An eye for an eye: a case for death penalty for albino-killers

GRANTED, the 21^st century world is essentially an era of the triumph of human rights. Ostensibly dancing to the tune of this era, there have been calls for the abolishment of death penalty. Proponents of death penalty have always argued that killing a human being as punishment is primitive, barbaric, and costly.

 

Without doubt, the calls for the abolishment of death penalty are and continue to be persuasive. And, true to that, a good number of people have been persuaded to this fold. However, the recent spate of albino-butchering has changed the penal terrain and has weakened the anti-death penalty calls. It is for this reason that calls for the death penalty on albino-killers are justifiable. And here is why.

Killing albino-killers clears society of albino-killers

Elsewhere people have justified death penalty on the basis of deterrence. However, research has shown that death penalty does not sufficiently deter people from committing the offence. Whether death penalty sufficiently deters offenders or not is a problem for another day, the simple truth remains that when you kill the killers the society becomes clear of killers. 

It is an elementary fact of the social contract that people come together and form a society to run away from the brutal, cruel, and barbaric natural state of life. Society loses its meaning if people can experience the same brutality, cruelty, and barbarism life as happened in the state of nature. What will remain of a society if, after sacrificing some of their individual rights in exchange for security, all the people get is insecurity?

Again, it is a measure of a civilized nation that its citizens are accorded the fullest security. A nation is backward if its citizens live in perpetual insecurity. And the best guarantee of security is the meting out of punishment in full force to offenders. And this means, in case of the killing of albinos, giving death penalty.

Killing albino-killers avenges victims’ death

Call it backward or what have you, it does make sense that the gap created by losing a family member in the calculated circumstances characteristic of the albino-killings will, to a certain satisfactory level, be filled by killing the killer. 

The justification here being that the loss of a relative in such barbaric circumstances causes too much grief and resentment and the same can be suppressed if the perpetrator gets the death penalty. It should be emphasized here that punishment loses its touch if the offender of such grievous offences as slicing a fellow human being goes to prison and comes to see the light of day.

Killing albino-killers shrinks peoples’ eagerness for mob justice

Call ourselves lucky to this moment that we have not heard of a mob justice on albino-killers. This is the case perhaps because no one has been caught in the act of killing an albino. Such mob justice will not be surprising given the fact that people are more than willing to kill suspected thieves.

Furthermore, people are not currently taking the law into their hands probably because they are pursuing the let’s-wait-and-see attitude—that is, waiting to see the government’s response. They may decide to act in the way they know best if they will not like the action taken by government. And it can only be speculated here that the people would not administer mob justice if they see government mete out death penalty to albino-killers. 

This therefore means that the passing of death penalty to albino-killers will be in line with the human rights dispensation. This will be the case because, unlike mob justice, the suspected albino-killers will be allowed to exercise their right to legal representation and all the legal safeguards accorded to an accused person.

Killing albino-killers lifts the moral torture of feeding killers

Imagine. That albino family member of yours was killed, say, last month. You have grieved enough and things are seemingly returning to normal. And now you are buying your usuals—sugar, soap, matches, lotion, salt etc.—and tax is deducted. That tax forms the subvention to prisons which is used to buy food for prisoners including that prisoner who murdered your family member. Now imagine the psychological and moral torture you have to endure upon that realization!

Honestly, you do not have to suffer that way and endure all that. That psychological and moral torture gets lifted the moment the death penalty is pronounced. It can thus be seen here that death penalty has the added advantage of lifting the moral burden of feeding killers.

Albino-killers have no rights because they are not human beings

It is common knowledge in the human rights world that human rights are entitlements for human beings only. Accepted, a human being in an imperfect being; he can steal, stab, mob, or even kill. However, in doing all these bad things, a human being is guided by some residual sense of humanness. A human being who maims a fellow human being loses his sense of humanness and automatically seizes to be human. Albino-killers maim albinos and are thus not human beings.

Albinos: hunted for their body parts

Albino-killers chop the bodies of albinos into parts. In all conscience, such people cannot claim to have rights. Defending such people is not only preposterous, it is also outright wicked. 

