After the G8 summit that was dominated by Silvio Berlusconi’s scandals than demonstrations, the world’s most popular leader, Barak Obama headed to Ghana for a snap visit. The speculation was that the choice of Ghana was due to its ‘good democratic record’, even though Botswana can match that. Nonetheless, Ghana is more visible on the world map and has larger presence on the global scale.

Given the reasoning behind Obama’s choice of Ghana, one would easily predict that the theme of the visit would rally around democracy, good governance, development, aid, civil war etc… all the four topics sprung up, civil war did not, Mr Obama preferred to use the softer word: conflict.

However, I believe good governance is the key if any of the issues that Obama highlighted are to be achieved. The primary prerequisites of democracy are separation of powers, executive, legislature and judiciary. For checks and balance, we may include the media, which is free of corporate interest, free of state interest and manipulation, the media that is there solely to serve the interest of the nation. Such media holds the three branches accountable while also acting as a connective tissue between the electorate and the elected.

These are basic prerequisites of every functioning democracy. However, the mere existence of these structures do not guarantee good governance. Good governance can only work where public office holders are not immune to scrutiny and persecution. This is where Mr. Obama’s words and plea for good governance will not deliver. Mr. Obama has acted like a farmer who sow his fertile seeds on hard ground, if the seeds germinate they won’t bear any fruits because the roots will be two shallow to support it.

Just as many nations around the globe, rich and poor, great and small, a huge majority of African states have rule of law that fosters bad governance and not otherwise. According to ARTICLE 19′s press release of 13th July 2009, its survey on decriminalisation of defamation laws has shown that of the 168 countries it surveyed, 158 have criminal defamation laws and 113 countries have laws offering special protection to the most powerful and privileged figures in public life.

“These laws shield public figures from criticism, public scrutiny and investigation by virtue of the power they hold, thereby eating at the very heart of global efforts to promote good governance and combat corruption.”

Not only does such laws encourage corruption they also offer incentive to incumbent presidents to cling on to power or try to hand pick a successor that will not persecute them. The best example is Bakili Muluzi of Malawi, who unsuccessfully tried to change the Constitution to stay in power and later hand picked a successor when he had ran out of options. Fredrick Chiluba of Zambia, had the same case. Today Muluzi is under investigation by Malawi’s anti-graft body and Chiluba is in the dock answering corruption charges. Daniel arap Moi of Kenya and most recently Olusegun Obasanjo in Nigeria all hand picked successors who failed in the subsequent elections.

Until these constitutional issues are dealt with, once and for all, good governance in Africa and, indeed elsewhere, will remain but a fretting illusion to be pursued but never attained.

Malawi has been celebrating her Independence for 45 years, having emerged from British colonial rule in 1964. What has Malawi got to show for that independence? Is the question that has been circulating on social networking sites, mostly on tweeter and facebook. I do not have an answer for the question but I think it depends on what one considers independence to be.

Nonetheless, every struggle has its winners and losers, heroes and villains. The supposed heroes of Malawi independence were decorated at the independence celebration ceremony at Kamuzu Stadium on 6th June 2009, which is the independence day.

As is usually the case with these issues, I am sure the list of those honoured cannot be agreed across all the political spectrum. And, it has to be said that there has been some controversial choices.

For instance Cecilia Kadzamira, ex-official hostess of the former president Kamuzu Banda walked away with an award but not Justice Anastasia Msosa who has presided over Malawi’s two of the most successful general elections (1994 and 2009). Former vice president Justin Malawezi got a gong but not the man he deputised, the first president of democratic era, Bikili Muluzi. Long at last, Chakufwa Chihana got a posthumous recognition he deserves for his bravery in his fight for democracy, but there was none for John Chilembwe. One of the first Africans to stand up against colonial oppression. The man whose face is a Malawi currency bearer. How unfitting could this be?

These anomalies could perhaps be understood in the context of a speech that the former leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro made at University of Venezuela, Caracas in February 1999. The speech was entitled: “Imperialist Globalisation” and it was given at the request of his pal, the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. Castro is well known for his long speeches, and this one was not exception. It was a historical lesson for those who were privileged enough to be in attendance.

Castro discussed a number issues relating to the speech title but also the Cuban Revolution that he successfully led from 1952 to 1958. One of the main points he made in relation to the revolution is that achievements in our lives are, to a great extent, influenced by time and space. Historical occurrences play a big part in what one can do and cannot, which is the main byproduct of success and failure. Castro’S revolution succeeded not only because Castro was the best revolutionary ever lived, but also because he had the backing of the people of Cuba who had grown tired of Fulgencio Batista’s regime. Yet Cuban people hardly get a mention for the role they played in the revolution.

Malawi has similar case here, Mutharika has so far done very well, as a president. The economy is healthy and stable and his good agricultural policies have improved food sufficiency in the country. Yet these things could as well be attributed to Muluzi’s failure. Muluzi did very little for the country, therefore Mutharika could only improve things. Similarly, Chilembwe is undoubtedly the first hero of the Malawi nation but he has little to show for his patriotism and bravery. This is only because Chilembwe was way ahead of his time, not many Malawians at that time were ready to fight for what was theirs. Now, contrast contrast Chilembwe with Chihana.

