I am constantly being puzzled by the politics of Africa. It seems to me that contrary to all expectation we are regressing away from maturity and stability by the day. The political analyst struggling to pose in un-matching optimism would respond that what we are going through is part of maturity that our democracy is being tested and we are making progress. How I wish I had such hope and optimism for Africa and Malawi.
Why I am desperate for such optimism which I nevertheless cannot afford to have is the fact that we are failing tests whose skills ought to have mastered. I am so concerned with elections in Africa. One of the urgent things I would seek to understand than how a NASA space shuttle docks at the international space station is why is conducting an election in Africa is so troubling a problem that there is always the threat of or indeed the actual loss of human life as the ultimate cost?
But part of the reason as I have discovered this week is that the African society is still stuck in the unrewarding tendencies of not asserting itself. Leadership in our society is given unnecessary power. In the end we do not entrust the leaders with our power but we transfer and give them power over us. In the end these leaders become our deities. We adore them. We always hear from them. We cannot make them listen to us. We are at their mercy. One would think that in a democracy such tendencies would diminish but alas!
There will be presidential and parliamentary elections in Malawi on the 20th of May this year. The centre of attention, for usually the wrong reasons, is on Bakili Muluzi and Bingu Wa Muthalika. This is not to suggest that these are the only favourites. Actually when you factor in J.Z.U. Tembo of MCP, the question of a favourite becomes more indeterminate. It is the relationship of the two aforementioned men that is part of news everyday. Muluzi a former head of state ruled Malawi for 10 years until 5years ago. To the disappointment of the inner circle of the party he picked Mutharika who was a complete outsider of the party for the presidency after (Muluzi’s) failing to secure amendment of the constitution to cater for at first an open term and then later on a third term limit for the presidency. However upon assuming power the two became enemies and Muthalika finally ditched the party and formed his own. Muluzi became furious and vowed to wrestle back the presidency from Muthalika. His candidature though counts on a linguistic ambiguity of a constitutional phrase that semantically would also accommodate a former president to come back yet morally and as per intention of the section according to the constitution conference that arrived at it there was an unequivocal spirit of putting a sealed limit on the number of years one can rule in one’s lifetime.
The contest between Muluzi and Muthalika has led into a sour relationship between the two that defies the monumental natural hatred cats and mice passionately love to have against each other. They have castigated each other. They have accused and counter-accused each other. They have abused the media to bedevil each other. There has been debate as to whether the country is currently under some political tension or not. Some say there is none. Others claim there is clearly more than it.
As for the clergy this is not a contentious matter. They are very clear: There is tension in the country. Political commentators and the civil society organizations too have repeated the same tune of possible violence. The electoral violence alarm has been sounded and resounded. On 25th and 26th February 2009leadership of the Episcopal Conference of Malawi (ECM), the Malawi Council of Churches (MCC), the Muslim Association of Malawi (MAM) , the Evangelical Association of Malawi (EAM), the Quadria Muslim Association of Malawi (QMAM), and the Hindu Council, came together to deliberate about the pending election. Whatever they deliberated they communicated the cream of their deliberations through a press statement. The theme of their statement was worry about the electoral process. They in the end urged the major leaders to avoid violence.
Now, in Malawi the influence of religious leaders is not like it is in America or Sweden. Actually each of the candidates belongs to some church or religion and the influence of one’s religion is no small matter. This is where I find everything wrong with Malawian leaders (the clergy, the media, Civil Society organizations, and political commentators). The best these people have done (assuming there is tension) in Malawi is issue statements of appeal and press the violence scare. So too have the media, Civil society organizations and political commentators. Sounding the alarm for whom?
It is high time we realized that the least we can do to these politicians is plead with them. It is very clear that almost the major contenders in this race have personal scores against each other. This is no secret to everyone. Malawi however is more than Muluzi, Bingu, and Tembo. Malawi is greater than MCP, than UDF. She is greater than DPP. There are more Malawians than there are DPP members. Surely we have more Malawians than MCP members. Malawians outnumber UDF members. Malawi is greater than any individualistic ambitions embodied in whosoever’s personage. This plain reality seems to have eluded our civil society, the media, political commentators, as well as the clergy leadership. On the fundamental background of Malawi’s greatness over strife-breeding personal egos these contestants should be told by the clergy, the media, civil organizations, and political commentators of what to do and how not to conduct themselves pertaining to the elections and stability of the country. We should not engage in the shallow waters of pleading for what rightfully belongs to us. What I am saying is that there are 13 millions. Less than 500,000 of us are party radicals who have nothing to lose and are eager to unleash violence (don’t question my intuition basis for this figure). Why should the 12 or 10 million of the rest of the others kneel down to a mistaken few and plead for an election that is fair and violence free? Why should we press the panic button? For whom? Surely it is not for these leaders who are deliberately piling up the tension.
If there is tension in our country, we are its creators. We are to bear its blunt. We should pay with some of our women’s dignity and children’s blood. Still it will be us who will be responsible to finding a solution later on. In every respect the whole spectacle is all ours. We should therefore not hesitate to highlight each of the contenders’ specific contribution and what they are obliged to do to in order to leave the country’s stability intact. No pleas please. As long as we agree Malawi is greater than these people we should not mince words to them. How on earth can we afford such passivity? It is in this that we find the current violence scares unnecessary and a default of our responsibility for the moment.
