MULTIPARTY democracy is undeniably a
necessary ingredient in the full functioning of a modern day government. This
is the case because multipartyism provides the window through which almost all
quarters of the citizenry; the voiceless, the vocal, the poor, and the rich
voice out their individual or popular fears, concerns, and aspirations.
It would help to note that the
concept of multiparty democracy has been generally adopted and widely practised
by governments around the world. Despite
its general acceptance and wide application, the concept remains a living
mockery to humanity’s failure to clearly define its most cherished, oftentimes
weird, concepts for the betterment of human existence.
Perhaps you would quickly agree that
most developed countries practise multiparty democracy in such ways that it
positively responds to the development agendas of their countries by paying
special attention to the key issue of numbers. Laughably, here in Malawi,
multiparty democracy is practised not in such ways that it fosters political
prudence and socio-economic wellbeing but in such ways that it exhibits these
and fosters individual interests, perpetuates eco-political uncertainty, and
kills nationalism.
In as much as multiparty democracy,
elusive and illusive as it is, is this politically all-inclusive, it sounds
reasonable to question its applicability to Malawi development agenda, especially
in the loose sense it is practised.
Cut loose, Malawi’s thirty-plus
political parties, born in the name of multiparty democracy, are not health for
Malawi’s development agenda.
The presence of the many political
parties also means presence of many, always diametrically opposite, ideologies,
interests, and views which results in the production of passionate, mostly
meaninglessly paraphrased, outbursts that offer no tangible alternative to the
concerns of the citizens; but only either adding voice for addition’s sake or
simply announcing that them and their briefcase parties are both alive and
kicking.
In all fairness, one would proudly
claim that Malawi should pat itself on the back for having produced the finest
souls keenly serving its political life since the introduction of multiparty
dispensation. The people leading the various political parties in Malawi,
despite evidently having no clear agenda, have the passion, the will, and the
political stamina to offer the toolbox containing the right tools necessary for
the unlocking of Malawi’s real development potential.
It would be naive to think that these
political parties do not know that they hold the keys to Malawi’s
much-dreamt-about social, economic, and political independence.
But the problem with these political
party leaders is that they are all too obsessed with possession—the ‘my thing’
mentality—to the extent that offering someone beneficial advice from the
backbenches becomes morally suicidal and politically disastrous.
Quite frankly, were the resources,
mental or otherwise, used by these political parties pooled together to few
political parties, there would have been order in Malawi, both in terms of
governance and development.
Assume that, as the article proposes,
there were only three political parties in Malawi. Assume further that the
finest minds from the disbanded (or deregistered?) parties joined at least one
of the three parties. Theoretically, 11 presidents of different political
parties would form an executive of a single political party if the information
that Malawi has 33-plus registered parties is anything to go by. This exercise would
mean that three political parties contain the pool of knowledge and experience
needed to guide the direction of positive development.
Furthermore, this would also mean
creating a conducive environment for informed and well-articulated criticism
which would be a big plus in as far as ensuring checks and balances is
concerned. Also, it would mean giving government the time and the resources for
consultations since three political parties would not be as resource-demanding
and time-consuming as is currently the case.
Additionally, reduction of political
parties to countable three would go a long way towards amalgamation of the
merged parties’ ideologies to realistic and feasible concepts. Here, the
ideologies would be given meaning and direction, and would be the rallying and
negotiating tool when it comes to political decisions and action.
However, it would be nationally
unthinkable to reduce the political parties to two because such a number of
parties would be susceptible to bribery, to silencing, and most sadly, to
baying for government blood to further their vested interests. With this in
mind, it is therefore not only democratically positivistic but also developmentally
suitable to propose a three-party multiparty democracy because such a third
would be a tie-breaker.
To this end, it is tempting to warn
that unless Malawi trims its political parties to three, and unless the
multiparty democracy is practiced in such a way that it responds positively to
its development agenda, Malawi would be a Peter Pan of the development world.
But the post-Bingu era offers Malawi
an opportunity for a fresh political start with promises of a better tomorrow
should the opposition political parties consider themselves partners in
development with her government.
