previously outlined, is Mutharika’s covert quest to remain in power. A similar scenario occurred between ex-president Bakili Muluzi and VP Justin Malewezi when the later resigned from the UDF at the end of 2004 due to the handpicking of Mutharika as UDF’s flag bearer. Muluzi imposed Mutharika in order to rule from behind and possibly calculated on Mutharika paving way for a ‘Muluzi comeback’. Consequently, Malawi had a spell of political turmoil whereas, serving in the DPP camp, Joyce Banda saw nothing odd as she did with the imposition of Mutharika. 

Of course, if the events leading to Banda’s sacking are anything to go by, her nomination by Mutharika appears to have been a mere gimmick to impress the nation and international community about Malawi’s commitment towards women empowerment. Though I have written on ‘women and politics’ and the need to increase their numbers in decision-making positions, I should admit I found Banda’s rise to the post of VP momentous and thought Mutharika deserved credit. But like many Malawians, I soon realised that Mutharika saw Banda as a ‘political weakling’ who was going to nod to the president imposing his brother as the heir. 

Needless to say, there is a very tactical purpose in the premature nomination of Peter Mutharika. It gives the DPP inner-circle sufficient time to strategically respond to the anticipated opposition of this nomination. It allows the president identify who is a ‘friend or enemy’. Presently, Banda has been spotted as the enemy and she will be heavily undermined like ex-VPs: Malewezi and Chilumpha. On the ‘backbench’ she now faces the deeply entrenched undemocratic tendencies which accord the ruling party undue advantage in polls. Already, state resources are being used to promote Peter Mutharika’s candidature for 2014. Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) remains hugely biased towards DPP. 

And, the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) has suspiciously been suspended with the future of the long-awaited local government elections in limbo. We just need to look at how police besieged MEC offices and how government is ready to disrespect court rulings and the Republican Constitution. A pretext has been created for a ‘government takeover’ of MEC effectively enabling DPP have a firm grip on the electoral body in readiness for upcoming elections. This is why I believe that Mutharika’s conduct unearths the catastrophic failure by three successive ‘male presidents’ of Malawi to commit to democracy. 

From autocratic ruler Kamuzu Banda, ex-president Muluzi to wa Mutharika, we see self-acclaimed, larger-than-life fathers and dictators of the Malawi nation. For all their contribution to the nation, none of these leaders has ever believed in democracy. In whatever guise, they either have sought life presidency, attempted to hang on to power or handpicked a successor. Surrounded by opportunistic cheerleaders (atidyenawo), these male politicians have never subscribed to free and fair elections. Banda knows this too well.

Interestingly, all of these male leaders have massively been immortalised by the women-guild: Kamuzu’s mbumba, Muluzi’s a lyo lyo lyo and presently, Mutharika’s amayi a Bingu. And so, DPP saw this presence and proclaimed that the country is not prepared for female leadership. The same way opposition MCP president, John Tembo, would have scared the womenfolk in parliament with a shout of ‘chanamuna!’ (this is for men!).

The 50:50 campaign might have helped raise the number of women in parliament in the 2009 polls with DPP boasting of the largest percentage. But there is still a big cohort of party activists who believe women should serve at the bottom of the hierarchy.  In a male-dominated political field, they see women befitting chore as decorating and according parties visible presence through singing, dancing and punctuating the president’s speeches with choruses of insults particularly to ruling party political opponents.

For Joyce Banda, the road to becoming Malawi’s first woman president is an enormous challenge and merely putting up the ‘gender card’ will not work wonders. Some lessons can be learnt from USA’s Hillary Clinton and France’s Segolene Royal presidential bids. In my view, Banda needs to be very pragmatic and politically strategic if she is to stand any chance by: working with Malawians: networking with like-minded activists from civil society; churches; ‘political parties’ and traditional leaders. 

She needs to mobilise grassroots support for her candidacy with a clear message of commitment towards political reform, genuine democracy and sound socio-economic policies. Banda should remain firm as Malawi’s VP, ignore DPP’s attempts to push her off and get the opportunity to tactfully exploit DPP’s cracks and defections. After all, it sometimes takes the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s enclave. Malawians are very keen to end self-seeking politics and to terminate, once and for all, the growing tradition by presidents of handpicking a successor. 

Obviously, Banda has great advantage in that a sizeable number of Malawians value her contribution to the nation and believe in her capabilities to become the country’s first woman president. She can use this in her favour by reaching out to women, the youth and men. However, she should be cautious of alienating women as a voting block by presenting herself as an elite (Beijing) woman who is aloof of the realities of life of ordinary Malawi women.