The recent Newstime Africa report which has accused Malawi’s ruling party of using government funds for the running of its affairs highlights yet another blight spot on Malawi politics and in particular the lack of checks and balances on public spending.

The report itself will not surprise many Malawians most of whom already suspect that ruling parties in the country use public resources. Yet it is one thing to be suspicious of something and quite another to have evidence of it. This is the importance of the report. It is evidence, which clearly shows that Malawi needs enforceable rules on political party funding.

This is not only necessary to keep checks on corruption but also to level the political playing field – between a party or parties in power and opposition. It would stop any ruling party from getting complacent and taking everything for granted, as it is currently the case. It is such a system that convinced former President, Bakili Muluzi that he could bully Malawians into allowing him a third term in office – via a constitutional change; it is this system that allowed Muluzi to impose President Bingu wa Mutharika on United Democratic From (UDF) as its presidential candidate in 2004.

It is the system that has convinced President Mutharika that he can bully everyone within Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and install his brother as a successor. Of course with full knowledge that DPP has government resources at its disposal to run a potentially successful campaign, like Muluzi and UDF did for him (Mutharika) in 2004.

In Malawi, boundaries between a ruling party and government are very blurred, if there is any difference at all. This has been the case throughout Malawi’s young democracy. Slogans like “UDF, boma!” And “DPP, boma!” have epitomised the two administrations the country has had since return to democracy in 1994; and it is sadly an acceptable feature of the country’s political scene.

There is no coincidence that in Malawi it is only a ruling party that always has resources to buy and distribute political party materials: t-shirts, party cloth, bicycles, etc. UDF had all these resources whilst in power. Not today, now that they are in opposition. MCP had these resources prior to the 1994 general elections. Nearly 20 years in opposition, MCP has nothing. Today it is the ruling DPP that has such resources yet its leader Mutharika could not afford it when he contested for presidency in 1999 for his now defunct United Party (UP) – he got 0.47% of the vote.

These issues are important in sustaining Malawi democracy. And President Mutharika is aware of this fact: barely a fortnight after the 2009 elections victory the President announced that DPP would reveal names and identities of the business men and women who helped the party with campaign materials that included bicycles, t-shirts, clothes and flags. Three years down the line President Mutharika has not honored the promise and the country recently scored “zero on party funding accountability.”

Malawi is currently going through multiple crises. This is a common knowledge. Unfortunately, this means important issues like this one (political party funding) are unlikely to attract the attention it deserves. Simply because it is not as urgent as the lack fuel, perennial electricity cuts, lack of forex and deteriorating political and democratic freedoms. This is understandable.

Yet all these problems are mere symptoms of the systemic failures of successive regimes, and not the causes. Malawi cannot permanently do away with these problems with all the systemic loopholes still in place. How do we expect opposition MPs to challenge the government on these issues when the ruling party are reportedly using government funds buy them out? Is this not the reason President Mutharika recently boasted that he could successfully seek a third term if he pleased?

Accountability and transparency on political party funding would ensure that any ruling party will no longer feel too comfortable with the electorate and it would ensure that a ruling party or parties have not got any sense of a guaranteed re-election regardless of their performance and conduct. Ensuring transparency on political party funding is key to good governance; and a very good foundation for building strong democratic institutions.

** This article is also published on nyasatimes.com

Malawi President, Bingu wa Mutharika recently announced that he is to step-down in 2014, at the end of his second and final term in office. The announcement has received a considerable coverage, especially in the new media.

Surprisingly, no one has questioned why the President found it necessary to make such announcement given that it is not by choice that he is stepping down in 2014 – it is a constitutional obligation, a constitution Mutharika promised to observe when he took the presidential oath.

The media, eager to report exactly what a source says – whether accurate or not, missed this crucial point. This is one of the limitations of a ‘he said, she said’ type journalism.  News sources ought to be challenged if they are inaccurate. Context is everything. Here it is important to consider that Mutharika was speaking at a time when the subject of African presidents clinging on to power is topical again, owing it to President Wade of Senegal. This was a spin – Mutharika is trying to differentiate himself. But how different is he?