The foregoing may be outlandish. It may also be unthinkable or backward. That’s your take and this is a free world. But for some of us, the above case is progressive. For many of us are tired with the prevailing mentality on albino killing which, in all fairness, appears to take the side of the offender rather than that of the victim. So, next time you argue that albino-killers have a right to life, think about the victims whose lives they needlessly and mercilessly take away.

Malawi has not abolished the death penalty; it is there in our laws. So do the needful courts, implement it. When you think about exodus 21:24 and look at punishments our good courts mete out to albino-killers you cannot help but ask: “Are our courts really serious?” Judge Madise’s recent life imprisonment judgment starts the journey; let’s hope the entire justice machinery will join. But hey, no offence intended our courts, this is only a case for death penalty for albino-killers!

Does Malawi have a post turtle for a president? I beg to differ

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.

Vladimir Putin’s 70th UNGA Speech: For Malawi, Africa to Learn and the West to Heed

       Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster.—Vladimir Putin

OBSERVABLY fed up with the West’s holier-than-thou attitude, Russian President Vladimir Putin told it as it is in the 70^th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that the West’s “aggressive foreign interference” is to blame for the problems experienced in the world particularly in Africa and the Middle East.

Accepted, Vladimir Putin and his Russia have their own fair share of bad things that can, in all honesty, be rightly attributed to them. However, the West is comparatively worse. This is not to say that the West is entirely depraved; no, not at all. The West is, in many important respects, a friend in time of need.

Recent geopolitical events have shade more light on the fact that the West is supportive on one hand and destructive on the other. Vladimir Putin, arguably the West’s arch geopolitical foe, highlighted in his speech at UN General Assembly the three big problems that speak volumes of the destructive nature of the West.

Mugabe addressing the 70th UN General Assembly

Firstly, Putin bemoaned the West’s self-deceit policies and its belief in its exceptionality and impunity. He spoke: “Indeed, policies based on self-deceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.” While the element of the West’s policies of self-deceit may be of remote relevance to the problems bedeviling Malawi and Africa, it would be too presumptive to say the same about the West’s belief in itself being exceptional.

True to Putin’s observation, the West is so mad in its belief about its exceptionality. In whatever business the West transacts, one readily feels the air of condescension coming from it; it sees itself as more important, more knowledge, much better predisposed to solving crises than anyone in the world. One wonders if it is the case that God made the West the only intelligent people on the planet. Suffice it to say that the West always wants to be the epicenter of everything. To boot, it is no wonder then that the media in the West is awash with accusations of arrogance on the part of Zuma for keeping talking on the phone when Obama, during lunchhour at the 70^th UNGA, walked to him and joked. And, writing about the Zuma-Obama incident, one of the West’s newspaper headline goes blazing: “Who’s more important than Obama to Zuma.”

Secondly, the Russian President regretted the West’s continued acts of undermining other states’ sovereignty. The West constantly presents itself as a beacon of true democracy yet what it does is a direct opposite of what it preaches, what a paradox!. Putin, though sometimes a devil himself, hit the nail: “What is the state sovereignty, after all, that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one’s own future for every person, nation and state.”

It is no secret that indeed the West deliberately undermines the sovereignty of other national states to the defiance of clear international laws. Examples are too numerous to mention here only to say that Iraq, Libya, and now Syria quickly come to mind. History has a rich memory of the West’s regrettable foreign interventionist conduct that has only ended up denying the citizens the freedom to choose its destiny and the chance to freely choose a nation and a state of their liking.

Lastly, the KGB-turned-president lamented the West’s imposition of development models on other countries especially those in Africa. On this point, Putin movingly appealed;

         Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember that our past has taught us.

It is tempting to copy wholesale a tried and tested development model that works wonders, and there may be no harm in doing so, but, and this is a big but, there is always a compelling need to reflect back on our history before we do so. As Putin rightly puts it, we should and must remember the free lessons from our past. Mother Nature has not given unequivocal guarantees that what works in the West will also work in Malawi or Africa. Nonetheless, what works in the West, with proper indigenizing mechanisms, may well work in Malawi or Africa.

