MALAWIANS LOSING CONFIDENCE IN DPP
Defined in loose terms, democracy is a political system in which the supreme and ultimate power is vested in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. In a different way it can also be defined a political orientation of those who favour government by their elected representatives.
The election of representatives is done through open voting.
In Malawian democracy has been a source of many intelligent intellectual and political debates ever since this new baby was born in the year 1994. Although the baby was welcomed with smiling faces, it later was on the brink of being suffocated by its many relatives including its begotten parents. Reason? The corrupting influence of power and the disease of self-centredness. Political heavyweights well versed in election issues who have keenly been following Malawi’s journey from one-partyism to multi-partyism predicted that the 2009 parliamentary and presidential elections would define democracy in Malawi.
Sadly, the definition so far the 2009 parliamentary and presidential elections has given to democracy in Malawi does not really offer any meaningful insight to the meaning as conceptualised in advanced democracies. The campaign period was declared and Malawians witnessed every moment of the campaign trail, thanks to the media fraternity.
The results were out and the DPP confidently won the elections. The governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won with overwhelming majority in the elections. Both international and local election observers, political commentators and analysis as well as journalists have unanimously and objectively called the DPP’s win a “landslide victory”.
The DPP and its supporters and of course peace-loving Malawians had every reason to be happy, after all its win demanded celebrations since the 2009 elections were a litmus test to our fragile democracy. The belief that DPP was a household name that some Malawians’ had held in run-up to elections was cemented after it was announced that the DPP had won the elections.
This being the case however, what is saddening is the irrevocable reality that in less than 90 days away from the national elections, the DPP has suffered a heaviest blow ever- it has lost the by-elections. A heavy blow indeed, from an overwhelming national elections win to a humiliating two by-elections loss.
It is a blow that has taken the DPP unawares and has sadly spared no person in the DPP’s inner circle, its supporters as well as its sympathisers. The most painful part of the blow is that the by-election loss thwarted the DPP’s election victory celebrations prematurely. The DPP’s by-election loss struck an unforgettable remorse blow that has denigrated the DPP from hero to zero.
Critically analysed one is to see that the DPP’s loss of the by-elections is a free must-learn-from lesson for political parties and political players that the masses want parties that they walk the talk and that they are fed up with dancing to loads of political malarkey. The DPP’S is arguably also enough reason for inquisitive Malawians to pause and ask: Should this be a sign of the peoples’ loss of confidence in the DPP? To say it is, is to make as good a guess as that of a many surprised Malawian. Why such a guess is good is because the DPP was fresh coming from elections it had won with a majority unheard of in the Malawi’s election history.
It is a good guess because the DPP was at the pinnacle of political fame. Its strategies were still fresh and, with how easily and confidently they won the elections, their strategies proved surefire ways to winning almost any election. In addition to this, the DPP had the state-controlled media at its disposal as its mouthpiece and propaganda machinery where the opposition and independent candidates were pilloried and labelled ‘development-disoriented’. The first citizen himself, the DPP’s torchbearer in the 2009 parliamentary and presidential elections, was no lackadaisical. He was seen campaigning side by side with the DPP candidates in the by-elections. The vice president also did her part in the by-elections campaign to ensure that she re-secures her Zomba-Malosa seat.
The DPP pressed every possible button to ensure that it wins all the two seats in the by-elections so as to beef up its numbers in the national assembly. But all to no avail. At the end of the day the DPP got a humiliating loss. If at least it had lost the Ndirande seat only would it have been less humiliating than it is now.
One would confidently deduce that DPP’s failure to return the Zomba-Malosa seat, a seat it won in the parliamentary and presidential elections, is axiomatic of the people’s loss in confidence in it. There is no an explanation to this other than that the seemingly docile Malawians have lost a great deal of confidence in the DPP- led government, if not all at all.
The DPP’s chagrining loss very well calls for a post-mortem because it is really debasing to see that the unwavering presidential and vice- presidential support enjoyed by DPP candidates all meant nothing to the electorates in the two areas where the by-election was conducted.
