Minus his education and international networks, Peter Mutharika is politically nothing

It is tempting to generalize that all known politicians in Malawi, by which it is meant “…those that have served in at least a government or have ever been a Member of Parliament”, have literally nothing new to offer to the Malawi nation.

That being true, as it most likely is, political party torchbearers for the 2014 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections (PPE) are best assessed through a studied analysis of their contribution either as MPs, cabinet ministers, or both. Expectedly therefore, it is only politically fair and traditionally proper that Peter Mutharika be assessed in light of his contribution in the previous government.

Peter Mutharika, unlike Joyce Banda and Atupele Muluzi, had all he needed to show his leadership and management acumen as well as his negotiation skills in the late Bingu wa Mutharika government. His elder brother was president and him had the president-like influence in the cabinet and public institutions. 

Interestingly, his appointment to the Ministry of Justice and Constitution Affairs had Malawians clapping hands for the late Mutharika. The hand-clapping was to be expected because there was no doubting of his abilities and competences given his wide academic credentials and vast experience in the law field.

But hey, his appointment was to be regretted later. Perhaps informed by his overseas experience and its rich liberal ideologies, Peter Mutharika started assenting to unpopular laws, and soon the ministry became a total mess. Realizing the mess as would be learnt from the numerous public popular outcries, the late Mutharika excused the younger Mutharika from executing any duties as a minister.

It is the young Mutharika’s firing in the ministry under question that is of interest to this author. If Peter Mutharika had any better contribution, one would not have expected him to face the chop from the ministry. If indeed he were a politician worth the name, he would make more positive developmentally-friendly incentives if not to serve the nation, at least to serve his brother. But he never did. It was mess after mess for him in the ministry. And got what he rightly deserved—the chop.

Blood should indeed be thicker than water. His late brother was again to entrust him with another position, this time in a different ministry. Within ignorable time, the young Mutharika was tasked with running the Ministry of Education. As fate would have it, there he again did not have a smooth ride.

It never rained but poured for Peter Mutharika in his ministerial positions.  Just after some time there emerged the so-called Academic Freedom saga in the education ministry. The saga has it, and it indeed is, that Inspector General (IG) of Police, Peter Mukhito, questioned the youthful Chancellor College’s Political and Administrative Studies (PAS) lecturer, Blessings Chinsinga. The then CASSU president Jessie Kabwila demanded a written apology from the IG and the late president defended him. And that was all what was needed to keep The Polytechnic and Chancellor College closed indefinitely for eight months for the latter and fewer for the former.

The young Mutharika was the minister then. It is elsewhere believed among seasoned political commentators, investigative journalists, and the then high-ranking individuals that literally did nothing to arrest the academic freedom saga.

Of course some defended him arguing that he was geared towards ending the saga but his late brother was a hindrance citing Peter Mutharika’s unannounced trips abroad as concrete evidence for his disagreement with the brother on the saga. This alibi is hardly compelling let alone convincing.

When all is said, there are two things though to celebrate for Peter Mutharika—his education and overseas links.  The young Mutharika has the wide education and extensive overseas relationships worth writing home about. It is these two that give him the strength that sees the Orange and Yellow camps talking and plotting. 

If really Malawians need an educated president with all the international accolades and links, then he is the man. However, it is highly unlikely that such is all what Malawians want in a president. His education credentials and links nonetheless make him still a darling among some Malawians. Sadly, these two reasons do not represent a potent force in the largely uneducated Malawi population, politically speaking.

It is upon considering the foregoing that one concludes, as does this author, that Peter Mutharika does not cause deadly political heartaches in the political circles if his wide education in the law field and international networks are disregarded.

Malawi: Nearly 50 But Still a Mummy’s Boy

The rule of thumb about parenting spells, though not clearly, that a person has got to grow and man up to responsibilities. Arbitrary as the age is, the severing of emotional attachment with one’s guardians is an important step in the road to maturity.  If one reaches this arbitrary age but does not detach oneself from motherly warmth, such one is said to be a mother’s boy, mama’s boy, or mummy’s boy. 

Analogously, the mummy’s boy scenario happens to Malawi, especially when her independence is considered. As a matter of clarification, Nyasaland declared independence as Malawi on 6^th July, 1964 effectively making this day a national holiday. 

The yearly national celebrations made on this important day are nothing but merely a symbolic remembrance of the events of that defining moment. Suffice it to say that it is the usual—president attending and giving a speech, Malawians on holiday, and blah blah blah. However, there seems to be very little, if any at all, to show for nearly 50 years down the line. Malawi, with almost 50 years of self-rule, has developed no means of self-survival and depends on begging its colonial masters and imperial mothers. In short, Malawi is a mummy’s boy at 50. 