The point here is that it is not bad for Malawi and Africa in general to copy the West’s right development model neither is it bad for the West to recommend a right development model for the developing countries. What is bad, and this is what Putin is saying, is the West’s unrelenting push for the developing countries to conform to what it considers a “right” development model. Again, what is bad is the developing countries’ naivety to, for lack of a better word, copy and paste the West’s “right” development model.

To this end, the West’s aid conditionalities are as much to blame in this respect as Africa is in its alacrity to accepting the same. The West must take heed of this advice that their aid is only as good when the targeted countries are given the leeway, as guided by their respective historical backgrounds, to channel the aid to areas where its effect will be better and lasting. Africa and Malawi in particular should stop the copy-and-paste tendency when it comes to development models.

For, surely, as long as the West’s past retains no resemblance whatsoever to Malawi’s and Africa’s, there can be no meaningful move towards progress. So, let’s get the aid where possible but let’s use it in priority areas that our past has directed us to. As we bash Vladimir for being a devil himself, let’s not forget to pat him on the back for being an angel, at least for once here.

APM-Ntata Empty ‘Talk’: Helpful or Harmful?

The office of the president may not have a job description. True. That be true as it may, it is certainly every citizen’s expectation that whosoever is president will act in a manner reasonably expected of a president; and, sad to add that picking fights is sure not one such expectation.

The above may somewhat be too much of an expectation given the fact that the president is human too—he has feelings capable of being hurt. That is the reason why, at the risk of courting criticism, the president’s move in suing one Allan Ntata may not be entirely unpresidential.

Mutharika is said to be picking fights with Ntata

That being said, however, it is now almost obvious that the president has had his feelings hurt so much so that he has left government business to fate. This becomes clear when, only a few days after the Ntata-Nyasatimes legal suit, government released a press statement to the effect that Allan Ntata is one tried and tested fellow. It is at this point that we now ask, “Is this APM-Ntata empty talk helpful or harmful?”.

The quick answer will be it is. Yes, this empty talk is both helpful and harmful. However, caution has to be sounded here that the empty talk is more harmful than it is helpful.

The APM-Ntata talk is helpful in that now every avid follower of current affairs knows how much hurt certain ‘talks’ can cause to people a million times powerful than ourselves. Or, for lack of a better expression, the hurt Ntata has caused president Arthur Peter Mutharika through his ‘empty’ writings is one best captured by the old adage “a pen is mightier than a sword.”

Ntata is believed to be dragging president into a fight.

Also, the APM-Ntata empty talks may be a helpful as it wards off other would-be Ntatas. To this end, the ‘talks’ are a veritable warning the Ntatas in the writing business to watch their writings for fear of stepping on the president’s sensitivities. Wacky as this reason sounds, it still remains a reason, so ‘newsmongers watchout!’

The above being said, of special concern is the harm the APM-Ntata empty talk brings. Firstly, it is harmful for the simple reason that it has proved capable of derailing the president’s attention from the more serious issues—Kwacha depreciation, drug shortage, dwindling education standards, salary delays and all that. President Mutharika seems to see it all normal to pick a fight with Ntata dedicating his time to outclassing a guy that looks after himself and perhaps a couple other relatives forgetting that he, being the president of this poor nation, has the hopes of the fourteen million souls heaped upon him. Alas!

Additionally, his picking fights with Ntata is to Ntata’s advantage as it is Ntata who gets the limelight—he is seen as a biggie who speaks and the president responds. Mind you, APM is the president. And so a public figure. The thing is: a public figure is a public picture; whoever sees it comments about it. Public as he is, one is free to graffiti him the way they would have loved him rule the nation just as people graffiti a picture to make it look the way they would have loved it look. The point being driven home here is that the president is essentially a public poster of a nation. This implies that as long as the Peter Mutharika remains president, the Ntatas and the nonentities like this author will always take pride in dragging the president into a fight once in a while.

