Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Kamuzu Day and Malawi’s Festival of Forgetting

May 26, 2013 0 comment

On May 14 Malawians celebrated “Kamuzu Day,” a day when the nation celebrates the life of its founding president, Hastings Kamuzu Banda whose autocratic rule lasted between 1964 and 1994. The day has been there since Kamuzu’s reign, during which it was celebrated as his birthday. This despite the fact that Kamuzu himself may never have known his actual birthday, owing to the fact that such events were not recorded around the time he was born. (He told everyone he was born in 1906 but most people reckon he was actually born eight years earlier.) This year was especially interesting for me because I have not been in Malawi on May 14 for the last ten years or so. Social networks were buzzing with Kamuzu nostalgia, newspapers published thick supplements on him and radio stations were jostling to outdo each other with their Kamuzu “specials”. But is the annual bonanza of tributes to the self-styled “Lion of the Nation” really about Kamuzu, or does it instead reflect anxieties about the failure of leadership since the arrival of multi-party democracy in 1994? And why is there no discussion of the kind of dictator he was?

Kamuzu clearly loved Malawi as a country. He took advantage of generous development aid projects of the 1960s to mid 1970s that was aimed at helping develop former European colonies to fulfill his vision for the country. Most of such projects are still visible today. He built the country’s only international airport; hydroelectric power stations that his successors are struggling to upgrade; he built most of the roads that connects the country’s four cities; he oversaw the most competent, organised and disciplined civil service that Malawi has ever had; he built the University of Malawi (the one his successors are failing to run) and he built the two main referral hospitals that the country has.

This is a foundation that sustained his reign of terror. Yet it is the same foundation that his successors could have easily built on when his regime finally fell in 1994.

Like many sub-Saharan Africa countries that were doing away with their dictators in the early to mid 1990s following the end of the Cold War and with the end of Apartheid, Malawians demanded social, economic and political change. External and internal pressure forced Kamuzu to call for a referendum in 1993, giving Malawians a chance to choose whether they wanted to continue with his one party authoritarian rule or to adopt multi-party democracy. 64% of Malawians chose the latter. This led to a 1994 general elections where Kamuzu lost to Bakili Muluzi. Kamuzu was gracious in defeat; he congratulated Muluzi and wished him well before the vote count was over.

Before his death November of 1997, the aged and frail Kamuzu made a public statement asking Malawians who suffered under his autocratic leadership to forgive him. It was an unprecedented and unexpected move. The once mighty “lion” had been humbled, it could no longer roar and it was now owning up to its brutal past. Malawi prides itself as a “God fearing nation”, so probably Kamuzu knew that these “God fearing people” would indeed forgive him, as their Bibles teach. Kamuzu tolerated no dissent or opposing views for the entire 30 years he was in office. If Malawi is indeed a “God fearing” nation then Kamuzu was second inline – he was a demigod to be feared and revered.

Kamuzu created an inward-looking country, where he acquired this divine status that all his people were supposed to look up to. Anyone he felt was a threat to his “life presidency” was jailed, exiled or killed (Elliotreviewed the prison memoirs of the great poet Jack Mapanje a couple of years ago). Legend has it that he would feed some of those jailed to crocodiles. This cannot be verified but the rumour itself speaks volumes of a man Malawians today celebrate as a national hero worth shutting down national business for. On Kamuzu Day there were people sitting and watching in disgust as the nation celebrated as a hero the fallen despot that made their lives hell.

This is understandable and I sympathise with the victims of Kamuzu’s dictatorship. Yet the point of celebrating Kamuzu Day is far more complex than celebrating his life. It is a leadership failure in Malawi that has created this day. It works as a kind of smokescreen, inhibiting critical engagement with our present as much as our past. Malawian politics is not about policies and there are no ideological fault-lines. It is about individuals outdoing each other. When politicians parade their attributes on a political podium, as they do, they are not only talking about themselves, they are contrasting themselves with their rivals. The formula is that of a beauty contest. In this game of personalities none of the Malawi leaders that have come after Kamuzu — Muluzi, Bingu wa Mutharika and Joyce Banda — can outdo him. He built infrastructure and could point to it, and they have not. Simply put: these leaders have failed to build on the foundation Kamuzu built.