Why I am desperate for such optimism which I nevertheless cannot afford to have is the fact that we are failing tests whose skills ought to have mastered. I am so concerned with elections in Africa. One of the urgent things I would seek to understand than how a NASA space shuttle docks at the international space station is why is conducting an election in Africa is so troubling a problem that there is always the threat of or indeed the actual loss of human life as the ultimate cost?
But part of the reason as I have discovered this week is that the African society is still stuck in the unrewarding tendencies of not asserting itself. Leadership in our society is given unnecessary power. In the end we do not entrust the leaders with our power but we transfer and give them power over us. In the end these leaders become our deities. We adore them. We always hear from them. We cannot make them listen to us. We are at their mercy. One would think that in a democracy such tendencies would diminish but alas!
There will be presidential and parliamentary elections in Malawi on the 20th of May this year. The centre of attention, for usually the wrong reasons, is on Bakili Muluzi and Bingu Wa Muthalika. This is not to suggest that these are the only favourites. Actually when you factor in J.Z.U. Tembo of MCP, the question of a favourite becomes more indeterminate. It is the relationship of the two aforementioned men that is part of news everyday. Muluzi a former head of state ruled Malawi for 10 years until 5years ago. To the disappointment of the inner circle of the party he picked Mutharika who was a complete outsider of the party for the presidency after (Muluzi’s) failing to secure amendment of the constitution to cater for at first an open term and then later on a third term limit for the presidency. However upon assuming power the two became enemies and Muthalika finally ditched the party and formed his own. Muluzi became furious and vowed to wrestle back the presidency from Muthalika. His candidature though counts on a linguistic ambiguity of a constitutional phrase that semantically would also accommodate a former president to come back yet morally and as per intention of the section according to the constitution conference that arrived at it there was an unequivocal spirit of putting a sealed limit on the number of years one can rule in one’s lifetime.
The contest between Muluzi and Muthalika has led into a sour relationship between the two that defies the monumental natural hatred cats and mice passionately love to have against each other. They have castigated each other. They have accused and counter-accused each other. They have abused the media to bedevil each other. There has been debate as to whether the country is currently under some political tension or not. Some say there is none. Others claim there is clearly more than it.
As for the clergy this is not a contentious matter. They are very clear: There is tension in the country. Political commentators and the civil society organizations too have repeated the same tune of possible violence. The electoral violence alarm has been sounded and resounded. On 25th and 26th February 2009leadership of the Episcopal Conference of Malawi (ECM), the Malawi Council of Churches (MCC), the Muslim Association of Malawi (MAM) , the Evangelical Association of Malawi (EAM), the Quadria Muslim Association of Malawi (QMAM), and the Hindu Council, came together to deliberate about the pending election. Whatever they deliberated they communicated the cream of their deliberations through a press statement. The theme of their statement was worry about the electoral process. They in the end urged the major leaders to avoid violence.
Now, in Malawi the influence of religious leaders is not like it is in America or Sweden. Actually each of the candidates belongs to some church or religion and the influence of one’s religion is no small matter. This is where I find everything wrong with Malawian leaders (the clergy, the media, Civil Society organizations, and political commentators). The best these people have done (assuming there is tension) in Malawi is issue statements of appeal and press the violence scare. So too have the media, Civil society organizations and political commentators. Sounding the alarm for whom?
It is high time we realized that the least we can do to these politicians is plead with them. It is very clear that almost the major contenders in this race have personal scores against each other. This is no secret to everyone. Malawi however is more than Muluzi, Bingu, and Tembo. Malawi is greater than MCP, than UDF. She is greater than DPP. There are more Malawians than there are DPP members. Surely we have more Malawians than MCP members. Malawians outnumber UDF members. Malawi is greater than any individualistic ambitions embodied in whosoever’s personage. This plain reality seems to have eluded our civil society, the media, political commentators, as well as the clergy leadership. On the fundamental background of Malawi’s greatness over strife-breeding personal egos these contestants should be told by the clergy, the media, civil organizations, and political commentators of what to do and how not to conduct themselves pertaining to the elections and stability of the country. We should not engage in the shallow waters of pleading for what rightfully belongs to us. What I am saying is that there are 13 millions. Less than 500,000 of us are party radicals who have nothing to lose and are eager to unleash violence (don’t question my intuition basis for this figure). Why should the 12 or 10 million of the rest of the others kneel down to a mistaken few and plead for an election that is fair and violence free? Why should we press the panic button? For whom? Surely it is not for these leaders who are deliberately piling up the tension.
If there is tension in our country, we are its creators. We are to bear its blunt. We should pay with some of our women’s dignity and children’s blood. Still it will be us who will be responsible to finding a solution later on. In every respect the whole spectacle is all ours. We should therefore not hesitate to highlight each of the contenders’ specific contribution and what they are obliged to do to in order to leave the country’s stability intact. No pleas please. As long as we agree Malawi is greater than these people we should not mince words to them. How on earth can we afford such passivity? It is in this that we find the current violence scares unnecessary and a default of our responsibility for the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment