In this era of freedom,
even the seemingly free individual is unfree; the general outlook being that of
a liberated man but inside he’s all chained to the infallibility of self: such is
a person who thinks the only truth there is out there is what he says it is—and
urges that everyone wholly buys it.
We have unfree individuals
all around us—the self-styled critic who argues that Malawi has a post turtle
for a president is such one; and there’s me who here argues that Malawi does
not have a post turtle for a president. I’m no better than this critic for we
both are unfree: we both hold that what we say is true and is the only truth
there is out there.
Here we go;
First, the critic
argues that some people made Peter Mutharika president. It is true and this is
no secret that “Peter Mutharika did not get where he is by himself.” We all
know that no man can run a one man’s show by himself in politics. You surely
need a crony there for an advisor, a friend there for a campaign director,
someone here for a political strategist, and someone up there for a
propagandist. Such is politics the world over. Or is it the case that Malawi is
different? I wonder.
Am yet to be convinced
if getting somewhere by the help of others makes anyone deserve to be called a
post turtle for anything, say, a post turtle for a CEO. Hahaha that sounds
wonderful! You can try it in the offices. Isn’t it said that we climb on the
shoulders of others to make meaningful achievements in life. Ahaaa! I also
remember, it is said that no man is an island. All this, the way I see it (but
I may be wrong), means that man does not progress all by himself, that he needs
the help of others to reach somewhere.
 |
| Allan Ntata: Peter Mutharika is a post turtle for a president |
Second, the critic
asserts that Peter Mutharika is “absolutely” clueless as to governance.
Accepted, it is true that Peter Mutharika, once in a while, shows tendencies
that one tends to wonder if the president has a clue as to governance. That be
true as it may, it smacks of ill-intentions to argue that “Mutharika has
absolutely no clue as to what to do while perking there….” Like really? Peter Mutharika has “absolutely”
no clue? Oohh well, you readers are a better judge here. But, speaking for
myself, absolutely is too strong a word.
Maybe, and this is
just maybe, Peter Mutharika’s replacement of Ben with “farty” Goe as assistant,
his positioning of “…his fellow geriatric, Dr. George Chaponda” for president,
and the sidelining of vice president Dr. Saulos Chilima as potential successor
are enough reasons to warrant arguing that Mutharika has “absolutely” no clue
as to leadership. For the record, it is untrue that Peter Mutharika has never
ever gotten one thing right ever since he ascended to the Malawi presidency. I
have in mind the lean 20-person cabinet as one example where Peter Mutharika
got it right.
Third, my good critic
says, so I read, that we, the people, are “wondering” as to “what got into the
heads”, ooohh no, “tummies” of the “Malawi Electoral Commission to put him
there in the first place.” I suspect that the learned critic is putting things
in the peoples’ mouth. He could be right that us, the people, are wondering
about the way Peter Mutharika came to end up at Sanjika Palace given the
do-or-die elections debacle.
However, I need a
little convincing that the people think that it is the Malawi Electoral
Commission which put Peter Mutharika “there”. Really? I take it that it is
elementary knowledge (of course am speaking this from the little knowledge I
have about elections) that we, the people, are the ones who put who we think is
good on the government driving seat. Frankly speaking, I do not and will never understand
that it is Malawi Electoral Commission which made Mutharika president.
Should he have blamed
our courts? Maybe. All I know is that it is the courts which held that the
Malawi Electoral Commission cannot extend the 8-day requirement for announcing
election results. But can the courts be a proper entity of this blame? I don’t
think so. The courts were simply doing their job in so holding.
Fourth, the colorful
critic observes that Peter Mutharika has made a grave mistake in replacing Ben
with Geo. I know very little about Ben to make a safe judgment that the
under-the-radar man can be equated to a frying pan. Related to this, I don’t
think the information I have about Dr. George Chaponda or his initiation of the
anti-farting law makes him that bad as to be equated to “fire”. For these
reasons, I modestly hesitate to respond to the assertion that Peter Mutharika
has, in allegedly replacing Ben with “farty” Geo as his assistant, somersaulted
“from the frying pan into the fire.”
Having read the
critic’s criticism with an open mind, I have come to the conclusion that the
good critic is wrong—the logic is wobbly, the instances hazy, and the flow
gauche. In fact, he makes assertions and not reasoned arguments to say the
least. It is here that I came to differ with this critic and thus argued that Malawi
does not have a post turtle for a president.
 |
| Henry Chizimba: Peter Mutharika is not a post turtle for a president |
The critic believes that
the only truth there is out there is that Malawi has a post turtle for a
president and he wants us, the people, to buy it. Here he’s free and unfree.
And there’s me who believes that the only truth there is out there is that
Malawi does not have a post turtle for a president and I want you, the people,
to buy it. I’m too here free and unfree. But such is life.
But hey! I could be
wrong and the critic right. But you readers are a better judge here, and I give
you the chance to make the judgment here.
