Why victory for Malawi’s Chakwera is bad news to southern Africa’s opposition

Gibson Nyikadzino

AS the remnants of his regime became loose while under house arrest in 1995, Malawi’s dictator Kamuzu Banda spoke of Africa’s troubles: “That is the trouble in Africa today – too many ignorant people who do not know anything about history. And if they do know anything about it, they do not know how to interpret and apply it.”

The trouble persists and has morphed to a tragedy. Among many Africans, Zimbabweans are keenly excited about the political developments Malawi. They have become overnight analysts of the situation in Malawi.

The Malawi Congress Party (MCP) is heading for victory in the tiny and poor African state. The incoming leader will be welcomed into the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), a club of Revolutionary Movements. We are all privy of its modus operandi!

MCP’s Lazarus Chakwera’s contemporaries will be Angola’s Joao Lourenco of the MPLA, Mozambique’s Filipe Nyusi of FRELIMO, Namibia’s Hage Geingob of SWAPO, Tanazania’s John Magufuli of CCM, South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa of ANC and Zimbabwe’s Emmerson Mnangagwa who leads ZANU PF, among others. He will be among liberation movements, some that have failed to become political parties. We know how these parties are behaving currently in their respective countries.

      Putting things into context?

Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi, all former British colonies, were once ruled under the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland between 1953 and 1963. A year later, Zambia and Malawi were granted independence by the British, without going for war or firing any bullets using heavy artillery.

This explains why it has been easy for Zambia and Malawi to have smooth transfers of power. Successive administrations have been given mandates by the people since the beginning of multi-party democracy in Africa after the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991.

Zimbabwe’s experiences towards independence and liberation have been different to those of its federation sister nations. On April 28, 1966 the Second Chimurenga started in Chinhoyi. A protracted 14-year-armed struggle led to independence and liberation. It was liberty after years of blood, sweat and toil by Zimbabwe’s nationalists, while Malawi and Zambia were led by pan-Africanists.

There were differences between the administrations of a nationalist Zimbabwe and that of pan-Africanist Malawi and Zambia, itself a discussion for another day. The differences were however apparent in how governments of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda and Malawi’s Kamuzu Banda directed socio-economic policies and handled politics in their respective countries.

Mugabe led ZANU PF a liberation movement while Kaunda’s UNIP party and Banda Malawi Congress Party (MCP) were independence parties.

Now, in May 2019, Malawians voted in an election that was clearly mismanaged. Those declared to have lost took to the streets demanding electoral justice and petitioned the Constitutional Court. In that drama, the police shot at them but the army moved in to protect the losing or opposition protestors. When the matter was in the Constitutional Court, it was the army which provided security to judges who entertained the matter and overturned the election result.

Malawi became the second African nation to annul a presidential election over irregularities, after Kenya in 2017.

Tuesday’s presidential election run-off between Democratic Progressive Party’s Peter Mutharika and opposition leader Chakwera has been referenced by opposition leaders in Southern Africa as “a dawn of a modern era.”

Chakwera’s big achievement as MCP leader (Kamuzu Banda’s party) has been his rebranding of the party of independence, which was accused of rights violations and has been out of power since 1994.

Zimbabwe’s opposition leader Nelson Chamisa was among the first to congratulate Chakwera. “New life to Malawi! The Lord has given Malawi a godly man,” said Chamisa.

The case of Malawi is one in southern Africa that is coated with a veneer of modernity and left to cope with the complexities and confusions of the 21^st century. This case is a classic example that a year after the first round of elections, it is unarguable that western style multi-party democracy has had a dismal record in Africa.

Chakwera, who is now referred to as the president-elect, quit pastoral work in 2013 to join frontline politics saying, “it is time to heal about the past atrocities and have a new Malawi.”

It is important to note that in this drama of hope, voting in Malawi follows ethnic lines and the political landscape is fractured. Mutharika has already threatened to reject the election results if they are not in his favour. His followers have backed his threat. If not handled well, the country will be polarised, just like in Zimbabwe.

      A surprise that has nothing new

Chakwera is exposed to western style management and leadership. However, during his campaigns under the Tonse Alliance, his message centred on national development. He spoke boldly of his desire have a government that will “institute servant leadership that promotes national development and universal respect for the law and human rights.”

He was never divisive, nor did he say he will use mechanisms from western governments to govern and lead the country. He spoke of Malawi charting its course. He also promised to honour men and women who died in the struggle for Malawi’s independence.

Chakwera’s victory, is just an electoral victory in Malawi. It will not change the landscape and toxicity of Zimbabwe’s politics. It will not give new strategies to both the ruling and opposition parties in Zimbabwe. It is not symbolic to any other developments obtaining in Zimbabwe because the two countries have different histories.

While something different is happening in Malawi, it is imperative to note that Zimbabwe’s political difficulties are more deeply rooted than just bad leadership. To the opposition in Zimbabwe, Chakwera’s victory is a victory of democracy.

Bakili Muluzi of Malawi once said: “People cannot eat democracy. They cannot eat human rights. All these problems we see in Africa are because people are poor.”

To understand the political currents that are swirling in southern Africa, people have to go beyond the utterances of their leaders.

Zimbabwean’s should not fail to interpret and apply events in Malawi. No amount of victory will be done by contextualising the events in Malawi. While the political developments in Malawi offer hope, they have no salvation to what people are going through. 

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com