Consequently, these leaders have wanted to associate themselves with Kamuzu. If you cannot beat him, join him. Muluzi was slightly different probably because he was a direct successor. Yet he did his best to erase Kamuzu’s name, renaming almost everything that bore Kamuzu’s name. It was Mutharika who built Kamuzu’s lavish mausoleum at taxpayers’ expense. Yet in life Mutharika feared Kamuzu so much that he spent years in self-imposed exile during Kamuzu’s reign. After only one year in office, Joyce Banda has already renamed State House “Kamuzu Palace”. At the time of writing this piece, Banda was in Kasungu, Kamuzu’s home district, attending celebrations – wearing clothes bearing Kamuzu’s face.

It is this kind of nostalgia that has compromised transitional justice in Malawi. Malawi could well be the only country that celebrates the life of its autocratic dictator. No wonder that the Machiavellian figure of John Tembo, Kamuzu’s long time right-hand man and overseer of many of Kamuzu’s policies, remains prominent in mainstream politics today as the leader of Kamuzu’s party, the Malawi Congress Party. He is the leader of opposition in parliament and though he turns 81 years old this September, he will still contest the presidency once again in 2014. Tembo’s political durability is in part down to the fact that the succession of failed leaders that have come after 1994 means his MCP is, not unreasonably, regarded as Malawi’s most successful ruling party ever. Yet the history of that party tells its own story about Kamuzu. The MCP was the party of liberation formed by a generation of freedom fighters, who were later to suffer under Kamuzu’s presidency. The founder of the MCP was the late Orton Chirwa, who together with his wife, Vera, was arrested by Kamuzu 1981. Orton died in jail in 1992; Vera was released at the turn of multiparty democracy in 1993. Until today the couple remain Africa’s longest serving prisoners of conscience.

There have been some younger Malawians aspiring for leadership positions, including presidency. Unfortunately, some of them have already joined the hero worship bandwagon. As a way of justifying that the youth can also hold leadership positions, some of these younger aspirants are arguing that Kamuzu had the youngest-ever cabinet in the history of Malawi. Referring to his first cabinet, of 1964. Yet most of these yet aspirants forget to mention what happened next.

Kamuzu got rid of all these young intellectuals and leaders, one by one, following the Cabinet Crisis of 1964. Notably Henry Masauko Chipembere and Kanyama Chiume were exiled, and Yatuta Chisiza, like his brother Dunduzu before him, was gunned down by security forces. This epitomised Kamuzu’s 30 years rule. In 1983 there was the well documented case of Mwanza murders where four MPs were killed for simply suggesting that Kamuzu was ageing therefore there was a need to start succession plans. Of course the courts acquitted Kamuzu and Tembo in the trial that followed multiparty democracy simply because the government was too inept. For the record, Malawi government has never won any high profile case since 1994 – and there have been quite a few.

Tossing around Kamuzu’s name and image as a political tool is making Kamuzu into a heroic saint that bears little resemblance to the historical record. He was a ruthless authoritarian that caused a lot of pain to many people whose relatives and parents languished in jails, exile and some were killed without committing any crime at all. He ran a state without a justice system. He was the sole arbiter of truth. This is the side of Kamuzu that is slowly being erased from nation history, deliberately or not, and as we blur the lines of our past, it becomes more and more difficult to understand our present. Airbrushing Kamuzu’s legacy and creating false nostalgia that is only aimed at diverting the national psyche from current leadership failures is not only injustice for those that suffered during his reign, it also stifles national progress and development.

Malawi will not develop if nostalgia and hero-worshiping are drivers of its leadership. The country needs visionary leaders ready for public service. Leaders with policies that can drive the nation forward; this has nothing to do with anybody’s age, gender or tribe. Here the electorate have a role to pay: look beyond personalities and focus on their policies instead.

This article was first published by Africa is a Country

Joyce Banda: IMF’s Good Girl or a Victim of Malawi’s Economic Dependence?

January 23, 2013 3 comments

Watching the behind-the-scenes short documentary on Joyce Banda, the fourth president of Malawi, it is clear that she is acutely aware of the challenges she faces, as she tries to fix the ailing economy she inherited from her predecessor, Bingu wa Mutharika, who died of a heart attack while in office in April last year. IMF chief Christine Lagarde was in Malawi last week, but while Lagarde praised Banda’s government and their adherence to the IMF’s program, many Malawians remain unconvinced.