Furthermore, the APM-Ntata fights have the dangerous potential of gagging the media. This is bad for a nascent democracy like Malawi. We are, as a nation, too young to tolerate such a fight. The media will effectively be unnecessarily forced to censor what they publish especially if the stories likely touch on the president’s sensitivities.

Here it is, this piece this serves as a plea to the president to focus on the big picture which is proving relevant leadership that responds positively to the fears and aspirations of the nation. The plea here is that the president should modestly contain his anger, honorably deflate the insults, and confidently deal with critics. Otherwise getting involved in every empty talk makes the president lose sight of the big picture, and that is not healthy for our nation.

Reaching this far, it is hoped that the point is made; the point being that the president should see the big picture and leave us—the people that make a name by ‘naming’ those with names—to our writing and talking business. So don’t give us the platform Mr President, keep your eyes, your attention, and your focus on the bigger picture.

In the long run, it is hoped that the foregoing has made it clear that, whatever the intents of the people involved, the APM-Ntata empty talk is more harmful than is helpful.

Stop Talking and Just Do: That’s the Best Way, Sir!

Peter Mutharika: What is the best way?

The past week has not been a silly season politics-wise; the usually silent Malawi President, Peter Mutharika, aimed some punches at people criticizing his government. Seemingly unsure of where he gets it wrong, the president asked these critics to tell him the “best way”.

The president, in his characteristic I-know-much-what-can-you-tell-me tone, asked his critics to tell him what exactly is wrong with community colleges, malata and cement programme, industrialization, implementation of public sector reforms and all that jazz.

But what exactly is the “best way”? Is there any ‘best way’ anywhere? It appears not. However, certain ways are arguably more or most reasonable. And it is the reasonableness of the ways that make them best; not something inherent in the ways.

Similarly, in areas of policy implementation as is true in politics generally, the reasonable way which is the best way is a predisposition to do—action, in simple terms. That’s it, action is the best way.

Quite frankly, that the president is visionary on community colleges is well-settled; that his malata and cement programme deserves a pat on his back is widely-acknowledged; that his industrialization initiative is a big plus on his government is without question; and that his drive for public sector reforms is commendable goes without saying. The above, still, as brilliant as they are, matter less to any well-meaning citizen. The heart of it all is that what matters here is not the policies themselves but the action—or implementation if you like—which should, as far closely as possible, follow the road cleared by these grand policies.

Reaching here, the president can perhaps take an honest stock of himself and his government entourage and see whether or not his policies are implemented in the same grand way they were fashioned before asking for answers from his critics about where he goes wrong.

It is hoped that this stock-taking can help him re-gain his touch with the populace. See, how often have cronyism, favoritism, corruption, and inaction been blamed by these critics to be the regrettable dents on these good policies? Many times. What has the president done? Very little. What has changed? Least.

If he could please do justice to the Malawi nation; next time this or that critic says something is wrong with policy A or implementation of policy B: he should listen attentively, gather the courage to accept the free advice, and then take action. It surely helps very little, if at all it does, to blabber squeaks of underappreciation in the name of taking critics to task. The only, yes only, way to take these critics to task is to walk the policy talk and not to wander away from it and still expect smiles from Malawians. 

The agitation for approval, now taking a peal on him, will yield nothing without something; action first and approval will naturally follow. The point being driven home here is that there is every need to stop talking and take action. “Why?”, you may ask. Because the talking was already done, the policy document is the talk—the talking is the policy. So the president can’t keep talking. Now it’s time for action. It’s time for implementation. Or better still, it is time for the policy walk.

Take America for example. America is not great because it is a land of lofty dreamers but because it is a land where dream-implementers live. For the record, Malawi is happy to have a lofty dreamer president. It is noteworthy that Malawi will be happiest to see its president implement the lofty dreams.

For Malawi, the dream is the establishment of community colleges that offer relevant programmes; yes, the dream is malata and cement programme that benefits all Malawians without regard to their political affiliations; the dream is civil servants getting salaries good enough to afford a standard life; the dream is creation of industries that create jobs for all and not for family and friends. And that is the kind of walk Malawi wants the grand policy talk to take. When all that meat is absent from the policies as it is the case now, the policy becomes a skeleton to be used as a ghost for corruption and political appeasement.

Sir, as a matter of being straight here, the thing is, at last, to walk the talk. Not to crawl the talk. Neither is it to talk the talk or talk talk the talk. The point is: walk the policy talk Sir. It is only when you walk (and not to wander away from) the policy talk that the criticisms will die a natural death. Because, as earlier elsewhere pointed out, that’s the best way, Sir.

When Crime controllers become Perpetrators: What? Why? And way forward?

Malawi police on duty

What?

It is around 12 midnight. Work has been exhausting and so you’re tired.  And, you decide: “I want to have a peaceful sleep tonight.” So you sleep like a baby…feeling all good and secure. But hey, don’t sleep that babyishly; it’s a mistake, a very grave mistake.

Why a mistake? Perhaps you’ve not been following events. There are verified stories going around that the people we entrusted with controlling crimes—the police—are themselves perpetrators of crime.

The glaring statistics in The Nation of 10^th April, 2015 that, on average, two police officers in Malawi are involved in organized crime is both a big minus and a ghastly dent on the Malawi Police Services. To us Malawians, these statistics are a great concern so much so that every passing second, as day gives way to night, anxiety creeps in our minds as we are not sure of the safety and security of our valuable property or our dear life.

Why?

Certainly, the police officers’ involvement in organized crime is, as pointed out elsewhere here, of great concern. That be case, however, it is important to understand the police officers’ drive towards such uncalled for behavior. Is it the case that the recruitment process is flawed? Or it is the case that there is a genuine need for mindset change. The answer to both questions are both “yes’ and “no”.

“Yes” in the sense that there are cases where there have been allegations that the recruitment process is almost entirely guided by “who-knows-who” criterion resulting in picking underserving individuals for the noble job. This could be an explanation why we have unprofessional police officers who usually incapable of making quick and positive context-specific decisions for they have no academic qualifications—a Malawi School Certificate of Education (MSCE) to be precise—necessary for such capability. There is also the possibility, a real one for that matter, that the recruitment may not be a cause for the police officers’ involvement in crime because the number of bad apples in the MPS is just outrageously large for a public institution.

It might also be that there is need to change the mindset of police officers towards their job as rightly observed by some commentators. Yet still, police officers’ perceived mindset problem does not seem to give the whole picture.

What then is the real cause? Most undoubtedly, the real cause is under-appreciation. Without mincing words, the Malawi police officers are under-appreciated left, right, and center. The uncomfortable truth is that our crime controllers get peanuts as salary, live in small and sub-standard houses (and they usually make sorry extensions), and get looked down upon by the public.

And way forward?

Interestingly, recruitment and mindset might be, and of course are, some of the causes of police officers’ involvement in the perpetration of organized crime. It therefore rightly follows that paying serious attention to these elements is not only just proper but also a must-do. Though, truth be spelt out here, the deliberate initiation of measures intended to improve the welfare of police officers is the way forward out of this security disaster, if not the only way.

Malawi needs police officers who get paid a modest salary; it needs police officers whose houses are decent enough for a police officer; Malawi needs police officers who get appreciation for the noble roles they play in society. Police officers too are people with wants, and, however dignified or professional they may be, they will always make efforts to get what they want, legally or otherwise. Simple logic should tell anyone that rules of survival hates a man that stays hungry among plenty. So why not develop and implement measures that aim at helping our dear police officers get their wants in life in a way that accords with the law?

The suggestions made by some quarters of the society that the solution to police officers’ involvement in organized crime lies in instilling a sense of service in them to work professionally under the poor conditions they are in is wholly precarious at best and nauseatingly cosmetic at worst. Like already observed above, the improvement of the police officers’ welfare is the surefire way out.

It is a common understanding among any people that the deterioration of security is not only worrisome but also a cause for concern for insecurity is the enemy of progress. It thus becomes unbearably worrisome if the perpetrators of the insecurity are the same people we put our trust on for security. That’s why this security disaster needs an urgent solution that more now than now.

