Symbols matter. And after looking at 250 images of Joyce Banda, Malawi's President who is now world famous as the second woman to lead a nation on the African continent, I notice that all those images and a thousand more have one thing in common: Joyce Banda's wardrobe hasn't changed in years. At first this may seem trivial because we think no one should care what the president wears, but this kind of thinking is naive at best. The fact that the president's fashion sense has not been the subject of nationwide discussion is not a sign of apathy on the part of the electorate, but a sign of content. They are satisfied with how the president dresses, and they are satisfied because they really do care about how she dresses. I assure you that if she went about in mini-skirts across this conservative nation, it would become abundantly evident just how much the people care about such a trifling matter.
Moreover, if Joyce Banda's traditional outfit was an isolated incident, perhaps it would be justifiable to dismiss it as negligible. But it's anything but isolated. In fact, the fact that she dresses the same way all the time, everywhere, and on all occasions means that her dress sense is deliberate, calculated, and orchestrated. I don't believe that the ubiquitous traditional dress, made and embroidered with local fabric of multi-colored and flowery patterns, and supplemented with a matching sash worn as an accessory over the shoulder like an emblem of honor, should ever be dismissed either as a sign that Joyce Banda lacks imagination or that it is a sign that she must really like dressing like that. I have no doubt that she likes what she wears, but even more importantly I believe she knows that her wardrobe is a powerful symbol, which is why she wears the same way all the time.
Go see for yourself, for whether the image is of Joyce Banda sitting in her office at the State House, or sitting beside US President Barack Obama at the White House, or walking beside UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, or meeting IMF chief Christine Lagarde, or exchanging hugs with Hillary Clinton, or welcoming former US President Bill Clinton, or addressing the UN General Assembly, or giving the State of the Nation address before the National Assembly, or hosting a dozen African heads of state for a summit, or taking the oath of office, or visiting a widow in one of Malawi's impoverished villages, you will see that symbol on Joyce Banda everywhere, whether it be on a local platform or global stage. It's a fashion statement that is both private and public, both subtle and loud, and both personal and political. It's message is powerful and the kind that more and more Africans and their leaders need to be making to the rest of the world with the same kind of courage, poise, consistency, and resolve that Joyce Banda has shown in sticking to it at the risk of appearing regressive. The message is: In this world of mass consumption of things designed in the Silicon Valley and made in China, Africa will only have sustainable economic growth when Africa makes things that the world invests in, and the world will never invest in the production of African goods if even the Africans themselves would rather consume what is made by others than what they make themselves. So every time Joyce Banda appears in public, she not only elevates this traditional dress as being good enough to be worn by a president with a global audience and appeal, but she also wears something that says, Proudly Made in Africa, and that is surely more than other leaders elsewhere on the continent can say. She may not be much of a talker when it comes to articulating a plan for Malawi's economic growth, but to her credit, she walks the talk. Do you?
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
MALAWI DREAM 100: 1964 - 2064
In exactly 319 days, the nation of Malawi will turn 50. This is no small milestone, but it will be a shame if it is seen merely as an historical event worth celebrating, for a strong case can be made that such an occasion is also an opportunity worth seizing. Sunday, July 6, 2014 should not just be a day for Malawians to look back with reflection on their country's history since its independence in 1964, but also a day for Malawians to look forward with singular resolve and purpose on their country's future over the next half century. We must ask ourselves as a nation: what is our collective dream of the country we want Malawi to be by the time she turns 100 in the year 2064? Peering that far ahead into the future may strain our eyes, but it must be done if we are going to be deliberate and standing shoulder to shoulder in our nation-building.
Now any journey into a destiny worth reaching must begin with an honest assessment of both the national blessings we've inherited and the mess we are in; a humble acceptance that we the people are responsible for our country; and a heroic defiance that declares this current state of affairs as unacceptable. But honesty, humility, and heroism all seem to be in such short supply these days that it can seem difficult to know where to begin such a momentous journey together. One reason for this apparent shortage of honesty, humility, and heroism is that we often look for it in the wrong place. We look for these qualities in our politicians when all the while it is the people in the streets who know what the country is really like and who daily dream of what the country ought to be. The people may not know how to get to the promised land, but they know that they are still in the wilderness. They also know that one of the first of many key ingredients that needs to be gotten right if we are ever going to stop going around in circles is choosing the kind of leadership that will set us off on the right course. However, choosing the kind of leadership we need is not the same as choosing the leader we want.
To be sure, there is an election in nine months, and our thoughts are tempted to think of this merely as a chance to choose between Arthur, Atupele, Joyce, and Lazarus. It is also noteworthy that there has never been an election in this country in which we have been so fortunate as to have such exceptional individuals to choose our president from. When all the options in the race are as formidable as this, the voice of the people matters so much more than when the stakes are low and the options are inconsequential. But in making this all-important choice, we must not be as naive as we have been in the past to believe that one leader is going to be enough of a silver bullet to set our country on a course that will keep us focused on giving those who will be alive in fifty years a better country than this we live in. Instead, we must decide on the kind of leadership we need and the kind of leadership we are determined to always demand, regardless of which leader is seeking office in this election or in any of the next nine elections. And we must have the courage and wisdom to choose that kind of leadership not just for the country, but also for each constituency, because what Malawi needs is a sea change of leadership both in government and opposition, an army of good leaders if you will. This is important firstly for the sustainability of the dream we pursue for Malawi, for even if we get the choice of president right, any progress made towards our dreamland will always be in danger of being sabotaged either by the same president in their second term (sound familiar?) or by the next president. But if we get our choice of local councillors and parliamentarians right, then our dream has a chance of survival, for these representatives have a chance of outlasting the presidency. More importantly, making the right leadership choice across the political spectrum is also important because of the nature and magnitude of the seismic reforms that will inevitably have to be enacted over Malawi's second fifty year act.
So what kind of reforms are these for which we must endeavor to get the right kind of leadership across the board? Doubtless the country has suffered multiple organ failure, and the reforms needed to resuscitate Malawi are many. In fact, I believe there are at least seven areas of reform that hold the key to our nation's transformation, but there is one that deserves special attention because it strikes me as the least obvious one. I speak of Historical Reform, a new way of looking at our history. As a nation we generally have a bad habit of looking at our country's past with nostalgia, for we see the past as a time when things were better than they are now. The result is that any negative elements of the past, no matter how painful or consequential, we tend to bury and not confront. This may seem an unfairly broad generalization, and it is fair to say that it is less true of millennials born after 1980. Even so, there is a sense in the air that we tend to make the misguided conclusion that forgiving the past means forgetting it, and so what we deliberately choose to not remember collectively is often repeated. Bakili Muluzi was being more insightful than political when he accused Malawians of the self-maledictory malady of "kukonda kuyiwala". But we have to question whether we can move into a new future without confronting the past and ensuring that our collective unhealed wounds from the past are not carried forward to poison the future. And our wounds cannot heal if we keep on insisting on forgetting and burying the past. After all, the key sign that your wound has recovered is when you are able to remember the pain without reliving or revenging it. So the country needs help remembering, because it is not a habit that comes easy or natural for us.
We used to have the ability to recall and name our collective sins and pain publicly, like in 1914 and 1964 when we named colonialism as oppressive and painful, and even put dates in our calendar to remember that pain together as a nation. But we do not have that ability anymore. It was taken from us. Thirty years of state sponsored propaganda from 1964 to 1994 did that to us, for in that time we were conditioned to accept the version of history being fed to us instead of being allowed to remember history as it really happened. We were told that John Chilembwe was a prophet who foretold the coming of our nation's Messiah in the form of Kamuzu Banda, and so we were not permitted to remember or renounce the violent acts Chilembwe instigated, such as the beheading of William Jervis Livingstone whose head Chilembwe impaled on a pole he had standing next to him while he preached at his church on Sunday, January 24, 1915. Nor were we allowed to remember or repeat Chilembwe's many acts of bravery and compassion by which he acquired a quality education to be used in pursuing the interests of his country above his own. Malawi's history is rich with a deep wisdom, but that wisdom is most fertile in the dark soils we refuse to remember, and we are now in need of help. We need songs composed, movies made, plays acted, books published, curriculum developed, events commemorated, and memoirs written and made required reading about all the good, the bad, and the ugly past of our country. We are privileged to be living at a time when many of the custodians and makers of our history are still alive, but it won't stay like this forever. These libraries must not be allowed to be buried without record. Where are the biographies of John Tembo, Gwanda Chakuamba, or Mama C. Tamanda Kadzamira? Where are the biographies of the people who fought for our independence alongside Kamuzu Banda? Where are the plays and stories about the framers of our constitution? Where are the memoirs of the people who were imprisoned without trial during the one party era? Where are the days and events for remembering the dark night of Malawi's one state rule and celebrating the people who shined like stars in the midst of that dark tunnel? Is it not a sad indictment of our pretentious view and collective neglect of our history and its makers that Michael-Fredrick Paul Sauka died both penniless and unknown, despite the patriotism by which he employed his artistry in the composition of our country's beautiful and prayerful national anthem? Is it not symptomatic of our contempt for historical integrity that we stomach the casual changing of our bank notes, our flag, and the names of our national monuments (do we even have any?). We even stomached the blatant change of the date on which our former President died, all to suit the narrative of a few political opportunist desperate to cover up their treasonous tracts.
