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

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

“We must find new lands … from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies [will] also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories.”