By far the biggest event of 2012 for Malawi was the sadden death of its president Bingu wa Mutharika who died of heart attack on 5^th April. It was the first time an incumbent president had died. Therefore, the death was a stern test for Malawi’s 18 years old democracy. There were a few glitches but the country handled the transition orderly.

Out of favour vice president, Joyce Banda stepped forward to fulfilled a constitutional obligation and ascended to the highest office on 7^th April, becoming the country’s first female president and Africa’s second, after Liberia’s Ellen Sirleaf Johnson. It was a fairy tale for Banda who had endured a sustained period of pressure and castigations under her departed predecessor for making her ambition for presidency known when Mutharika had already lined up his younger brother, Peter as his successor.

A smooth transition after the death of a president, and a woman assuming that presidency is not a typical African news story, let alone for international media. Thus, Banda’s ascendancy broke the equilibrium – altered ‘Orientalism’. It was refreshing to see persisting stereotypes successfully challenged. But then all this theatre is for international stage; it is politics as usual in Malawi.

Malawi is a democratic state, since 1994. It has about 40 registered political parties but you would do very well to find anyone who can mention at least 10 of them without referencing. Only four political parties could, to some extent, claim to be national political parties. It is easy to start a political party in Malawi because you don’t need to have any ideology or an agenda for the country. All the three political parties that have ruled Malawi since 1994, when the country held its first democratic elections, have done nothing but exploit the majority of poor Malawians.

Bakili Muluzi ruled Malawi from 1994 to 2004. He had no long-term plans for the country, he distributed money and maize during his political rallies and earned himself a reputation as a generous and caring president – this translated to votes. Muluzi left the country statistically poorer than it was when he came to power. Mutharika took over from Muluzi and brought a very expensive but popular farm input subsidy programme.

Between 2006 and 2011 the country produced the average of 3 million metric tons of maize surplus – Mutharika was rewarded with a landslide victory in 2009 elections. Yet 8 months after Mutharika’s death, an estimated 12% of Malawians will need of food aid between the months of October and February 2013. Meanwhile, Joyce Banda has 2014 tripartite elections to think about. So far she has adopted Muluzi’s approach, she is distributing maize flour, so that unlike Muluzi, ‘beneficiaries’ do not have to spend extra cash for milling the maize. It’s a catch with the majority of poor Malawians – maize is life, they say in Malawi.

Charitable work is always commendable and some of these presidents may have genuine intention to give. Yet this is not the case here – it is all about getting political advantage over one’s rivals. This has created and trapped people in a circle of povertythis’d situation suits the political elite, vulnerable people are easy to target and exploit. In the absence of political ideologies and policies to attract votes with. In the end people’s poverty and ignorance are weapons in the hands of politicians desperate for votes.

“Every empire, however, tells itself and the world that it is unlike other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate”, observed Edward Said

This is the strategy at work in Malawi. Its political system thrives on manipulation of unsuspecting vulnerable poor folks who make up the majority of the Malawi’s 14+ million population. Politicians give hand-outs; making the poor masses believe that someone cares for their plight when they are, in fact, victims of advantageous system. Exploitation is one word that describes Malawi’s political system. Unless there is a sustained civic education programmes across the country, the status quo will remain and even more people will be condemned into a circle of abject poverty.

*This articles is also published on Africa on the Blog

The establishment of Mo Ibrahim Foundation some six years ago with a mandate to   support “good governance and great leadership in Africa” was received with a considerable amount of excitement and expectations across the continent as the Foundation appeared to have targeted an area that Africa lacked the most.

What was controversial from the onset however was the Foundation’s introduction of annual good governance award (Ibrahim Prize) of US$5 million over a period of 10 years then US$200,000 annually after for a former African “Executive Head of State or Government…” There is a prize committee that decides the winner. The seven-member committee is chaired by Salim Ahmad Salim and its members include Mohamed ElBaradei and Graça Machel.

Now in its sixth year, only three former African presidents have won the award: Mozambique’s Joaquim Chissano (2007), Festus Mogae of Botswana (2008) and Cape Verde’s Pedro de Verona (2011). The Foundation has also given ‘honorary laureate’ to Nelson Mandela (2007) and this year (2012) archbishop Desmond Tutu has been awarded ‘extraordinary prize’. There were no Ibrahim prize winners in 2009, 2010 and 2012 because no retired African head of state met the selection criteria.