We have a rich past to reconcile ourselves to, but as I heard Felix Nyika say one time, we cannot have reconciliation without truth. But here I must add that the truth we need to confront is about ourselves, not others, for the past is not just what happened to us, but what we ourselves did. The past is not a story of our struggle against some villains in power, for in the end there are no pure villains or heroes among us since the thread of an immense potential for both good and evil runs through all our souls. The leaders we've had so far have not been monsters, but humans reflecting all the same human flaws we all have and without which they would not have been in power for long. A character flaw in any leader is only tolerated by the character flaws in the followers. So we must begin to see how our history is really a story of our struggle against the villains we have thus far seen in ourselves for having given our peers, our fellow countrymen, and our brothers permission to rule us badly. That history must neither be invented nor forgotten; it must instead be recorded and remembered so that the good we wish to pass on to our children may be preserved for public celebration, while the bad we wish to denounce may be preserved for public reflection. On this journey into a new future, we need the kind of courageous leadership that will provide the opportunity for us as a nation to tag and identify all our luggage from the past, and to separate the luggage we need to take with us into the next half century from that which we must leave behind. But this means all the foolish talk about forgetting the past must end. After all, there can be no dream where there is no memory. This is because our best dreams of the future are both innovative improvements of our best memories and imaginative negations of our worst memories of the past. In short, we cannot change the course of our nation's future history while we have a wrong and narrow view of it's past history. So come out into the light and tell us the bright and dark past you remember about Malawi's first 50 years, because hidden in your memory are the raw materials needed for painting a portrait of the country we must now start dreaming of waking up in on July 6, 2064.
Now any journey into a destiny worth reaching must begin with an honest assessment of both the national blessings we've inherited and the mess we are in; a humble acceptance that we the people are responsible for our country; and a heroic defiance that declares this current state of affairs as unacceptable. But honesty, humility, and heroism all seem to be in such short supply these days that it can seem difficult to know where to begin such a momentous journey together. One reason for this apparent shortage of honesty, humility, and heroism is that we often look for it in the wrong place. We look for these qualities in our politicians when all the while it is the people in the streets who know what the country is really like and who daily dream of what the country ought to be. The people may not know how to get to the promised land, but they know that they are still in the wilderness. They also know that one of the first of many key ingredients that needs to be gotten right if we are ever going to stop going around in circles is choosing the kind of leadership that will set us off on the right course. However, choosing the kind of leadership we need is not the same as choosing the leader we want.
To be sure, there is an election in nine months, and our thoughts are tempted to think of this merely as a chance to choose between Arthur, Atupele, Joyce, and Lazarus. It is also noteworthy that there has never been an election in this country in which we have been so fortunate as to have such exceptional individuals to choose our president from. When all the options in the race are as formidable as this, the voice of the people matters so much more than when the stakes are low and the options are inconsequential. But in making this all-important choice, we must not be as naive as we have been in the past to believe that one leader is going to be enough of a silver bullet to set our country on a course that will keep us focused on giving those who will be alive in fifty years a better country than this we live in. Instead, we must decide on the kind of leadership we need and the kind of leadership we are determined to always demand, regardless of which leader is seeking office in this election or in any of the next nine elections. And we must have the courage and wisdom to choose that kind of leadership not just for the country, but also for each constituency, because what Malawi needs is a sea change of leadership both in government and opposition, an army of good leaders if you will. This is important firstly for the sustainability of the dream we pursue for Malawi, for even if we get the choice of president right, any progress made towards our dreamland will always be in danger of being sabotaged either by the same president in their second term (sound familiar?) or by the next president. But if we get our choice of local councillors and parliamentarians right, then our dream has a chance of survival, for these representatives have a chance of outlasting the presidency. More importantly, making the right leadership choice across the political spectrum is also important because of the nature and magnitude of the seismic reforms that will inevitably have to be enacted over Malawi's second fifty year act.
So what kind of reforms are these for which we must endeavor to get the right kind of leadership across the board? Doubtless the country has suffered multiple organ failure, and the reforms needed to resuscitate Malawi are many. In fact, I believe there are at least seven areas of reform that hold the key to our nation's transformation, but there is one that deserves special attention because it strikes me as the least obvious one. I speak of Historical Reform, a new way of looking at our history. As a nation we generally have a bad habit of looking at our country's past with nostalgia, for we see the past as a time when things were better than they are now. The result is that any negative elements of the past, no matter how painful or consequential, we tend to bury and not confront. This may seem an unfairly broad generalization, and it is fair to say that it is less true of millennials born after 1980. Even so, there is a sense in the air that we tend to make the misguided conclusion that forgiving the past means forgetting it, and so what we deliberately choose to not remember collectively is often repeated. Bakili Muluzi was being more insightful than political when he accused Malawians of the self-maledictory malady of "kukonda kuyiwala". But we have to question whether we can move into a new future without confronting the past and ensuring that our collective unhealed wounds from the past are not carried forward to poison the future. And our wounds cannot heal if we keep on insisting on forgetting and burying the past. After all, the key sign that your wound has recovered is when you are able to remember the pain without reliving or revenging it. So the country needs help remembering, because it is not a habit that comes easy or natural for us.
We used to have the ability to recall and name our collective sins and pain publicly, like in 1914 and 1964 when we named colonialism as oppressive and painful, and even put dates in our calendar to remember that pain together as a nation. But we do not have that ability anymore. It was taken from us. Thirty years of state sponsored propaganda from 1964 to 1994 did that to us, for in that time we were conditioned to accept the version of history being fed to us instead of being allowed to remember history as it really happened. We were told that John Chilembwe was a prophet who foretold the coming of our nation's Messiah in the form of Kamuzu Banda, and so we were not permitted to remember or renounce the violent acts Chilembwe instigated, such as the beheading of William Jervis Livingstone whose head Chilembwe impaled on a pole he had standing next to him while he preached at his church on Sunday, January 24, 1915. Nor were we allowed to remember or repeat Chilembwe's many acts of bravery and compassion by which he acquired a quality education to be used in pursuing the interests of his country above his own. Malawi's history is rich with a deep wisdom, but that wisdom is most fertile in the dark soils we refuse to remember, and we are now in need of help. We need songs composed, movies made, plays acted, books published, curriculum developed, events commemorated, and memoirs written and made required reading about all the good, the bad, and the ugly past of our country. We are privileged to be living at a time when many of the custodians and makers of our history are still alive, but it won't stay like this forever. These libraries must not be allowed to be buried without record. Where are the biographies of John Tembo, Gwanda Chakuamba, or Mama C. Tamanda Kadzamira? Where are the biographies of the people who fought for our independence alongside Kamuzu Banda? Where are the plays and stories about the framers of our constitution? Where are the memoirs of the people who were imprisoned without trial during the one party era? Where are the days and events for remembering the dark night of Malawi's one state rule and celebrating the people who shined like stars in the midst of that dark tunnel? Is it not a sad indictment of our pretentious view and collective neglect of our history and its makers that Michael-Fredrick Paul Sauka died both penniless and unknown, despite the patriotism by which he employed his artistry in the composition of our country's beautiful and prayerful national anthem? Is it not symptomatic of our contempt for historical integrity that we stomach the casual changing of our bank notes, our flag, and the names of our national monuments (do we even have any?). We even stomached the blatant change of the date on which our former President died, all to suit the narrative of a few political opportunist desperate to cover up their treasonous tracts.
We have a rich past to reconcile ourselves to, but as I heard Felix Nyika say one time, we cannot have reconciliation without truth. But here I must add that the truth we need to confront is about ourselves, not others, for the past is not just what happened to us, but what we ourselves did. The past is not a story of our struggle against some villains in power, for in the end there are no pure villains or heroes among us since the thread of an immense potential for both good and evil runs through all our souls. The leaders we've had so far have not been monsters, but humans reflecting all the same human flaws we all have and without which they would not have been in power for long. A character flaw in any leader is only tolerated by the character flaws in the followers. So we must begin to see how our history is really a story of our struggle against the villains we have thus far seen in ourselves for having given our peers, our fellow countrymen, and our brothers permission to rule us badly. That history must neither be invented nor forgotten; it must instead be recorded and remembered so that the good we wish to pass on to our children may be preserved for public celebration, while the bad we wish to denounce may be preserved for public reflection. On this journey into a new future, we need the kind of courageous leadership that will provide the opportunity for us as a nation to tag and identify all our luggage from the past, and to separate the luggage we need to take with us into the next half century from that which we must leave behind. But this means all the foolish talk about forgetting the past must end. After all, there can be no dream where there is no memory. This is because our best dreams of the future are both innovative improvements of our best memories and imaginative negations of our worst memories of the past. In short, we cannot change the course of our nation's future history while we have a wrong and narrow view of it's past history. So come out into the light and tell us the bright and dark past you remember about Malawi's first 50 years, because hidden in your memory are the raw materials needed for painting a portrait of the country we must now start dreaming of waking up in on July 6, 2064.