It is reasonable as well as objective for DPP-ites to be that surprised for it is a devastating fact to note, in the eyes of the voters, that all the media coverage, the ostentatious campaigns and the aphungu a DPP ndi achikuko warcries were nothing but pieces of well-tailored egoistic political rhetoric. It should, for the betterment of the party, do the post-mortem as far fast as it can so that they re-strategise otherwise this may be a sign of the beginning of the demise of the empire. It is an untenable and self-shooting a position to ignore what has befallen it and miserably failing to extract a lesson from it will be a colossally disconsolate action.
Accepting what reality has offered is the good starting point of any intelligent endeavour. To ignore what reality has offered is to cheat oneself of a better solution that is not it. Moreover, because the by-election results has clearly spelt the people’s dissatisfaction with and betrayal by the DPP, it will be of great service for DPP if it unlearns itself the mentality that “if you perform the best this moment it necessarily follows you are to perform the best in the moment that follows next”.
It is this mentality that made the DPP to be braggadocio in its campaign thinking it was automatic that they would win the elections without much huddle. The earlier the DPP does the post-mortem the better. The DPP’s loss therefore is a sign of people’s loss of confidence in it.
In simple language the Malawi population has spelt out clearly that it is no longer a population to be taken for an easy ride but now it is a population that has to be taken as seriously as an expectant mother is taken.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
NO NEED FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS TO APOLOGIZE
NO NEED FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS TO APOLOGIZE
Politically speaking, the Malawi democracy has not been interestingly eventful after the failed third term bid. The time between the unconstitutional third term bid to the time of the last budget session has been arguably a silly season, so to speak. Interestingly enough, the last budget session gave Malawi’s nascent democracy a new life.
The interface between personal and political vested interests heading for a fatal crush with the national interests was laid bare to the extent that everyone-intelligentsias and ignoramuses alike-could give an insightful analysis of what became the order of the day in the house. The strongly-worded personal verbal exchanges, the unparliamentary foul-mouthing words, the out-of –orders and all that jazz in the house between the government benches and the opposition side-- all played a part to placing Malawi’s fragile democracy at a crossroad.
The opposition parliamentarians were demonized, slandered and threatened. Almost all adjectives in the lexicon having the denotations ‘evil-hearted, selfish’ could rightly qualify them. Having said all this, in there any need for opposition parliamentarians to apologize to the Malawi public for their behaviour in the house? The opposition parliamentarians should, first and foremost, not apologize. There is utterly no need for them to apologize because they stood up for our hard-won democracy when it was at the brink of being defiled.
The issue of section 65, itself a constitution provision, had to be defended at all costs. The opposition was hell bent towards doing this. Yet, paradoxically, instead of commending the opposition for a job well done the Malawi public wants to bring it to its knees. Much as we accept the self-evident fact that party-politics was at the heart of their tabling the section under question, it should be noted that their argument was both reasonable and constitutional, and, further to this, logically tenable. The framers of the constitution, having envisioned how easily opposition parliamentarians can be persuaded to the government benches in search of the greener pastures one is assured there, thought it wise to include the section 65 legislation so that party prostitution be minimized or done away with completely.
It is upon this visionary thinking of the framers of the constitution that the opposition parliamentarians based their argument in tabling the section to achieve what the framers of the constitution, in unanimously coming up with that section, whole-heartedly wanted to achieve. If at all, apologies have to be made then it must be the government for not towing the constitutional line drawn by the framers of the constitution on the said section. Why this should be the case is because what the government did was rightly a deliberate political move to trample the constitution to suit its own vested political interests.
Obsessed with the propagandistic phrase ‘budget ndi ndalama a Malawi’, the local masses ignorantly betrayed the opposition parliamentarians-their chosen watchdogs for government’s actions -frogmarching them to pass the budget without the implementation of the section. The government on its side chose to pay a blind eye to the section always arguing vehemently against its implementation. It even went as far as seeking a second court redress after the Supreme Court of Appeal, the highest court in the land, argued for the constitutionality of the section. The issue of impeachment tabling in the house by opposition members of parliament also attracted a considerable dust of strongly couched emotional sentiments.
The government was convinced that the impeachment move was an elaborate and systematic plan by the former head of state, Dr. Bakili Muluzi, to ouster it. With this conviction spread to all its supporters and sympathisers alike its claim that the impeachment move was a political manoeuvre by the ex-president to settle old scones with him gained considerable support from people uninterested with Muluzi’s avowed desire to stand for the 2009 parliamentary and Presidential elections as a UDF torchbearer.
The grounds for the impeachment as reported in the media were clear and needed no disambiguation. But the government through the state-controlled MBC radio One and Malawi’s only television station, Television Malawi, sought to misrepresent the facts of the grounds in order to buy public sympathy something it badly needed. The sympathy gained through the disinformation, misinformation and distortion of the grounds and stand of the opposition parliamentarians made the opposition’s side to be lent deaf ears.
Some disinterested political commentators, political analysists and journalists saw the rationality in the grounds the opposition based their argument for the tabling of the impeachment motion. It could be seen that what the opposition was pressing for was in line with what the constitution provided for.
Their major reason for doing that was that the Mutharika administration had flouted the constitution in choosing to be indifferent to section 65. This was both selfless and constitutional to the true sense of the words ‘selfless’ and ‘constitutional’. It would then be unreasonable and unwise for the opposition to apologize for something that has the constitutional backing even if the argument that their tabling the impeachment motion was politically motivated holds.
What should be clear to political players is that any happening on the political scene, much as it cannot have overtones, has political undertones just as any dispute about land should better be settled at the farm.
The foul-mouthing, unparliamentary words that reduced our honourable members of parliament to rambunctious kindergarten kids born from ethically disoriented families became the most fundamentally degrading eyesore in the history of Malawi’s parliament.
This being the case however, there is no convincing reason as to why the parliamentarians should apologize for whatever was said in the house was in response to the demands of the time. Even a patient understanding man would be emotional if the force needed to keep his emotions in control gets used up, and this is a simple fact of life.
However, our honourable parliamentarians have to be disillusioned and be taught a single, simple logic of logical argumentation: emotions and personal interests do not guarantee truth, what guarantees truth is reason and evidence. However hard and mad we can be on an issue or about someone else we should know for sure that that argument is doomed to fail but with mutual respect and selfless interests at heart every argument has a conclusion-an amiable conclusion.
Having analysed what became the order of the day in the last budget session, it is convenient, safe and tenable to say that the parliamentarians in the last budget session should not apologize for whatever they said or did was in response to the needs and demands of the house then.
Politically speaking, the Malawi democracy has not been interestingly eventful after the failed third term bid. The time between the unconstitutional third term bid to the time of the last budget session has been arguably a silly season, so to speak. Interestingly enough, the last budget session gave Malawi’s nascent democracy a new life.
The interface between personal and political vested interests heading for a fatal crush with the national interests was laid bare to the extent that everyone-intelligentsias and ignoramuses alike-could give an insightful analysis of what became the order of the day in the house. The strongly-worded personal verbal exchanges, the unparliamentary foul-mouthing words, the out-of –orders and all that jazz in the house between the government benches and the opposition side-- all played a part to placing Malawi’s fragile democracy at a crossroad.
The opposition parliamentarians were demonized, slandered and threatened. Almost all adjectives in the lexicon having the denotations ‘evil-hearted, selfish’ could rightly qualify them. Having said all this, in there any need for opposition parliamentarians to apologize to the Malawi public for their behaviour in the house? The opposition parliamentarians should, first and foremost, not apologize. There is utterly no need for them to apologize because they stood up for our hard-won democracy when it was at the brink of being defiled.
The issue of section 65, itself a constitution provision, had to be defended at all costs. The opposition was hell bent towards doing this. Yet, paradoxically, instead of commending the opposition for a job well done the Malawi public wants to bring it to its knees. Much as we accept the self-evident fact that party-politics was at the heart of their tabling the section under question, it should be noted that their argument was both reasonable and constitutional, and, further to this, logically tenable. The framers of the constitution, having envisioned how easily opposition parliamentarians can be persuaded to the government benches in search of the greener pastures one is assured there, thought it wise to include the section 65 legislation so that party prostitution be minimized or done away with completely.
It is upon this visionary thinking of the framers of the constitution that the opposition parliamentarians based their argument in tabling the section to achieve what the framers of the constitution, in unanimously coming up with that section, whole-heartedly wanted to achieve. If at all, apologies have to be made then it must be the government for not towing the constitutional line drawn by the framers of the constitution on the said section. Why this should be the case is because what the government did was rightly a deliberate political move to trample the constitution to suit its own vested political interests.
Obsessed with the propagandistic phrase ‘budget ndi ndalama a Malawi’, the local masses ignorantly betrayed the opposition parliamentarians-their chosen watchdogs for government’s actions -frogmarching them to pass the budget without the implementation of the section. The government on its side chose to pay a blind eye to the section always arguing vehemently against its implementation. It even went as far as seeking a second court redress after the Supreme Court of Appeal, the highest court in the land, argued for the constitutionality of the section. The issue of impeachment tabling in the house by opposition members of parliament also attracted a considerable dust of strongly couched emotional sentiments.
The government was convinced that the impeachment move was an elaborate and systematic plan by the former head of state, Dr. Bakili Muluzi, to ouster it. With this conviction spread to all its supporters and sympathisers alike its claim that the impeachment move was a political manoeuvre by the ex-president to settle old scones with him gained considerable support from people uninterested with Muluzi’s avowed desire to stand for the 2009 parliamentary and Presidential elections as a UDF torchbearer.
The grounds for the impeachment as reported in the media were clear and needed no disambiguation. But the government through the state-controlled MBC radio One and Malawi’s only television station, Television Malawi, sought to misrepresent the facts of the grounds in order to buy public sympathy something it badly needed. The sympathy gained through the disinformation, misinformation and distortion of the grounds and stand of the opposition parliamentarians made the opposition’s side to be lent deaf ears.
Some disinterested political commentators, political analysists and journalists saw the rationality in the grounds the opposition based their argument for the tabling of the impeachment motion. It could be seen that what the opposition was pressing for was in line with what the constitution provided for.
Their major reason for doing that was that the Mutharika administration had flouted the constitution in choosing to be indifferent to section 65. This was both selfless and constitutional to the true sense of the words ‘selfless’ and ‘constitutional’. It would then be unreasonable and unwise for the opposition to apologize for something that has the constitutional backing even if the argument that their tabling the impeachment motion was politically motivated holds.
What should be clear to political players is that any happening on the political scene, much as it cannot have overtones, has political undertones just as any dispute about land should better be settled at the farm.
The foul-mouthing, unparliamentary words that reduced our honourable members of parliament to rambunctious kindergarten kids born from ethically disoriented families became the most fundamentally degrading eyesore in the history of Malawi’s parliament.
This being the case however, there is no convincing reason as to why the parliamentarians should apologize for whatever was said in the house was in response to the demands of the time. Even a patient understanding man would be emotional if the force needed to keep his emotions in control gets used up, and this is a simple fact of life.
However, our honourable parliamentarians have to be disillusioned and be taught a single, simple logic of logical argumentation: emotions and personal interests do not guarantee truth, what guarantees truth is reason and evidence. However hard and mad we can be on an issue or about someone else we should know for sure that that argument is doomed to fail but with mutual respect and selfless interests at heart every argument has a conclusion-an amiable conclusion.
Having analysed what became the order of the day in the last budget session, it is convenient, safe and tenable to say that the parliamentarians in the last budget session should not apologize for whatever they said or did was in response to the needs and demands of the house then.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