Wikipedia states that one can be a mummy’s boy may be so due to problems to do with their personality. And one wonders; does Malawi have personality disorder preventing it from economic independence? Painful as it may be to admit it, the wiser readership, as does this author, would answer the question in affirmative. 

It is interesting to comment that Malawi’s history has been one of constant poverty amidst peace and rich resources. But yet every opportunity to turnaround our poverty situation that ever existed has only succeeded in making Malawians ever poorer than before. If we cannot accept the creation of problems at times of promises to be a hallmark of personality disorder, how else would one explain it? Or should we blame fate? Or, still, should we blame our an inexcusable poverty situation simply jinxes of some unknown degree or order?

It is nauseating, at least to this author, to note that every year the celebrations in remembrance of this day are done with seemingly no policy options on the table. The arrival of this day should mark the need to revisit policies, reread development agenda, and discuss, as far inclusively as possible, on fundamental issues in the spirit of nationalism. It would be appreciated if it dawned upon our leaders that the light moments marking the day—reading speeches, dancing, enjoying the day home as a holiday—should be punctuated more important activities like policy discussions and mentoring programmes to rebuild the Malawi nation. 

For how long will Malawi be a mummy’s boy? For how long will she stomach the West’s aid-whip? How many more days are left for Malawi citizenry to realize that development is not about money, it is about mind; it is about using the mind to make the money, and not the other way round. That Malawi is rich in resources—human and natural—is well documented. Therefore, what Malawi needs now is a re-awakening of the mind knowing very well that we are as equally capable of capturing the wind to generate electricity, modernizing the dead land to yield bumper harvests, and taming the resources to create new wealth and technology.

It is about the Malawi leaders stopped thinking like we are still in the dark ages. Better the leaders, at least in this year’s independence celebrations, be proactive enough and redefine the way independence should be celebrated. Otherwise, the way celebrations are organized leave a lot to be desired in the quest for a meaningful socio-economic and politico-cultural independence.

Economic independence has been seen to come more easily to those who repel free lunch and less to those accept it and sit back waiting for another the following mealtime. Many countries have walked this very same muddy road and they have managed to go past the humps to the tarmac. Unless we establish entrepreneurship, reward performance, forge new thinking, and develop adventure for innovation, Malawi will be 50 and aging and still be a mummy’s boy.

Malawi, Look East

Undeniably, China’s unprecedented socio-economic and political growth has had an historic impact on diplomacy and development discourse. China, in just within a short space, has successfully redefined innovation in science, given new meaning to economic progress, reinforced political power, forged mutually-beneficial alliances with Africa, and has systematized military might—thanks to its scientific adventurism and leadership progressivism. 

Consequently, China has deservedly seen a boom in handshakes from the jealousy Western world to the begging African continent—all hoping to be friends with the fast-emerging world economic and political power house.

Malawi, as such one begging African country, did not let the “befriend China” mantra go unnoticed; it captured available opportunity though not as deeply as the opportunities allowed. It is exactly Malawi’s reluctance as induced by its overbearing and gold-digging Western allies that has seen her lose the best of opportunities from China in investments, trade, and aid.

For a very long time Malawi has been a trusted friend of the Western world. In fact, the West has mentored and times dictated the kind of development path the peaceful impoverished African state takes. Investment in Malawi has all been talk talk talk. This is the case because the West-decreed theory of investments has always been a rigid edict founded on West’s “safeguard our best interest” philosophy. To this end therefore, investors rarely show interest in Malawi as the business environment models itself after the West—if not in practice surely in principle. 

Trade has also been a tool for the West for parading its economic and political might. As hard as it is to accept, there is no way Malawi can trade with West without West relaxing its trade laws and regulations. Sadly, West finds it hard to develop trade laws that favor small countries like Malawi, and where that is the case the rules have not been clearly defined, nor have they been consistently applied. Most importantly, such relaxed trade laws have tended to favor as such big capital requiring borrowing to raise it.

Still ill-intentioned has been West’s aid. To this day, economists and those in the know are welcome here, no country in the vast of the universe has ever developed from West’s aid. This is partly because African governments have propensity for negligent use of resources and partly because the West has a bad name for overconditioning its aid leaving reasonable voices to speculate that such aid conditions perpetuates modern-day slavery and imperialism. 

The big untruth about leaning toward the West is that the West’s rich business environment and highly developed labor is hardly similar to that of Malawi thus favoring an investment, trade, and aid ideologies that are less conditional, more flexible, and largely indigenously Malawian. China seems to, and of course does, offer that progress-friendly environment hence the need to look east more, and west less.

The West now very well knows that its ideas about democracy and innovation are fast becoming outdated and hence irrelevant. More so, the West now pretty well knows that it is fast been replaced by China on the development front. Scholars, politicians, and investors in the West and Europe recognize of the peaceful nature of China’s socio-economic development and how West’s development-prescriptions have suffered a massive blow by it.

Leaders, policy-makers, and economists from around the world and the African continent are increasingly looking towards China. It is generally accepted by these individuals that the “China way” offers a meaningful re-definition of human civilization and a refined movement towards condition-free, value-added investment, trade, and aid.

African governments are making inroads in the “China way” development road. There recently has been an avalanche of greater efforts made and bigger futures sought by these governments as they understand a great life awaits those that dine with China. Malawi, as resource-poor as she is, has got to join the bandwagon and forge even stronger state-interest ties with China by not only dining with it but also breakfasting and lunching with it.

Zimbabwe has looked east in trade and politics, South Africa has looked east in business, Namibia has done the same as is a host of many other African countries. Granted, China has tales of resource cannibalism. However, China’s depressing side far outweighs its good side hence worthwhile looking east. It will thus be sad for Malawi to sit back and watch; it’s about time it seized the opportunities and that, she too, could, at least for a day or two, sing a song of economic progress.

Late Bingu’s MK61 Billion Assets: When all is said and done, more is said than done

Predictability fashions vulnerability. Vulnerability is the powerhouse of despotism and corruption. Clarified, it is only when an individual gains insights about the thinking mode and activities of another will that individual have most advantage over the other. And because is certain of the vulnerability of the other will that individual have the potent arsenal over the other, and will thus do as they please. 

The above becomes readily understandable when applied to politics—the game of deception, derailment, and death. And it is exactly to politics that this phenomenon seems to make the most sense. Politics happens to be an area of life where a person’s values can best be tested and judged. Surprisingly, the changes in values here have almost always been from good to bad and rarely the other way round.  No wonder then that heroes in society become villains in politics.

You might ask: why do heroes become villains when they join politics? The answer is predictability, simple huh!! That is true in the Western world as it is true in Malawi. In Malawi, for example, the good late Ngwazi Hastings Kamuzu Banda “talked with bows” against the “stupid federation” but later became the epitome of totalitarianism.

Ex-president Bakili Muluzi brought multiparty democracy but ruined the economy through get-but-if-caught-don’t-fingurepoint policies and politics of hand-outs. And then came the late Bingu wa Mutharika, the then modern-day Messiah, who came as a saint but later lost direction. The same trend can be seen in President Joyce Banda. So, it is not about the leaders but the predictability of the led.

Let’s accept it, Malawians are predictable when it comes to voicing out our concerns. What we know as a nation is simply bleat about few squeaks of anger and everything is back to normal.

That’s why the hype about late Bingu’s assets is a self-diffusing bomb; set and never to explode, and only losing potency for explosion with time. If one is in doubt about this, then time is the best doubt-killer; watch and observe. 

Self-acclaimed social and political activists have voiced their disenchantment with the revelations about late Bingu’s assets. Empowered by the momentum of the recency of the revelation, opposition political party leaders, civil society organization leaders, the faith community, and every Fatima and Farook spoke their mind. The talk has largely centered on the time-discrepancy as it is reported that late Bingu wa Mutharika had MK150 million in 2004 and his assets are presently valued at MK61 billion.

However, one wonders the centrality of the time-discrepancy in the trending   MK61 issue.  To this author, and perhaps to many like-minded Malawians, the issue here should less about the time but about the system.

Given the fact that we Malawians are predictable as we are better at talking than taking action and thus vulnerable to elements of corruption, the dominant thinking should be what it is that has to be done to control leaders from corrupt practices. Indeed there have to be internal mechanisms to do that. One of such is the constitution. The constitution, however, is well known for its loopholes, and it will thus be helpful if our patriot Malawians in the legal fraternity assisted in the tightening of these loopholes. 

The other alternative could be taking the issue with the courts to provide the necessary case law needed for future legal decision. And as predictably silent as we are, it is doubtful that there can emerge a personal, singly moved by national other than political interests, to take up the MK61 billion late wa Mutharika estate to courts.

Otherwise, as things are, it only takes leaders’ moral purity not to indulge in corrupt practices—something highly precarious. To this effect, we would not expect leaders to raise the moral campus and refrain from stealing from government coffers, but leaders would not do that knowing very well that the laws of the land will hunt them down. We will not expect president to call for people to probe their assets, as has done President Joyce Banda, but will do the probing themselves knowing pretty well that’s what the laws requires.

Sadly, as things are now and as are the discussions in the papers and the social sites about late Bingu wa Mutharika’s MK61 billion, nothing is set to be done on the ground. Thus, when all is said and done, there clearly will be more things said than done.