Monday, August 12, 2013
THE CHAKWERA DOCTRINE
As the dust settles on Malawi's political scene which is recovering from the shockwaves triggered by the recent and historically momentous election of Dr. Lazarus Chakwera both to the office of President of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and to the responsibility of representing the party as its candidate for president of the country when Malawians go to polls in nine months, it is time for serious minds to assess what the new candidate has to offer.
Making an assessment of Chakwera's philosophy of government is no easy task, firstly because he is a fresh addition to the political landscape and thus has next to no political baggage that can be dug up to give us a glimpse of how he handles affairs of state. This is unlike Professor Peter Mutharika, the presidential candidate of the Democratic Progressive Party, whose activities in and handling of state matters are well documented from his years as a minister of government in his late brother's cabinet, not to mention the political decisions he was involved in making immediately after the death of our former president. It is also unlike Atupele Muluzi, who is no stranger to politics not only through his public service for a number of years as a Member of Parliament, but also through his brief stint as a Minister of Government in President Joyce Banda's first cabinet before he resigned his post due to irreconcilable political differences. We even have some idea now of how Dr. Joyce Banda handles state affairs because on top of her work as a government minister in previous administrations, we are also able to assess her work as Malawi's President since April, 2012. For Chakwera, on the other hand, there is no such history of public service to dissect. Secondly, Chakwera's philosophy of government is difficult to assess because he is vying for Malawi's presidency on the ticket of a party that has not been in government during Malawi's era of multiparty democracy. Though the mighty MCP held the seat of government for the three decades in which it was the only party in Malawi, no one really knows what the MCP's handling of state affairs would be like in this democratic era, and so we can't even rely on the party's history of handling state affairs for clues on how Chakwera would handle them, for unlike his counterparts in other parties, if Chakwera were to win the general election, he would be taking his party where it has never gone before. Lastly, Chakwera's philosophy of government is particularly difficult to assess because his candidacy and eventual nomination has sparked unprecedented levels of political discourse among Malawians of all backgrounds, making the task of separating the hype from the substance a very difficult one indeed.
Notwithstanding, an assessment must be attempted, and fortunately his acceptance speech at the party convention that nominated him gives us a sense of the man's mind on the principles by which he would lead the country. The speech, delivered in Chichewa, was thoughtful, impassioned, and eloquent, though sometimes it lacked the kind of engagement with the audience that his seasoned predecessor had achieved in his own valedictory address at the same convention, and sometimes it came across as preachy, no doubt owing to his work as an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God Church. But past the passion, eloquence, and improvements that will no doubt need to be made to put his vision in terms that Malawian villagers can relate to and feel like the candidate speaks with their voice, one could see and hear distinct traces of the kind of governing the man believes will really matter in turning the corner in Malawi's development. The government principles articulated in this speech were not just promises of what he would do as president, but prescriptions of what he would be leading all Malawians to do to lift the country out of its cycle of poverty, corruption, and dependence. The prescriptions can broadly be summed up in ten themes that may loosely be regarded as the beginnings of what I am calling The Chakwera Doctrine:
ONE: past mistakes must be forgiven, not just buried
Chakwera's call for forgiving each other's past mistakes is an emotive one in the Malawi Congress Party because the party's presidency was bitterly contested, and even though this was not reflected in the wide margin of votes by which he secured the nomination, a conciliatory tone was nonetheless needed to heal fresh wounds. Further, the call for forgiveness is an emotive one in the context of the country's general perception of the MCP, for many Malawians had only associated the party with the suppressive regime through which the party ruled the country from 1964 to 1994. The biggest challenge that the party's new president (or any president of the country for that matter) faces in making forgiveness of the past a cultural norm in the party and in the country is to inspire people to actually forgive the past, not to just revert to their usual cultural default settings of burying the past and pretending offenses did not happen. Public forgiveness is a powerful panacea, but only where people who have been hurt can make their grievances public so that the act of bringing their wounds into the light can kill all the germs and preserve public scars that serve as a reminder of what was done wrong so that it may never be done again. And Dr. Chakwera indicated his commitment to leading and inspiring this kind of reconciliation that confronts the painful truth by offering the example of his own mended relationship with his predecessor for others to follow.
TWO: work together for a better Malawi, not for self-interests
Chakwera is clearly outraged at the little that Malawi has to show for its nearly half a century of political independence, and he places the blame squarely on our entrenched mindset of looking out for own personal, political, or tribal interests even to the point of enriching ourselves through people who have no regard for maximizing our national heritage for the common good. Chakwera's is an active outrage, not the kind of anger that calls for certain persons to be punished, but the kind that invites every person to come work on nation-building so that the next 50 years are a reversal of the mismanagement of the last 50 years. He does not see himself as bidding to secure a five year term as president, but to use his term in office to secure a 50 year blueprint of sustained, collective, and focussed development that involves Malawians doing hard and real work to build that country, not receiving hand outs from others who have worked hard elsewhere. Now obviously the biggest challenge with such a big vision is giving 15 million people direction and opportunity into the kind of work that will build the nation.
THREE: do business cleanly, not business as usual
Chakwera lamented the degeneration of values in the country and the tragic acceptance that business in the public and private sectors cannot be done cleanly without greasing the system with bribes. Corruption is so much the norm that it has become either the only way to get things done quickly or the only way to get things done period. His call for everyone to do business cleanly is obviously an indication that he would work to reform all government systems and services to work efficiently for every Malawian so that no one need grease the system to make it work for them, but it is also a warning shot to everyone who is benefitting corruptly from keeping the system broken and slow. Chakwera is not naive about what a fight he'd have on his hands against corruption, for a fight against corruption is a fight against the practices and behavior of ordinary Malawians and of the very civil servants he hopes to manage as president, and yet corruption cannot be defeated without the help of the very people who are either running the corrupt system or putting bribes into it. This may very well be the biggest challenge on Chakwera's agenda, for it is no small feat to recruit an army and convince it to go to war against itself!
FOUR: Follow focussed leaders, not trial-and-error politicians
Chakwera said those wishing to support him, or follow him, or lead with him must not do so as a trial and error experiment. He said that since 1994, Malawi has been a lab rat for politicians who knew not what they were doing, and the time had now come for the disastrous political experiment to end. He said MCP under his leadership will not be merely trying to go back into government, and those wishing to be a part of it's rebranding must not come in the spirit of trying out Chakwera or MCP. He made it clear that he has not come to try things out, but to get things done. Big difference.
FIVE: show your predecessors respect, not just their mistakes
In the presence of the MCP's old guard represented visibly by the Right Honorable John Tembo, Chakwera admonished younger voters (including himself among them) to learn from and respect those who have preceded them in building the country and keeping the party active. He acknowledged that it is easy to look only at their mistakes and overlook their tremendous contributions, deep wisdom, and strong sense of value, which will be needed to make Malawi great. He pointed to his predecessor's exceptional achievement in accomplishing a smooth and democratic transition of leadership as an example of what can be learned from our elders.
SIX: respond to people's dreams, not just their needs
Chakwera enumerated the dreams and aspirations of villagers as being worthy of all our efforts to build the kind of country where such dreams come true. He spoke passionately about the dream Malawians have to be self-empowered to build their own house, grow their own food, make their own income, educate their own children, and pursue their own vision for the country. This tone is a marked departure from the usual tendency politicians have of promising to provide a government that offers things that appeal either to the interests of the wealthy few or to the desperate fears and needs of the poor masses. Chakwera did not speak to the needs and fears by which typically convince us to continue our dependence on their individual efforts, but to the dreams and aspirations by which Malawians wish to end their dependence on big government, foreign aid, and the narcissism of politicians who have no faith that ordinary Malawians have the ability and resolve to build themselves dignified lives without depending on the government as desperately as they have been made to do thus far.
SEVEN: reward everyone for excellence, not partisanship
Chakwera decried the common practice of using differences in political opinion and political affiliations as an excuse for depriving excellent and hardworking people in government, business, and private sectors of their rightful rewards. The muffled response from his audience was no surprise, for it was either brave or reckless of him to say this in front of a very partisan crowd who are now as accustomed as the rest of the country is that presidents, ministers, parliamentarians, CEOs, managers, employers, contractors, and businesses will give you the rewards and results you desire much quicker and more gladly if you are of the same political views or party and if you are likely to advance such politics militantly. Even so, in saying it, Chakwera made it clear that his intention would not be to go into government so that the MCP can do to other parties what they have done to his, but to welcome all hard working Malawians to the task of rebuilding the nation and to set in motion a culture of removing all political considerations from the way people are rewarded. He said the best practices of conducting business must be rewarded without regard to the political colors one brandishes.