The President made this announcement weeks after he bluntly told Malawians that he could seek a third term if he wished. A ‘reminder’ that nothing and no one could stop a constitutional amendment, as his party has parliamentary majority to pass any necessary legislation.

It may well be that he was dissing his predecessor, Bakili Muluzi, whose third term bid failed, in 2003, due lack of strong parliamentary majority.

Yet the whole thing reflects the appalling record of the majority of outgoing African presidents who always fail to accept that their time is out. Here is a president who is failing to use his parliamentary majority to advance progressive policies; he would rather use it to boast and portray himself as a bigger man, a President larger than the laws he promised to observe and protect, under oath. He would rather use his parliamentary majority to boast that he does not need a constitution to tell him when to go – he will stand down under his own terms.

Of course all this is fantasy; the reality is different. We all stand in front of a mirror time and again and pretend we are not that image in the mirror – mtima siuvala nsanza, as we say it in Malawi.

After over two and half decades in power, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda recently boasted of expertise in governance – brought by his 26 years of presidency. 26 years in power is a very long time, by any measure. There is a whole generation of Ugandans that have not known any other leader but Museveni.

Yoweri Museveni was sworn in as president on 26 January 1986

Yet history recalls that President Museveni’s remarks contracts what he said when he initially came to power in 1986:

“The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular is not the people but leaders who want to overstay in power.”

And here is President Museveni 26 years later (2012):

“Some people think that being in the government for a long time is a bad thing. But the more you stay, the more you learn. I am now an expert in governance.”

That is the difference presidency make. Yet Museveni is not a lone in this, it is a continental problem. Malawi’s former president, Bakili Muluzi once believed that African presidents, Malawi in particular, should not be in power for more than a decade. This was in the aftermath of the fall of Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s 31 years of dictatorship.

After winning a re-election for a second and last term in office, Muluzi saw things differently. Now he need more than two terms in office “to finish his development projects.” Muluzi launched a ferocious campaign for a constitutional change to allow himself more time in power. Fortunately, parliamentarians vetoed the motion and democracy carried the day – credit to Muluzi for accepting the defeating though.

President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal must have learned from Muluzi’s failed attempt. Wade came into power in 2000 for a 7-year term and got re-elected in 2007 under a new constitution, which reduced the term limits to five years. In 2008 the constitution was changed again to allow for two 7-year terms. This would be from 2012. It is important here to notice that these constitutional changes happened on Wade’s watch. Now Wade has refused to step down after two consecutive terms in office. He has argued that the constitutional changes allow him to run again. The Senegalese courts have backed him, and bar Wade’s most formidable opponent, musician Youssou N’Dour.

After fracas and political unrest that has followed these events, Nigerian former president, Olusegun Obasanjo tried in vain to talk Wade into stepping down. Ironically, Obasanjo himself tried in vain to extend his term limits in 2007.

Surely there is something about African presidential seat that only people like Museveni, Muluzi, Wade and Obasanjo can explain. However, it has nothing to do with experience or development, as Museveni and Muluzi, respectively, want the world to believe. It has everything to do with self-serving politics of the continent.

While in the West politicians are not corrupt-free, UK’s MPs expenses scandal is the best example. Yet if people in the West want to get filthy rich they get into banking, stock trading, hedge funds etc., in Africa you join politics. This is what incentivise African politicians, particularly presidents to cling on to power.

Yes, experience is desirable in many aspects of our lives and activities but not with governance. Unless if we decide to ignore traditional forms of democratic governance, and adopt chief executive style of leadership – with one man calling the shots. Presidents come to power without experience of that position anyway, unless it is a comeback, which is unlikely in places where term limits apply.

To have good governance and functioning governments you need a vibrant and independent civil service and civil society, independent police, in the service of the people not the state, separation of powers between the arms of government and respect for the rule of law. It’s presidents like Museveni who have convinced themselves of their expertise that compromise good governance because they do not listen to anyone and this underestimate the rule of law.