The fact that Chihana’s cause was a success does not mean he was any better than Chilembwe, but the people of Malawi had grown tired of Kamuzu’s regime and they were ready to support his cause. People’s attitude made the difference. We must also remember that international aid to Malawi had been frozen on condition that Kamuzu improve his political and social policies. All these factors were too much for Kamuzu to ignore. He had to do something about it, that’s when he called for a referendum that took place on 14 June 1993, for Malawian to decide whether they wanted to continue with one party rule or if they wanted multiparty democracy. This is where the real hero of Malawi emerged: the people of Malawi. The unsung hero of our freedom and independence.

I would be ungracious of me if I fail to congratulate those who got the awards: congratulations! For those who feel grieved for losing out: don’t worry trails of history will absolve you. On my part, Malawians are my heroes, true heroes of our freedom and democracy. And, I truly believe Aleke Banda is the best president Malawi never had.

The last three weeks have been particularly fascinating for news media, there has been Iran elections and its subsequent fiasco, and ‘the king of pop’, died of suspect cardiac arrest. As you and I would expect, all these issues caused a stir and excitement among news makers, more especially in the West (Western Europe and North America). One thing that these issues managed to mask was Madonna’s success in her appeal for the adoption of the second Malawian child.

While Madonna’s adoptions have always been a hot topic, this time it faded rather quickly due to Michael Jackson’s death and Iran’s election protests. However, the issue sparked a fair amount of debate among Malawians. The central issue being whether the adoption was a good thing or not. Various opinions have been expressed and I am not adding mine to that corpus. What I want to comment on however, is the fact that the representation of Malawi in the Western media has been put to question.

I am by no means the first person to discuss this issue, many have discussed it before and I am sure many will do the same in future. On the 12th June I posted a blog article in response to Jacques Peretti’s article on Madonna’s adoptions in Malawi. I complained about the inaccuracy of the article and my surprise that the Guardian of all publications carried the article. As a result, I registered my fears for the Channel 4 (UK’s terrestrial channel) documentary that Peretti went to Malawi to make, which was based on Madonna and her adoption business.

Barely a week later, a Malawi journalist and blogger Kondwani Munthani also posted a blog article on the same topic, bemoaning about Peretti’s lack of journalistic professionalism. Two weeks after these blog posts it was the turn for Malawi’s state president, Bingu wa Mutharika to have a go at Western media albeit with a different topic. Mutharika accused Western media and governments for not telling the ‘success story’ of the fight against HIV/Aids by his government.

In fact, the publication of Mutharika’s story coincided with the broadcasting of the Peretti’s documentary on Channel 4. Judging from comments that followed Nyasa Times’ news article based on the story, most Malawians who saw the programme were well disgusted. I am one of them, but the documentary did not surprise me. Not only because I anticipated it as a result of my reading of Peretti’s article earlier in the month, but also because the documentary did not differ from how the people of the East are generally portrayed and viewed by the Westerners. This is not exclusive to the media, but all the powerful institutions also.

Some of us will have noticed how quickly non-Westerners are reminded how far they have come whenever they achieve something, as if our history started with colonialism and slavery. Non-Westerners or the people of the East existed way before colonialism and slavery and there are plenty of monumental landmarks to show for that. Count seven wonders of the ancient world and you will see where they are to be found. These things show that the people of the East are not mentally inferior even though they have been constructed and forced to live as such.

The better explanation of this phenomenon can be drawn from post-colonial theory, more especially Edward Said’s (1935 – 2003) seminal work, “Orientalism“. Since its first publication in 1978 Said’s book on Orientalism has attracted considerable criticism, especially from Western academics. This is typical of every influential work. Orientalism is a term Said used to mean the people of the East and he used the term Occidental for the people of the Western.

Said observed that through the period of history the people of the West have significantly manage to disguish themselves and their cultures, from that of the East, the East has thus become the place of its fantasy. He defined eighteenth century as the main starting point where the Westerners started patronising the people of the East by making statements about it, authoring views of it, describing it, teaching it, settling it and ruling over it. In other words, dominating, restructuring and having authority over the people of the East.

Here is Said in his own words:

“Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between “the Orient” and (most of the time) “the Occident.” Thus a very large mass of writers among whom are poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists, economists, and imperial administrators have accepted the basic distinction between East and West as a starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, social descriptions, and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, mind, destiny and so on.”

I think this assertion from Said sums up everything. Peretti’s article and documentary including Mutharika’s complain about Western media’s misrepresentation is not mere prejudice on the part of the Western media, rather, it is a code they have to follow. this is something their audiences (Westerners) know and must be told about the people of the East – the Orientals. Anything other than that is not acceptable. Every movie has its hero and villian, in this case the West is the earlier and the East the is the latter.