EIGHT: value each person's strength, not their title
In the presence of the other contestants he had freshly and resoundingly beaten, Chakwera warned against treating those who have no titles or positions of authority as having nothing significant to contribute to the development of Malawi. He said his would be a leadership that values what each person can do well in our collective quest for a better Malawi, not what title they hold. This is no small warning, for it opens up the possibility of the new president working with people that are capable of getting things done if those who have the titles and positions should be found wanting. It will no doubt give encouragement even to those who admire him but do not like politics to gravitate towards his leadership to put their talents and strengths at Malawi's service. It is definitely a fresh standard of performance assessment that is counter to the usual focus on positional titles one has previously held or academic papers one has acquired. It appears that by his own example, Chakwera believes education and positions can be useful catalysts for creating opportunities for service, but must never be the standard by which such service is measured, for the measure of everyone's work must be the quality of its results.
NINE: provide honorable succession, not favored successors
In a political milieu where the highest office in a party is given to a favored and hand-picked successor, often a member of the family of the founders of the party, the MCP is well placed to lecture its rivals on the democratic values exemplified in the succession process through which Chakwera had been elected. It put to bed all rumors that Tembo would use a family connection at the electoral commission that facilitated the vote to swing the vote towards a change in the party's constitution to allow him to retain the presidency. And Chakwera was replete with metaphors of relay running as he sung praises of John Tembo's management of the transition from his tenure to that of a candidate duly elected by the party delegates in a contest that was open. That the MCP will be the only party whose presidential candidate is running solely by virtue of the party's democratic process as opposed to the influence of being a party founder or having any family ties to people who founded the party may very well be a formidable case the party makes to the nation about the democratic values by which it has rebranded itself.
TEN: make politics a clean debate about policy, not a dirty fight about parties
Chakwera wants a clean fight, not just among presidential aspirants, but also among their clashing and competing visions of the country's future and the ways to get there. He wants politics to mean a debate about policy, not a smear campaign about politicians or their parties. This is a needed message for many independent voters who are sure they want to support him but not so sure they want to support MCP. Chakwera is telling them to look at the policies that he and his party will be proposing to put in place for the country, not the politics that have muddied the waters of leadership across all political parties. He will need those votes to win a general election, and he has now made it clear that he wants to be a good policy maker and good policy implementor, not another good politician, and now the electorate has nine months to decide whether his policies and leadership are worthy of the highest office in the land.
The pundits from the other major parties immediately reacted to Chakwera's speech by insisting that they do not see him as a threat to their prospects of securing the presidency in next year's election. However, if Chakwera's overwhelming victory at the MCP convention is anything to go by, then even they will know that it is a colossal mistake to underestimate him, and an even bigger mistake to underestimate the conflagration of voter enthusiasm that is rapidly blazing for him and against them across the country. Chakwera is a common citizen going up against the seasoned politicians, and if the next election is poised to be the struggle of The People against The Politicians, it is easy to see that Chakwera is a symbol of the People, and easier still for the Politicians to see that they will be outnumbered unless they make the election about something else.
Making an assessment of Chakwera's philosophy of government is no easy task, firstly because he is a fresh addition to the political landscape and thus has next to no political baggage that can be dug up to give us a glimpse of how he handles affairs of state. This is unlike Professor Peter Mutharika, the presidential candidate of the Democratic Progressive Party, whose activities in and handling of state matters are well documented from his years as a minister of government in his late brother's cabinet, not to mention the political decisions he was involved in making immediately after the death of our former president. It is also unlike Atupele Muluzi, who is no stranger to politics not only through his public service for a number of years as a Member of Parliament, but also through his brief stint as a Minister of Government in President Joyce Banda's first cabinet before he resigned his post due to irreconcilable political differences. We even have some idea now of how Dr. Joyce Banda handles state affairs because on top of her work as a government minister in previous administrations, we are also able to assess her work as Malawi's President since April, 2012. For Chakwera, on the other hand, there is no such history of public service to dissect. Secondly, Chakwera's philosophy of government is difficult to assess because he is vying for Malawi's presidency on the ticket of a party that has not been in government during Malawi's era of multiparty democracy. Though the mighty MCP held the seat of government for the three decades in which it was the only party in Malawi, no one really knows what the MCP's handling of state affairs would be like in this democratic era, and so we can't even rely on the party's history of handling state affairs for clues on how Chakwera would handle them, for unlike his counterparts in other parties, if Chakwera were to win the general election, he would be taking his party where it has never gone before. Lastly, Chakwera's philosophy of government is particularly difficult to assess because his candidacy and eventual nomination has sparked unprecedented levels of political discourse among Malawians of all backgrounds, making the task of separating the hype from the substance a very difficult one indeed.
Notwithstanding, an assessment must be attempted, and fortunately his acceptance speech at the party convention that nominated him gives us a sense of the man's mind on the principles by which he would lead the country. The speech, delivered in Chichewa, was thoughtful, impassioned, and eloquent, though sometimes it lacked the kind of engagement with the audience that his seasoned predecessor had achieved in his own valedictory address at the same convention, and sometimes it came across as preachy, no doubt owing to his work as an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God Church. But past the passion, eloquence, and improvements that will no doubt need to be made to put his vision in terms that Malawian villagers can relate to and feel like the candidate speaks with their voice, one could see and hear distinct traces of the kind of governing the man believes will really matter in turning the corner in Malawi's development. The government principles articulated in this speech were not just promises of what he would do as president, but prescriptions of what he would be leading all Malawians to do to lift the country out of its cycle of poverty, corruption, and dependence. The prescriptions can broadly be summed up in ten themes that may loosely be regarded as the beginnings of what I am calling The Chakwera Doctrine:
ONE: past mistakes must be forgiven, not just buried
Chakwera's call for forgiving each other's past mistakes is an emotive one in the Malawi Congress Party because the party's presidency was bitterly contested, and even though this was not reflected in the wide margin of votes by which he secured the nomination, a conciliatory tone was nonetheless needed to heal fresh wounds. Further, the call for forgiveness is an emotive one in the context of the country's general perception of the MCP, for many Malawians had only associated the party with the suppressive regime through which the party ruled the country from 1964 to 1994. The biggest challenge that the party's new president (or any president of the country for that matter) faces in making forgiveness of the past a cultural norm in the party and in the country is to inspire people to actually forgive the past, not to just revert to their usual cultural default settings of burying the past and pretending offenses did not happen. Public forgiveness is a powerful panacea, but only where people who have been hurt can make their grievances public so that the act of bringing their wounds into the light can kill all the germs and preserve public scars that serve as a reminder of what was done wrong so that it may never be done again. And Dr. Chakwera indicated his commitment to leading and inspiring this kind of reconciliation that confronts the painful truth by offering the example of his own mended relationship with his predecessor for others to follow.
TWO: work together for a better Malawi, not for self-interests
Chakwera is clearly outraged at the little that Malawi has to show for its nearly half a century of political independence, and he places the blame squarely on our entrenched mindset of looking out for own personal, political, or tribal interests even to the point of enriching ourselves through people who have no regard for maximizing our national heritage for the common good. Chakwera's is an active outrage, not the kind of anger that calls for certain persons to be punished, but the kind that invites every person to come work on nation-building so that the next 50 years are a reversal of the mismanagement of the last 50 years. He does not see himself as bidding to secure a five year term as president, but to use his term in office to secure a 50 year blueprint of sustained, collective, and focussed development that involves Malawians doing hard and real work to build that country, not receiving hand outs from others who have worked hard elsewhere. Now obviously the biggest challenge with such a big vision is giving 15 million people direction and opportunity into the kind of work that will build the nation.
THREE: do business cleanly, not business as usual
Chakwera lamented the degeneration of values in the country and the tragic acceptance that business in the public and private sectors cannot be done cleanly without greasing the system with bribes. Corruption is so much the norm that it has become either the only way to get things done quickly or the only way to get things done period. His call for everyone to do business cleanly is obviously an indication that he would work to reform all government systems and services to work efficiently for every Malawian so that no one need grease the system to make it work for them, but it is also a warning shot to everyone who is benefitting corruptly from keeping the system broken and slow. Chakwera is not naive about what a fight he'd have on his hands against corruption, for a fight against corruption is a fight against the practices and behavior of ordinary Malawians and of the very civil servants he hopes to manage as president, and yet corruption cannot be defeated without the help of the very people who are either running the corrupt system or putting bribes into it. This may very well be the biggest challenge on Chakwera's agenda, for it is no small feat to recruit an army and convince it to go to war against itself!
FOUR: Follow focussed leaders, not trial-and-error politicians
Chakwera said those wishing to support him, or follow him, or lead with him must not do so as a trial and error experiment. He said that since 1994, Malawi has been a lab rat for politicians who knew not what they were doing, and the time had now come for the disastrous political experiment to end. He said MCP under his leadership will not be merely trying to go back into government, and those wishing to be a part of it's rebranding must not come in the spirit of trying out Chakwera or MCP. He made it clear that he has not come to try things out, but to get things done. Big difference.
