2014 has come to start on a
low note for Malawi’s President Joyce Banda; her life is
under threat. Realistically, it is common to learn of a president’s life being
in danger. What is uncommon though is to hear a president telling the nation of
this danger.
Many a time the citizens of
cantankerous United States of America have learnt of the death threats their
president—Barack Obama—faces, not just occasionally, but daily. And yet there
have been no recordable instances that Obama rose to the occasion simply to
announce to the American nation that his life is in danger.
It is true that Malawi might
be immature democracywise, but, like seriously, not this immature as to hear
the president announcing death threat aiming at her life to the public. The
populace’s logical reaction to such an announcement would be almost choral: if
the president’s life—with all the state of the art security apparatus, all the
security personnel, and all the intelligence at her disposal—is in danger, how
safe can the local man and woman be?
Interestingly, the president
has beefed up her security team in an attempt to foil this threat. And one wonders
if she has also beefed the security of the populace. The president has been
widely condemned by analysts and academicians alike that death-threats public
pronouncements will not only cause security discomforts among the citizens but
will also induce a general state of uneasiness in the population.
Let’s assume, and this is
simply an assumption, that the president made the public statement about the
threats to her dear life with full knowledge of the resultant insecurity
concerns from the citizens, then people would be required to find the real
motive. To this end, one quick answer would be exactly what Rafik Hajat of the
Institute for Policy Interaction said the other day; that President Joyce Banda
is seeking sympathy vote.
Will she get that sympathy
vote? Yes. “How so?”, you might be asking. She will certainly get the sympathy
vote because most people, if not all at all, who realize that the president’s
my-life-is-in-danger political gimmick is an calculated attempt to seek a
sympathy vote rarely brace the tiredness that goes with queuing for voting.
Additionally, there are very
great chances that very few Malawians read the newspapers either to failure to
afford the paper or due to the fact that Malawians are strange bedfellows with
reading.
Even if there is high
likelihood that the president may succeed in getting the sympathy vote, still,
the damage will have been done already. Yes, Malawians will have known that,
for the past two years, they have been ruled by a president who runs scared by
simply hearing of a rumor or two of some lunatic planning to steal her life. If
head of households run around announcing rumors of this or that thief
strategizing to rob their households this or that day, what would be of
communities. Imagine the restlessness of kids in the households, and the
general uneasiness in the community. What chaos and uncertainty there will be!
Whilst the attempts to off
the president might be real, there is no need for her to make a public
announcement of the same. Under the circumstances, the president would have
just upped her security details silently and carry on leading the nation as
though there is nothing brewing up in her. Isn’t this why she has bodyguards
all around her 24/7?
Now think about the reaction
of a common man in the village hearing this news. Will such a villager ever
trust the security apparatus in his community, or more generally, in the
country?
Perhaps Malawians
misunderstood the president. Or maybe she had a point. But could it be that the
whole nation missed the point she was advancing in making such threats known to
the public? Maybe yes, but most certainly no. The president is rightly being
corrected on this one; her comments simply scare the nation.
The truth from all this is
that Malawi is off-centre. Or put it more clearly, the Malawi nation has had
its president is state of perpetual fear and cannot, consequently, discharge
her duties as meticulously as you would expect someone in a state of freeness.
Ultimately, the president has run for cover, and so should the citizens.
1 comment:
Good, a simple and logical analysis that's spot on.
Post a Comment