Up until such time a solution is found to address the police-perpetrated insecurity Malawians have two options; go to prison or trust no one no matter their nobility. For Tony Robbins says: “If you want security, go to prison.” And for the second option, Willa Cather opines: “No one can build his security upon the nobleness of another person.” Malawians, choose your option now.

Not Gentle Enough: Critiquing Ntata’s Criticism

“Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a man’s growth without destroying his roots.” Frank A. Clark.

MANY a person can critique and thus be called a critic. However, the sad truth is that not all that critique merit to be called such; in fact, it is only those whose criticisms are gentle enough by presenting a balanced dimension of the issue in question merit such a label.

There recently emerged a critic of the Peter Mutharika government—Z Allan Ntata, a (or is it former?) Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) sympathizer. Ntata, a lawyer-cum-politician, has attacked the DPP-led government from all angles, and, so it appears, the Mutharika government is at his mercy at the moment. Central to Ntata’s attack is Peter Mutharika’s supposed ‘puppetry’. It is to this that the article’s attention turns.

In essence, Ntata accuses Peter Mutharika of being a nominal president arguing that real power rests in unnamed State House advisor. That the young Mutharika is indeed a puppet or not should be left to the politicians to politick and to the lawyers to lawyer on; for us critics, and this be emphasized, the concern here is whether or not Ntata’s accusations are gentle enough.

Are Ntata’s accusations of Mutharika’s supposed puppetry gentle enough? It appears not. Ntata was himself in the remote and recent past a puppet of the current president especially in the run up to the general election. Ntata, as Tenthani rightly observes, “…used any available art form—be it music, video or prose—to beat up all those who stood in the way of his dear party’s one-way ticket back to state house.” And who was the torchbearer for his dear party? Peter Mutharika of course!

Then Ntata did not flinch in defending Peter Mutharika as a visionary leader with solid education background. He had been a staunch defender of Mutharika’s leadership potential all through the campaign period till the sweet days of the election victory. Ntata was the right hand man in the DPP, and a strategist to boot. Should we say, honestly that is, that Ntata, by his puppetry accusation, is simply confessing to Malawians that he did not know that he was defending a Mutharika who is incapable of controlling the affairs of this noble republic on his own volition and direction? The answer is most certainly negative. Ntata knew Mutharika that well, as a strategist, that he was a man worth the Malawi presidency. If he actually knew of Mutharika’s puppetry, then Ntata is nothing but an unpatriotic liar who let Malawians be in the hands of a puppet.

But if he really knew Peter Mutharika as a capable man for the presidency then, why accuse him of being a puppet of some unelected advisor today? Frustration; yes, the answer is Ntata is frustrated to the core for not being ‘accordingly’ rewarded by the DPP government. Surely, Ntata is on a mission—a mission he has betted his life on—to prove to the Mutharika camp that he is a strategist who makes and breaks what he makes. For he made (read ‘helped with’) the DPP-led government’s entry strategy he would equally make its exit strategy, and the puppetry accusation and all that jazz are sure evidence of the exit strategy in motion. Here Ntata, as Chiipira Wachaje points, is a “Commando” in action. Unlike the Commandos in films however, the Commandos in politics rarely succeed in aiming high-value targets, and truth be told here, this Commando that is Ntata here will, spoiler alert, miserably fail in his aiming for high-value target that is Mutharika.

And why will Comando Ntata fail here? It’s because it is all clear to almost every well-meaning Malawian that he is making this noise simply to be heard by the DPP government. It therefore makes perfect sense to take such a person and their statements with a pinch of salt. In all honesty, Malawians are not that naïve as to fail to realize that he is deliberately arousing public discontentment to get back at DPP.

In the end, however, there are two alternatives; either Ntata did not know that Mutharika is a puppet and is therefore telling the truth or knew that Mutharika is/ isn’t a puppet and is therefore telling lies. Between the two, the latter seems plausible because, being a strategist that he is, Ntata ought to have known that Mutharika is a puppet. But he did not notice the puppetry in Mutharika because Mutharika is not a puppet. Which is why it is tempting to conclude, as does this article, that Ntata wants to get back at his erstwhile friends—the DPP. So, whatever it is he thinks DPP owns him, he shouldn’t drag Malawians into fighting his personal battles.