FIVE: show your predecessors respect, not just their mistakes
In the presence of the MCP's old guard represented visibly by the Right Honorable John Tembo, Chakwera admonished younger voters (including himself among them) to learn from and respect those who have preceded them in building the country and keeping the party active. He acknowledged that it is easy to look only at their mistakes and overlook their tremendous contributions, deep wisdom, and strong sense of value, which will be needed to make Malawi great. He pointed to his predecessor's exceptional achievement in accomplishing a smooth and democratic transition of leadership as an example of what can be learned from our elders.
SIX: respond to people's dreams, not just their needs
Chakwera enumerated the dreams and aspirations of villagers as being worthy of all our efforts to build the kind of country where such dreams come true. He spoke passionately about the dream Malawians have to be self-empowered to build their own house, grow their own food, make their own income, educate their own children, and pursue their own vision for the country. This tone is a marked departure from the usual tendency politicians have of promising to provide a government that offers things that appeal either to the interests of the wealthy few or to the desperate fears and needs of the poor masses. Chakwera did not speak to the needs and fears by which typically convince us to continue our dependence on their individual efforts, but to the dreams and aspirations by which Malawians wish to end their dependence on big government, foreign aid, and the narcissism of politicians who have no faith that ordinary Malawians have the ability and resolve to build themselves dignified lives without depending on the government as desperately as they have been made to do thus far.
SEVEN: reward everyone for excellence, not partisanship
Chakwera decried the common practice of using differences in political opinion and political affiliations as an excuse for depriving excellent and hardworking people in government, business, and private sectors of their rightful rewards. The muffled response from his audience was no surprise, for it was either brave or reckless of him to say this in front of a very partisan crowd who are now as accustomed as the rest of the country is that presidents, ministers, parliamentarians, CEOs, managers, employers, contractors, and businesses will give you the rewards and results you desire much quicker and more gladly if you are of the same political views or party and if you are likely to advance such politics militantly. Even so, in saying it, Chakwera made it clear that his intention would not be to go into government so that the MCP can do to other parties what they have done to his, but to welcome all hard working Malawians to the task of rebuilding the nation and to set in motion a culture of removing all political considerations from the way people are rewarded. He said the best practices of conducting business must be rewarded without regard to the political colors one brandishes.
EIGHT: value each person's strength, not their title
In the presence of the other contestants he had freshly and resoundingly beaten, Chakwera warned against treating those who have no titles or positions of authority as having nothing significant to contribute to the development of Malawi. He said his would be a leadership that values what each person can do well in our collective quest for a better Malawi, not what title they hold. This is no small warning, for it opens up the possibility of the new president working with people that are capable of getting things done if those who have the titles and positions should be found wanting. It will no doubt give encouragement even to those who admire him but do not like politics to gravitate towards his leadership to put their talents and strengths at Malawi's service. It is definitely a fresh standard of performance assessment that is counter to the usual focus on positional titles one has previously held or academic papers one has acquired. It appears that by his own example, Chakwera believes education and positions can be useful catalysts for creating opportunities for service, but must never be the standard by which such service is measured, for the measure of everyone's work must be the quality of its results.
NINE: provide honorable succession, not favored successors
In a political milieu where the highest office in a party is given to a favored and hand-picked successor, often a member of the family of the founders of the party, the MCP is well placed to lecture its rivals on the democratic values exemplified in the succession process through which Chakwera had been elected. It put to bed all rumors that Tembo would use a family connection at the electoral commission that facilitated the vote to swing the vote towards a change in the party's constitution to allow him to retain the presidency. And Chakwera was replete with metaphors of relay running as he sung praises of John Tembo's management of the transition from his tenure to that of a candidate duly elected by the party delegates in a contest that was open. That the MCP will be the only party whose presidential candidate is running solely by virtue of the party's democratic process as opposed to the influence of being a party founder or having any family ties to people who founded the party may very well be a formidable case the party makes to the nation about the democratic values by which it has rebranded itself.
TEN: make politics a clean debate about policy, not a dirty fight about parties
Chakwera wants a clean fight, not just among presidential aspirants, but also among their clashing and competing visions of the country's future and the ways to get there. He wants politics to mean a debate about policy, not a smear campaign about politicians or their parties. This is a needed message for many independent voters who are sure they want to support him but not so sure they want to support MCP. Chakwera is telling them to look at the policies that he and his party will be proposing to put in place for the country, not the politics that have muddied the waters of leadership across all political parties. He will need those votes to win a general election, and he has now made it clear that he wants to be a good policy maker and good policy implementor, not another good politician, and now the electorate has nine months to decide whether his policies and leadership are worthy of the highest office in the land.
The pundits from the other major parties immediately reacted to Chakwera's speech by insisting that they do not see him as a threat to their prospects of securing the presidency in next year's election. However, if Chakwera's overwhelming victory at the MCP convention is anything to go by, then even they will know that it is a colossal mistake to underestimate him, and an even bigger mistake to underestimate the conflagration of voter enthusiasm that is rapidly blazing for him and against them across the country. Chakwera is a common citizen going up against the seasoned politicians, and if the next election is poised to be the struggle of The People against The Politicians, it is easy to see that Chakwera is a symbol of the People, and easier still for the Politicians to see that they will be outnumbered unless they make the election about something else.
Friday, April 5, 2013
MALAWI: Life After Bingu's Death
On this date twelve months ago, Malawi lost it's president, the late Professor Bingu Wa Mutharika. Prior to his death, there was a nationwide outcry against the authoritarian style of his leadership. His own Vice-President had already expressed her opposition to the nepotism and tribalism by which he was shamelessly grooming his own brother to succeed him; Bingu responded by kicking her out of his party and excluding her from the business of governing. Religious leaders from the highly esteemed Public Affairs Committee (PAC) had already written a letter to him calling for him to reform his ways or resign; Bingu responded by ignoring them. Aid donors from western countries had already frozen aid to Malawi in protest to the unceremonious way in which he had deported the British ambassador for criticizing his dictatorial tendencies; Bingu told them to "go to hell". Ordinary citizens had already taken to the streets in protest against his regime; Bingu called them followers of the devil and ordered police to shoot them, killing 20 in the process. Outside of those who were either related to him or being paid to speak well of him, it's hard to think of anyone who was not lamenting Bingu's leadership and government. Even T.B. Joshua, the infamously self-proclaimed prophet from Nigeria, was making generic predictions that an African head of state was on the brink of death. As morbid as it sounds, it would not be inaccurate to say that when Bingu did die unexpectedly, most Malawians were...what's the word?... Relieved. That ushered in the historical ascendancy of Joyce Banda to the presidency, making her Malawi's first female president. Now given the levels of discontent at that time, it is worth asking the million dollar question: Is the state of the nation any better now than it was then?
The answer is yes and no. It is yes because now, when the people protest against their government as they did this year, the police shoot teargas instead of live ammunition. It is yes because now, the international community is open to helping and having diplomatic relations with Malawi again, as reflected by recent visits to Malawi by Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, and Hillary Clinton in her capacity then as the American Secretary of State, not to mention Joyce Banda's own visits both to Europe and the White House. This show of international solidarity with Malawi was unheard of twelve months ago, and I dare say there is some good in having it. It is yes because now, business owners and members of Malawi's middle class are no longer spending half of every working day in half a mile long lines for fuel that may or may not be coming into the country. It is yes because now, Habiba Osman and her fellow activists are no longer being arrested for expressing dissenting views against the president. It is yes because now, businesses are no longer lamenting the lack of foreign currencies with which to order merchandise from abroad. It is yes because now, Patricia Kaliati's Ministry of Misinformation is gone, and one hopes for good.
But the answer is also no. It is no because now, the local currency three times weaker against the dollar than it was a year ago. In practice it means that it is three to five times more expensive to live in Malawi now than it was a year ago. It also means that people's salaries, which have not improved to weather the storm of inflation, are now worth half what they were worth a year ago. It is no because now, food security has been politicized and food aid has been personalized, leaving large numbers of Malawians scrambling for crumbs at poorly run and monitored state food reserves. It is no because now, Malawi has a president who has yet to show that she has the strength to stand up to western donors when they make demands that are sure to sink the poorest citizens further into poverty. It is no because now, Malawians' very survival is more dependent on aid and the government it has ever been. It is no because while access to fuel and forex was hindered by low supply a year ago, access to fuel and forex is still hindered now by high prices. It is no because now, we still have a president more anxious about garnering support for her party in preparation for the next election than she is about casting a vision that inspires and engages all Malawians in the business of nation building. It is no because now, we have a president who talks forgiveness and reconciliation one day and grinds her axe the next. It is no because now, Ralph Kasambara's Ministry of Selective Justice has began, under which public figures suspected of committing as serious a crime as treason are arrested and granted bail within the space of a week, while countless ordinary citizens rot in our jails for months without so much as a day in court to answer for petty crimes.