In the documentary Banda states that her main worry is how she can possibly get this job done with only two years remaining on the presidential term Mutharika won in 2009. The vice-presidential nominee on Mutharika’s ticket, Banda will be campaigning for herself in 2014, and she’s genuinely worried that local critics calling her Malawi’s “accidental president” have found a label that will stick.

The truth is that Banda was elected as Mutharika’s deputy. This is why Mutharika could not sack her as vice president when he wanted to. Banda may accept the “accidental president” tag as she is trying to distance herself from most of the problems she inherited, which she rightly thinks could compromise her electoral success in 2014.

On the international level, Banda has used the well-documented policy failures of her predecessor to reach out to donors. As she says in the documentary:

“I had to get on course with IMF, devalue the Kwacha [Malawi currency] by 40%, and I am grateful for some of this money that goes towards cash transfers which will help cushion the shock that [the] devaluation has brought about.”

Banda regrets Malawi’s economic dependency, nearly 50 years after attaining political independence. Arguing: “if our friends and international partners do not come, if they packed up today and left, we are dead.” This point defines what has shaped Banda’s administration. The economic and diplomatic mess that Mutharika left handed the bargaining power to donors. This means that Banda is running a country but she has no room for maneuver.  She cannot impose her own policies on it, she can only do what needs to be done.

Yet Banda could pay a heavy price for accepting IMF-led economic recovery measures. The 40% currency devaluation has made life unbearable for most Malawians; the inflation rate has accelerated and most basic commodity prices have tripled since the devaluation last April. While Malawians never objected to the devaluation, some local civil society and consumer rights organisations have criticised the government for allowing the Kwacha to float freely against major currencies like the US Dollar.

Recent figures from the Centre for Social Concern (CfSC), a local NGO, indicate that the cost of living among low-income families in cities rose by 20% in 2012. CfSC partly attributes the rise to Banda’s economic reforms. A local consumer watchdog, Cama, has been a fierce critic of the government due to the ever-increasing high cost of living and the lack of adequate measures to cushion consumers from the shocks of devaluation. Cama recently held a demonstration against rising costs of living and it has given the government a 21 days ultimatum to respond to its concerns or face more protests. There is a consensus among Malawians that the economic situation is dire, and even the government agrees.

A local daily newspaper, The Nation, recently reported that an influential group of Malawi’s key donors, comprise the UK, Norway, African Development Bank, European Union, the World Bank and Germany, operating under Common Approach to Budget Support, with UNDP and IMF as “independent” observers, has insisted that Malawi continue with the reforms, as there is no alternative. On her recent visit to Malawi, IMF chief Christine Lagarde also stressed the need for Malawi “to stay the course [of economic reforms].” Lagarde “congratulated President Banda on her bold economic policies… including liberalisation of the foreign exchange market.”

The gulf between the pain of reforms on Malawians and the confidence of the donors in the IMF program is the dilemma Banda faces. She cannot afford to ignore either. This is perhaps the main reason Lagarde’s visit polarised opinion among Malawians. Banda’s administration received the IMF chief warmly, yet in the documentary she makes her frustrations with Western donors clear, admitting she prefers dealing with China’s unconditional aid and investment. She argues:

“China will decide today, we shall develop this. The next day you sign [and] the work starts. We know if it had been the western world we could have been talking for two years: before we give you, you must do this and that. Things that are not related to the project and that is what China do not do.”

Banda knows the challenges facing her country and she no doubt has an idea of how to solve them; she may even have policies for Malawi’s long-term development. Yet the country’s economic dependency dictates that she listens to international financial institutions and donors more than her people and her own convictions. Her critics say she is not bold enough and lacks technical know-how to dictate her own economic terms. It is a plausible argument, yet these critics underestimate or entirely ignore the influence of the donors and international financial institutions. Fighting them is a risk Banda cannot afford to take, at least at the moment.

This article is also published on Africa on the Blog

The Virtuous Circle of Malawi Politics that Sustain Poverty

December 13, 2012 1 comment

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 5th 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 7th 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