So next time Ntata, and all other critics, want to criticize this or any government—present or past, let them do justice to Frank A. Clark by making sure that their criticisms, like rain, are “gentle enough” to aid citizens’ objective assessment without destroying the same. Otherwise Ntata’s criticisms of DPP-led government are not doing Malawians any justice as are personal and not gentle enough as to nourish Malawians’ objective assessment of the government of the day.

 

 

If Only We Saw Albinos Humans They Really Are

A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members—Mahatma Gandhi

A society founded on ill principles of life is doomed; that built on blatant disregard for decency is crooked; and that whose survival depends on the sacrifice of innocent souls’ freedom is jinxed.

It appears, from simple observations of life, that nature favors the upright—those that have the strength to create a life for others as good as their own; those that have the decency to bring honor where some seem to rob it; and those that have the moral compass to use their power as though they are powerless themselves.

Given the above, it is no surprise then that those societies where a larger part of their daily life is premised on such simple but profoundly important notions of life have witnessed, are witnessing, and will expectedly continue to witness the unparalleled progress and favors that Mother Nature bestow upon them. The success of a modern society is thus rigged in favor of those societies whose citizens attach as much regard to others as they attach to themselves.

It is at this point that we should start question whether Malawi society can or—for decency’s sake—will join our friends in achieving progress as a result of the respect for basic human rights and civil liberties for all of its citizens. It is here that we need to take stock of our treatment to one of the emerging weak members of our society—the albinos. Recent instances of albino stigmatization are a worrisome blemish in our society. That’s why we need as a nation to take a strong legal and social concern against our indecent treatment of our fellow citizens who are differently-blessed in skin color.

As rightly observed by the Minister of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare Patricia Kaliati, our society’s culture of stigmatizing albinos calls for serious in-depth introspection, both as a people of God and as a human rights minded nation, to design and pass bills that specifically provides legal protective measures to albinos.

We’re no stronger for victimizing and killing our fellows; we’re less so in our eyes, and least so, and most certainly worse, in the eyes of the Creator. Creation of a safe living environment is the goal here. And to achieve that, it is important to note that there has to be a great deal of meaningful sensitization to be made to our friends (or foes?) who believe in the efficacy of albino ritualism.

This is a big task. It is no work for Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare alone nor is it a private domain for Federation of Disability association of Malawi (FEDOMA and Association of Persons with Albinism in Malawi (APAM). It is a task for any well-meaning Malawian; it is a task by us citizens for us.

Meanwhile, it should be made clear to the public at large that those to be found guilty of the abhorrent killings of albinos for rituals or other will be severely dealt with. To this end, special funds and resources have to be made available for such an undertaking. Better still, there can be created a distinct unit in the police system which shall be extra-ordinarily resourced to promptly deal with instances of attempted or actual killings of albinos.

To meaningfully achieve the above, the organizations that fight for the rights and welfare of albinos will have to make a standing arrangement to channel some of its resources this distinct police unit so as to beef up the human as well as material resources that may be lacking in our law enforcement system. There can also be organized functions specifically designed to collect funds for this honorable cause. The media, above and beyond, will have also to be encouraged to intensify and give special and in-depth coverage of news of albino-related victimizations.

It is well within the confines of logic that it is not only seriously preposterous but also insanely inhuman to regard ourselves as humans and regard albinos as being less so. Who defines ‘humanness’ apart from the Creator himself? How can a created being make a distinction about what is human and what is not about its fellow created being? The truth is: either we all—albino-victimizing ritualists and albinos—are human beings or no one is. In the circumstances, the irony is that the latter are even more human than the former.

It is of some significance, in the end, to note that whatever our color everyone is the extension of another. No human being is better than another; none more human than another; literally none more ritualworth than another. We all are—albino or what have you—one and the same thing before our Creator. We’re all human beings,…and if only we saw albinos humans they really are.