In this atmosphere, it is no wonder that Malawians are confused about what choice to make in next year's election. And when the future promises no better leadership, Malawians have the tendency to look to the past for better leadership, which is clear sign of despair. Malawians are in such despair that they imagine that Joyce Banda is a worse president than Bingu, just as they imagined that Bingu was worse than Bakili Muluzi who preceded him, and imagine further still that the three presidents we've had since the dawn of democracy have been worse than Kamuzu Banda who accorded Malawians none of the freedoms that they enjoy today. Our view of history is not the same as that held by the generation that fought for our nation's independence four decades ago. They rightly saw their past as filled with oppressive regimes, primitive ideas, and stifled freedoms. This does not mean they hated everything about their past, for they held on to the moral values and folk wisdom of their past. But they did not see the past as a better place than the future. Theirs was not a generation of despair. Ours is. We have such deep levels of dependence and despair that we easily think the past was better than the future. This, I believe, is why Peter Mutharika and Atupele Muluzi have such devout followers, because as the brother and son of two former presidents respectively, there is an illusion that the bright past will return. But the truth is that while the present is painful, the past was not bright either.
What Malawi needs is not a leader who entrenches our false belief that we should go back to the past because the past was better, but a leader who inspires us to dream of a future we desire for ourselves and our children; a future that will not be brought into being by politicians who have an exaggerated view of their own indispensability, but which will be built when every citizen refuses to be given a cheap handout in exchange for a vote, and instead demands that they be called to action in building things that add value to our country; a future in which each citizen looks for ways to give to the nation rather than ways of taking from it; a future in which we as a people only ask for help when we have reached the limits of our own resources and abilities; a future in which the state works to make its citizens bigger instead of working to make the government and the president bigger. Such a future is brighter than the that past which some leaders are now promising to bring back, and I dare say it is also a future brighter than the present that we are being offered. There is no shortage of leaders complaining about the present and sugarcoating the past. But where are the leaders to paint a bright future for all Malawians, built by all Malawians? Where is the leader to denounce the spirit of despair with words spoken in the invincible language of hope?
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
The Ngwazi Effect: How Kamuzu Shapes Us
No figure has shaped the political landscape and social mindset of Malawi quite like the nation's first head of state, Hastings Kamuzu Banda.
The journey began in the 1960s. Fresh out of federal prison, Hastings led his newly formed Malawi Congress Party to a sweeping victory in a 1961 election, on the back of which he told the colonialists that had been ruling his country to either accept majority rule or get out. He thus became the charismatic leader of that generation that contended for and secured Malawi's independence in 1964 and established it as a Republic two years later. In the three decades that followed, the Ngwazi, as Hastings liked to be called, ruled Malawi with a strange mixture of cruel authorianism, eccentric idiosyncrasy, and paranoid intelligence. And though the impact of his rule on Malawi is both inestimable and incomparable, a greater scrutiny of it is no doubt one of the keys for unlocking Malawi out of its perpetual gridlock and vicious cycle of failed leadership.
Politically, Kamuzu perfected the one-for-all model of leadership. In this model, the illusion was created that he was the one leader that all others could not do without. He was so successful at managing this perception of his own indispensability that when he faced a revolt from some of his own cabinet ministers in 1964, those who saw Kamuzu as first among equals found themselves ousted and labeled as traitors, leaving behind only those who fully endorsed that Kamuzu had and will never have an equal. The event was a pivotal moment in Kamuzu's efforts to transition from being Prime Minister to being President before declaring Malawi a one-party state and himself its Life President, all in the space of seven years. His success in doing this gave him tacit permission to use state resources for his and his coterie's personal enrichment for thirty years. In so doing, he firmly established the now-prevalent attitude of going into politics mainly to hold on to power at all cost, plunder state coffers for personal gain, and wield the powers of the state to muzzle opponents. It is no accident that since the dawn of multi-party politics and the end of Kamuzu's reign in 1994, Malawi has yet to have a president who does not attempt to hold on to power through bids to end the presidential term limits imposed by the constitution, or through rigged elections, or through bribed parliamentarians and electorates, or through undemocratic and nepotistic attempts to keep the presidency of a political party and the country in someone's family.
Psychologically, by referring to Malawians as "children" for thirty years, Kamuzu shaped the way we see ourselves and our leaders. He trained us to see ourselves as helpless, and in turn to see our leaders as our saviors simply because they are powerful, rich, and older. Even the confusing relationship Kamuzu had with the West has left an indelible mark on how Malawians view westerners in general and white people in particular. On the one hand, Kamuzu had received his education in the west, and held it in such high esteem that when he resolved to build an elite secondary school to surpass all others in Malawi, he made it clear that his intent was to fashion it in the likeness of Eton College, the prestigious English school. In keeping with his vision, he ordered that only white people be allowed to teach at his school, where the brightest children were chosen from villages across the country to learn such subjects as Latin and Greek. To this day, Malawians hold a foreign education in higher esteem than a local one, even where the local one may be more relevant. Similarly, Kamuzu went everywhere dressed in a three-piece suit and an English hat, and refused to address crowds or make public speeches in Chichewa, the vernacular language of Malawi. And to this day, the more frequently and better a Malawian speaks English, the more they are pleasantly admired and bitterly envied. It is not uncommon to find Malawians who speak English as a second language preferring it over their mother tongue in conducting daily conversations, business, and meetings with fellow Malawians. It is also not uncommon for Malawians to envyingly refer to wealthy Malawians as living "Moyo Wachizungu", literally meaning "a white lifestyle". In contract, Kamuzu had also been imprisoned by the colonialists for his initial calls for a revolt against their rule. And in turn, he had famously referred to the federation under which he had found the British ruling Malawi as "a stupid federation". Yet at the same time, he was the only African leader to maintain full diplomatic relations with the racist apartheid government of South Africa. In so doing, Kamuzu was truly the first to embody the now-prevalent Malawian sentiment that white people are simultaneously worthy of being feared, hated, and suspected as oppressive, and worthy of being imitated, followed, and admired as superior.
Culturally, it is common knowledge that Kamuzu spoke disparagingly of people from the north of Malawi, even introducing several government policies designed to sideline them. The rest of the country's resulting antagonism both to northerners and to their strong sense of cultural identity is still an enduring reality to this day. Even the role to which Kamuzu allocated women in the public arena, that of singing and dancing around him in uniforms bearing his face, is one that does not look set to go away any time soon. In connection to this latter practice is the impact that I also suspect he had on the moral standards in the relationships between men and women. It is rumored that when he lived in England, Kamuzu got into trouble for his indiscretions with a married woman named Mrs. French. Whether true or not, what is beyond rumor is that for the thirty years in which he was president, Kamuzu never married. Instead, he lived in co-habitation with a mistress in a strange relationship that he never accounted for. I dread at the consideration of the impact that this mysterious relationship between Kamuzu and his mistress, or between Kamuzu and fatherhood, or between Kamuzu and marriage must have had on an entire generation's view of how a man should relate to women and of whether marriage is a worthy commitment for a man to make, but wives all across the country can testify to that impact on the men they married. Even the fact that the nature of his relationships with women and whether he had children were always shrouded in mystery and secrecy has since become something of a heritage for men across the country.
But perhaps I am being too harsh on the iconic demagogue. My purpose is not to put the blame on Kamuzu for Malawi's ills. I know that Kamuzu did not rule this country without the people's consent and I know that not everything he did was bad. In many ways, he was a leader with a vision beyond his time, and I think all the leaders we've ever had since Kamuzu have failed to escape his imposing shadow. So as much as we like to blame our present calamities on leaders who have gone before, the real blame belongs to ourselves as a people, for we are the ones who choose and tolerate bad leadership. Therefore, if we are serious about changing Malawi for the better, it will not be enough to blame all our country's woes on those who have led us before or lead us now. We must also blame ourselves and take responsibility for our proclivity to settle for self-aggrandizing leaders and to defend them when the law catches up with them. There are people in this country, many people in fact, who still defend Kamuzu Banda's authoritarianism, Bakili Muluzi's corruption, Bingu Wa Mutharika's arrogance, and Joyce Banda's appeasement as being more tactical than detrimental. That is the real tragedy, for the kind of leadership we choose, follow, tolerate, and defend are a photograph of the kind of country we want to live in and the kind of people we want to become.
The journey began in the 1960s. Fresh out of federal prison, Hastings led his newly formed Malawi Congress Party to a sweeping victory in a 1961 election, on the back of which he told the colonialists that had been ruling his country to either accept majority rule or get out. He thus became the charismatic leader of that generation that contended for and secured Malawi's independence in 1964 and established it as a Republic two years later. In the three decades that followed, the Ngwazi, as Hastings liked to be called, ruled Malawi with a strange mixture of cruel authorianism, eccentric idiosyncrasy, and paranoid intelligence. And though the impact of his rule on Malawi is both inestimable and incomparable, a greater scrutiny of it is no doubt one of the keys for unlocking Malawi out of its perpetual gridlock and vicious cycle of failed leadership.
