The July 20 demonstrations in Malawi, ignited by persisting lack of fuel, lack of foreign currency, perennial electricity cuts and declining democratic freedoms, came as a surprise to many people who know Malawi as a peaceful country currently being ruled by a former World Bank economist, Bingu wa Mutharika, who has brought food security to the nation and overseen an economy that has had an average of about 7% annual growth in the last four years.

Inevitably, perhaps, these demonstrations have been compared to the popular uprisings in the Meddle East and North Africa (MENA). Many have wondered if Malawi could achieve what has been achieved in Tunisia and Egypt. This comparison is inaccurate, as eloquently argued here. The question is: can MENA achieve what Malawi and many other countries south of the Sahara achieved in the 1990s? This is when Malawi peacefully did away with Kamuzu Banda’s dictatorship – via peaceful elections.

The force behind the demonstrations in Malawi is not about regime change. Demonstrators are simply making modest and reasonable demands that every capable and caring democratic government should meet. These protests are about the lack of democratic institutions that have allowed the current administration to rule with total impunity. Owing, in part, to President Mutharika’s parliamentary majority, which has crippled the opposition’s ability to block any government moves in parliament. Scores of unpopular laws have been passed including one that empowers the Minister of Information to ban the publication or importation of any material he or she deems to be “contrary to the public interest”. This effectively kills all critical voices, leaving the government as the sole arbiter of the truth.

In the absence of any effective opposition party, civil society and local NGOs have been very active in holding the government to account. They have demanded explanations from the government for the lack of the aforementioned basic commodities and they have criticised it for its poor handling of its foreign and diplomatic relations, notably the deportation of the British diplomat, Fergus Cochrane-Dyet. Instead of addressing these concerns, the government has responded with threats and has accused civil society and the NGOs of promoting gay rights – a smear campaign which aims at appealing to the country’s religious majority.

All these frustrations were highlighted in Cochrane-Dyet’s leaked cable, which accused President Mutharika of becoming “more autocratic and intolerant of criticism”. True to form, Mutharika issued an ultimatum for the British diplomat to leave the country. In light of this development, Britain has suspended its aid to Malawi indefinitely, citing the issues highlighted in the leaked cable. Following the demonstrations that left 19 people dead, the U.S has also suspended its $350 million grant intended for regeneration of the country’s inadequate electricity infrastructure.

The Malawian government has responded by raising taxes to fund its “zero deficit budget” – an ambitious budget that will see the government spending no more than it can raise locally. With 72% of the country’s 13.1 million inhabitants living on less than $2 a day, it is not immediately clear whether the government will raise enough revenue to replace the  £19 million annual budget support that the British government have withdrawn. What is apparent however is that ordinary Malawians will pay a heavy price for the aid suspension.

Prior to the aid cessation, the Malawian government was on track to meet at least six of the eight Millennium Development Goals. This is now unlikely to be the case as Britain, via DFID, funded some of the country’s crucial sectors. For instance, DFID helped Malawi with incentive programmes required to return health professionals to Malawi who are in high demand overseas. An emergency human resource programme that included a 52% top-up for all health workers with an added incentive for those working in the rural areas succeeded in slowing the number of doctors and nurses leaving the country. Martha Kwataine of The Malawi Health Equity Network told IRIN that as a result of these incentives, “Only 16 nurses left the country in 2009 compared to 108 in 2003?. She now fears that Malawi government will not be able to continue with the programme; a development she thinks may start “a new wave of [health worker] migration.”

Malawi’s catastrophic failure of governance offers an invaluable lesson to the donor community and development agencies: governance is a key issue in development – it cannot be neglected. There are many countries like Malawi that need support to build strong democratic institutions, which ensure accountability, continuity of development programmes and sustaining those already achieved. As debates for post 2015 agenda gather momentum, governance must be a prominent feature. Development is not irreversible; avoidable situations like Malawi has found itself in can easily undo hard-earned development gains.

This article is also published here