It is time the Foundation reassessed the relevance of the award. Can you make bad a leader good by awarding good leadership? Does the Foundation really believe there is any African president out there on a ‘good governance’ mission in order to win the Mo Ibrahim prize when they retire? Were any of the past recipients incentivised by the prize or they were/are generally good leaders? Why is it that deserved winners have become scarce since the launch of the award? Are Nelson Mandela and archbishop Desmond Tutu not extraordinary leaders that can easily win any available award on any given day?

The lack of winners in 2009, 2010 and 2012 when the prize committee had could choose from a few retired head of states point to two probabilities: either the state of African leadership is very poor or the Foundation has raised the standards unrealistically high for a continent whose majority of countries only did away with dictatorship in the last two decades or so.

The foundation’s initiative to provide leadership training is commendable. This may, in the long term, yield some positive results for African nations and the continent as a whole. Yet financially rewarding a leader for being good at what their people elected them to do does not only defeat the whole notion of democracy, it also takes away power and responsibility from the electorate, who are meant to hold their leaders to account and demand service delivery.

The Foundation ought to realise that the award inadvertently promotes stereotype of African leadership as corruptible and greedy. Surely this is not the perception that the Foundation wants to promote? One would believe this defeats the Foundation’s own noble purpose of facilitating good governance and leadership on the continent.

On its website, the Foundation quotes the current European Union head, Jo?e Emmanuel Baroso: “Sustainable development requires states to be legitimate in the eyes of their citizens and to deliver the core functions of the state.”

Similarly, the Foundation ought to realise that supporting civic education efforts for the masses, civil society organisations and other non-governmental groupings on issues of governance, good leadership and democratic principles is crucial. The continent need more than well-trained leaders and good leadership awards to achieve good governance, it also requires engaged, capable and active citizens to hold their leaders into account and refuse mediocrity. Active citizens are the best moderators of good leadership and governance. This cannot be determined by a medal or cash prize.

A guest post by Habiba Osman 

It has been on the agenda of President Obama that the USA should cement its relationship with sub-Saharan Africa. I remember in 2010, hearing Hillary Clinton giving a speech at the State Department that is it is in their plans to strengthen bilateral relationships and promote democracy.

I am therefore not surprised that this African tour has come up now considering the diminishing role that the US is now finding itself in with the Chinese almost taking over as the biggest African donor and trade partner. Sub Saharan Africa, especially, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi in the South have felt the presence of the Chinese greatly with infrastructure being built everywhere in these countries, courtesy of the Chinese government.

Politically, Clinton’s visit is therefore timely as some of most African states have openly declared that they are in favour of the Chinese donations, which seem to have no strings attached. By strings, I mean, adherence to the rule of law, respect for human rights and observance of good governance. Africa’s relationship with China has gained international attention and is a sure factor in destabilising America’s role as the sole super power.

China seems to be usurping that space which in most cases has also seen her giving support to tyrants and disregarding those tenets of democracy that the US has been preaching to us. Mrs. Clinton’s visit is therefore to consolidate the US’s position but also at the same time to strengthen its bilateral relationships. What is also interesting in these tours is the fact that the agenda has been on leadership and the role of democracy especially for those states that are bordering on rebellion and those perceived as good democratic states. The choice of countries she visited are telling; Uganda, Senegal and Malawi are countries that faced notable political unrest in the last 10 months or so. On the one hand, South Africa and Ghana are among the beacons of political stability and stable democracies on the continent.  

As always, the visit has also been disguised as the US’s support and funding pledge for their so called African projects. Having said that, it is really in my opinion to bring the attention of the US’s role as a champion of human rights, rule of law and good governance. Additionally, I also think that international politics is also on the agenda of her visit. By this I am referring to the current Middle East (particularly Syria) conflict, as things stand in the Security council now, it may be a way of garnering support for possible Syrian intervention.

This may be an indication that the US will act sooner on Syria as seen from the comments that she had been making on this African tour. What is also interesting is the fact that South Africa is very important country on this considering that it has unpredictable voting patterns (General Assembly – it influences Security Council). The visit is therefore also timed to discuss this issue although it may not have been reported in the media.