Politically, Kamuzu perfected the one-for-all model of leadership. In this model, the illusion was created that he was the one leader that all others could not do without. He was so successful at managing this perception of his own indispensability that when he faced a revolt from some of his own cabinet ministers in 1964, those who saw Kamuzu as first among equals found themselves ousted and labeled as traitors, leaving behind only those who fully endorsed that Kamuzu had and will never have an equal. The event was a pivotal moment in Kamuzu's efforts to transition from being Prime Minister to being President before declaring Malawi a one-party state and himself its Life President, all in the space of seven years. His success in doing this gave him tacit permission to use state resources for his and his coterie's personal enrichment for thirty years. In so doing, he firmly established the now-prevalent attitude of going into politics mainly to hold on to power at all cost, plunder state coffers for personal gain, and wield the powers of the state to muzzle opponents. It is no accident that since the dawn of multi-party politics and the end of Kamuzu's reign in 1994, Malawi has yet to have a president who does not attempt to hold on to power through bids to end the presidential term limits imposed by the constitution, or through rigged elections, or through bribed parliamentarians and electorates, or through undemocratic and nepotistic attempts to keep the presidency of a political party and the country in someone's family.
Psychologically, by referring to Malawians as "children" for thirty years, Kamuzu shaped the way we see ourselves and our leaders. He trained us to see ourselves as helpless, and in turn to see our leaders as our saviors simply because they are powerful, rich, and older. Even the confusing relationship Kamuzu had with the West has left an indelible mark on how Malawians view westerners in general and white people in particular. On the one hand, Kamuzu had received his education in the west, and held it in such high esteem that when he resolved to build an elite secondary school to surpass all others in Malawi, he made it clear that his intent was to fashion it in the likeness of Eton College, the prestigious English school. In keeping with his vision, he ordered that only white people be allowed to teach at his school, where the brightest children were chosen from villages across the country to learn such subjects as Latin and Greek. To this day, Malawians hold a foreign education in higher esteem than a local one, even where the local one may be more relevant. Similarly, Kamuzu went everywhere dressed in a three-piece suit and an English hat, and refused to address crowds or make public speeches in Chichewa, the vernacular language of Malawi. And to this day, the more frequently and better a Malawian speaks English, the more they are pleasantly admired and bitterly envied. It is not uncommon to find Malawians who speak English as a second language preferring it over their mother tongue in conducting daily conversations, business, and meetings with fellow Malawians. It is also not uncommon for Malawians to envyingly refer to wealthy Malawians as living "Moyo Wachizungu", literally meaning "a white lifestyle". In contract, Kamuzu had also been imprisoned by the colonialists for his initial calls for a revolt against their rule. And in turn, he had famously referred to the federation under which he had found the British ruling Malawi as "a stupid federation". Yet at the same time, he was the only African leader to maintain full diplomatic relations with the racist apartheid government of South Africa. In so doing, Kamuzu was truly the first to embody the now-prevalent Malawian sentiment that white people are simultaneously worthy of being feared, hated, and suspected as oppressive, and worthy of being imitated, followed, and admired as superior.
Culturally, it is common knowledge that Kamuzu spoke disparagingly of people from the north of Malawi, even introducing several government policies designed to sideline them. The rest of the country's resulting antagonism both to northerners and to their strong sense of cultural identity is still an enduring reality to this day. Even the role to which Kamuzu allocated women in the public arena, that of singing and dancing around him in uniforms bearing his face, is one that does not look set to go away any time soon. In connection to this latter practice is the impact that I also suspect he had on the moral standards in the relationships between men and women. It is rumored that when he lived in England, Kamuzu got into trouble for his indiscretions with a married woman named Mrs. French. Whether true or not, what is beyond rumor is that for the thirty years in which he was president, Kamuzu never married. Instead, he lived in co-habitation with a mistress in a strange relationship that he never accounted for. I dread at the consideration of the impact that this mysterious relationship between Kamuzu and his mistress, or between Kamuzu and fatherhood, or between Kamuzu and marriage must have had on an entire generation's view of how a man should relate to women and of whether marriage is a worthy commitment for a man to make, but wives all across the country can testify to that impact on the men they married. Even the fact that the nature of his relationships with women and whether he had children were always shrouded in mystery and secrecy has since become something of a heritage for men across the country.
But perhaps I am being too harsh on the iconic demagogue. My purpose is not to put the blame on Kamuzu for Malawi's ills. I know that Kamuzu did not rule this country without the people's consent and I know that not everything he did was bad. In many ways, he was a leader with a vision beyond his time, and I think all the leaders we've ever had since Kamuzu have failed to escape his imposing shadow. So as much as we like to blame our present calamities on leaders who have gone before, the real blame belongs to ourselves as a people, for we are the ones who choose and tolerate bad leadership. Therefore, if we are serious about changing Malawi for the better, it will not be enough to blame all our country's woes on those who have led us before or lead us now. We must also blame ourselves and take responsibility for our proclivity to settle for self-aggrandizing leaders and to defend them when the law catches up with them. There are people in this country, many people in fact, who still defend Kamuzu Banda's authoritarianism, Bakili Muluzi's corruption, Bingu Wa Mutharika's arrogance, and Joyce Banda's appeasement as being more tactical than detrimental. That is the real tragedy, for the kind of leadership we choose, follow, tolerate, and defend are a photograph of the kind of country we want to live in and the kind of people we want to become.
Monday, May 14, 2012
IN JUSTICE: The Rise of Ralph
It's not yet been three weeks since Malawi's new president, Joyce Banda, put together her cabinet of government ministers. Since then she's received a mixture of reviews for the appointments she made. While some have praised her for unifying a polarized nation by forming a government akin to a coalition made up of leaders from different political parties, others have criticized her for weakening the balancing voice of opposition parties by bringing their brightest stars into the business of governing. While some have applauded her for purging cabinet of the lawless individuals who attempted to circumvent the constitution to block her from being sworn in as Head of State, others have expressed disappointment that the new cabinet still another consortium of individuals who are products of the same political establishment that Malawians have lost faith in. While some have marveled at her prudence in appointing to cabinet people who are also members of parliament, others have lamented the compromise this makes to the wisdom of separating the government's executive powers from the powers of the legislature.
Now to this last critique one cabinet appointment stands as an exception: Honorable Ralph Kasambara, the president's choice for the dual function of Attorney General and Minister of Justice. Kasambara is no stranger to public office, having already served as Malawi's Attorney General in the first administration of the late former President, Bingu Wa Mutharika, with whom Ralph eventually found himself at odds, accusing him of wanting to be a dictator and of committing such gross abuses of office as to warrant impeachment. Nor is Kasambara a stranger to public controversy, having taken on the challenge of being the legal representative for Joyce Banda at a time when, as Malawi's elected Vice-President, Banda had found herself estranged from and ostracized by a President determined to punish her for her opposition to his plans to sidestep democracy and anoint his own younger brother as his successor. And Kasambara is no stranger to political persecution either, his vocal attacks on President Bingu's presidency having finally earned him a Valentine's Day visit by police officers sent to arrest him on the trumped up charge of kidnapping a group of thugs whom he and his security guards had succeeded in subduing and preventing from destroying his office with petrol bombs on what are suspected to have been orders from the highest corridors of political power to silence him...for good. But Kasambara is now the only cabinet minister who is a stranger to parliament; the only one who cannot exercise both the powers of executive government and the powers of legislative government. And while this distance from the house of law-makers, plus the injustices he himself suffered at the hands of an abusive government should make him the ideal candidate for Attorney General and Minister of Justice, there is a looming conflict of interest that threatens Ralph Kasambara's effectiveness in that office.
Will he ruthlessly scrutinize how far-reaching into parliament the corruption of Bingu's government was, or will he turn a partial blind eye to it for fear that such a probe would implicate members of parliament who are now part of Joyce Banda's cabinet? Will he pursue justice to its end for Robert Chasowa, the young college student activist who was brutally murdered and whose murder was played down by police as a suicide, or will he dispatch another fruitless commission of enquiry for fear that a proper investigation may lead to the arrest of high ranking figures in the former ruling party, thus running the risk of making President Joyce Banda look like another collector of political prisoners? Will he make heads roll for the death of 20 protesters at the hands of armed police back in July, 2011, or should he give the guilty officers a pass for fear of squandering what little support President Joyce Banda may have in the ranks of a police force that answered to a master who was hostile to her for months? Will he insist that Cassim Chilumpha have his day in court to answer to charges of treason brought against him when he was the country's Vice-President, or will he play judge and jury and let it go because President Joyce Banda has just appointed Chilumpha to a cabinet post? Will he start ordering the arrest of those cabinet ministers, parliamentarians, and judges who conspired to take over government unconstitutionally after President Bingu's sudden death on April 5, or will he restrain his horses of justice out of concern that justice may mean taking down ministers who have since pledged their support and allegiance to President Joyce Banda and her party? Will he trace the source of the inexplicable wealth accumulated by the late former President and his officials, and will he hunt down those responsible for robbing the country blind and selling it's resources to the highest bidder in the shape of Mulli, or will he slow the wheels of justice for fear of digging up fraudulent transactions that may have been done way back when both he and Joyce Banda were still in the inner circles of Bingu's government?
It seems to me that for all the calls for justice that will require the summoning of the best parts of his character, credentials, and charisma, Ralph Kasambara's greatest challenge in bringing guilty people to justice is not the number or significance of the individuals who need to be brought to justice. His greatest hindrance is not even anything parliamentarians may offer him to compromise his pursuit for justice, for he has the benefit of being the only cabinet minister who is not a member of their club. His greatest hindrance in the pursuit of justice will probably be the woman she answers to, namely President Joyce Banda herself, for she has as many people to appease as she has to avenge, and she has the prerogative of calling on the young Minister of Justice to do both. This, combined with Ralph Kasambara's own need to appease a new president and urge to avenge for both his and her past political adversities, only exacerbates the conflict of interest. And if Ralph Kasambara turns out to be no more than an avenger or appeaser, then the nation will be left with a General who is no longer worthy of being an Attorney and a Minister who is no longer a dispenser of Justice. The only way for him to avoid such a tragedy is to take lightly the political scruples of the powerful woman we call President, and take seriously the deafening cries of the more powerful woman we call Malawi.
Friday, April 13, 2012
My New President's Dilemma
Two days after the sudden death of President Bingu, The Republic of Malawi swore in its Vice President Joyce Banda as the new and first female Head of State, an event whose place in world history as one of the greatest examples of upholding the constitution of a country has largely been understated. Even so, as with the arrival of all things new, there is an air of optimism around the country, a sense of hope that the new leader will turn out to be as much a catalyst for positive change as she claims to be.
Three years ago the first signs of her predecessor's autocratic leadership style and the self-enrichment of his coterie were a cause of suspicion among Malawians; then a streak of bad and Ill-advised decisions over the next few months turned that suspicion into anxiety; then the president's defiance of his critics turned that anxiety into levels of frustration that expressed themselves through protests across the country; then the authorities' violent crack down of the protests left twenty civilians dead, and suddenly the country's frustration turned into fear; and the severe degeneration of the economy that followed turned that fear into despair, the kind of despair that was making people lose hope that things will ever get better again. So whether or not Joyce Banda is fit for the job she has inherited, the relief that her providential ascendance to such a high office has injected into the hearts of all Malawians is a much welcome element, for this optimism is going to be key in restoring the people's confidence to participate and have a say in how they are governed.
But herein lies her dilemma, if not the danger. Joyce Banda is not just receiving promises of support from those citizens who joined her in her critique of the late president's mismanagement of the country; she is not just receiving pledges of allegiance from those who helped her survive the political wilderness and persecution to which she was relegated for over a year by her late boss and his circle of party and cabinet officials; she is not just getting calls of congratulation from the international community that had cut budgetary aid to Malawi to protest against the poor governance and disregard for human rights rampant under the late president's leadership. Joyce Banda's dilemma is that she has also received assurances of support from members of the same political parties that once vilified and demonized her in public, from members of the late president's cabinet of ministers who secretly plotted and publicly announced their intention to block her from taking the oath of office, from people and entities that have built, been a part of, and benefited from the broken and corrupt political establishment of Malawi for twenty years with no visible benefit to Malawi's poor masses, from members of the media who ran a profitable campaign of slander and defamation against her, and from entrepreneurs and businesses with whom her predecessor is suspected to have done numerous back door deals at the expense of Malawi's economic recovery. So Joyce Banda cannot ride this current wave of euphoric optimism forever. Mobs are too fickle to sustain a single unified mood for a long period of time, not to mention that the memory of the collective is often shorter than that of the individual. Soon the euphoria will give way to high and conflicting expectations that the country will demand to be met by the presidential novice, and where expectations are great and conflicting there is also the prospect of great disappointments. And this is where Her Excellency's leadership will face its greatest dilemma and test, a test of whom she will choose to disappoint.
The country is in a mess, its furniture in disarray. It needs an extreme make-over, a woman's touch if you will. But some of the people promising to help Joyce Banda govern are the very ones she needs to purge from the corridors of power, and some of the systemic infrastructures she needs to deconstruct are the very ones which enable those people to stay in power by hopping into one party while still serving a term of office under the banner of another party without needing to resign from office in order to protect its integrity from their conflict of interests. So these people won't go out without a fight. They have great power, numbers, and money, all of which will be wielded against her and all of which she will have to sacrifice in order to get the job done and quickly, for two years is not a long time in government.
So if Joyce Banda is to succeed at cleaning up the government, she is going to have to act quickly after the days of national mourning for President Bingu have come and gone. She is going to have to act more like a doctor conducting emergency surgery than one prescribing a long-term dose of medication. But if she takes the tough measures this country needs to recover, the political establishment will resist it, and the country will not be able to stomach the ensuing political war for long, for the electorate has a weak stomach. Then she will be accused of having the same autocratic leadership style as her predecessor, and the accusation will be partly true. This is her first choice. The alternative will be to make the enemies of Malawi's progress her political friends, which won't secure the full measure of freedom, justice and prosperity that Malawi is capable of, but will secure her political longevity. In the end, her dilemma may be a simple choice between cleaning up the country at the cost of the next election on the one hand, and securing the next election at the cost of truly cleaning up the country on the other. But just because the choice is simple, does not mean it will be easy.
Three years ago the first signs of her predecessor's autocratic leadership style and the self-enrichment of his coterie were a cause of suspicion among Malawians; then a streak of bad and Ill-advised decisions over the next few months turned that suspicion into anxiety; then the president's defiance of his critics turned that anxiety into levels of frustration that expressed themselves through protests across the country; then the authorities' violent crack down of the protests left twenty civilians dead, and suddenly the country's frustration turned into fear; and the severe degeneration of the economy that followed turned that fear into despair, the kind of despair that was making people lose hope that things will ever get better again. So whether or not Joyce Banda is fit for the job she has inherited, the relief that her providential ascendance to such a high office has injected into the hearts of all Malawians is a much welcome element, for this optimism is going to be key in restoring the people's confidence to participate and have a say in how they are governed.
But herein lies her dilemma, if not the danger. Joyce Banda is not just receiving promises of support from those citizens who joined her in her critique of the late president's mismanagement of the country; she is not just receiving pledges of allegiance from those who helped her survive the political wilderness and persecution to which she was relegated for over a year by her late boss and his circle of party and cabinet officials; she is not just getting calls of congratulation from the international community that had cut budgetary aid to Malawi to protest against the poor governance and disregard for human rights rampant under the late president's leadership. Joyce Banda's dilemma is that she has also received assurances of support from members of the same political parties that once vilified and demonized her in public, from members of the late president's cabinet of ministers who secretly plotted and publicly announced their intention to block her from taking the oath of office, from people and entities that have built, been a part of, and benefited from the broken and corrupt political establishment of Malawi for twenty years with no visible benefit to Malawi's poor masses, from members of the media who ran a profitable campaign of slander and defamation against her, and from entrepreneurs and businesses with whom her predecessor is suspected to have done numerous back door deals at the expense of Malawi's economic recovery. So Joyce Banda cannot ride this current wave of euphoric optimism forever. Mobs are too fickle to sustain a single unified mood for a long period of time, not to mention that the memory of the collective is often shorter than that of the individual. Soon the euphoria will give way to high and conflicting expectations that the country will demand to be met by the presidential novice, and where expectations are great and conflicting there is also the prospect of great disappointments. And this is where Her Excellency's leadership will face its greatest dilemma and test, a test of whom she will choose to disappoint.
The country is in a mess, its furniture in disarray. It needs an extreme make-over, a woman's touch if you will. But some of the people promising to help Joyce Banda govern are the very ones she needs to purge from the corridors of power, and some of the systemic infrastructures she needs to deconstruct are the very ones which enable those people to stay in power by hopping into one party while still serving a term of office under the banner of another party without needing to resign from office in order to protect its integrity from their conflict of interests. So these people won't go out without a fight. They have great power, numbers, and money, all of which will be wielded against her and all of which she will have to sacrifice in order to get the job done and quickly, for two years is not a long time in government.
So if Joyce Banda is to succeed at cleaning up the government, she is going to have to act quickly after the days of national mourning for President Bingu have come and gone. She is going to have to act more like a doctor conducting emergency surgery than one prescribing a long-term dose of medication. But if she takes the tough measures this country needs to recover, the political establishment will resist it, and the country will not be able to stomach the ensuing political war for long, for the electorate has a weak stomach. Then she will be accused of having the same autocratic leadership style as her predecessor, and the accusation will be partly true. This is her first choice. The alternative will be to make the enemies of Malawi's progress her political friends, which won't secure the full measure of freedom, justice and prosperity that Malawi is capable of, but will secure her political longevity. In the end, her dilemma may be a simple choice between cleaning up the country at the cost of the next election on the one hand, and securing the next election at the cost of truly cleaning up the country on the other. But just because the choice is simple, does not mean it will be easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)