So, Malawi is in a crisis? Well, that’s the greatest joke I have heard in a long time. So far, I haven’t seen anything resembling a crisis that would invite the attention of the Southern Africa Development Community (Sadc), let alone that of the continental body, African Union (AU).
What has caused the so-called crisis? Does the Anti-Corruption Bureau dragging former president Bakili Muluzi to court to answer for his alleged financial misadventures in the decade gone constitute a crisis by anybody’s definition — Malawi’s, AU’s or anyone’s? A storm in a teacup aptly defines that.
For some of us, we take it as an opportunity for Muluzi to redeem his image if he is as innocent as he claims he is or an avenue for government to vindicate itself that Muluzi indeed diverted public funds into his account. That, unfortunately, is not and shouldn’t be a crisis.
We take it that it is the law that is being tested here.
So, where is the crisis that has unnerved the AU? Does the crack that has supposedly emerged in the working alliance between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Progressive People’s Movement (PPM) constitute the beginning of crisis, a national crisis at that, that would require anybody’s intervention?
Those two parties, as far as we can tell, have chosen to agree to disagree on parliamentary candidates and that is not a crisis by any shade.
Former South Africa president Thabo Mbeki was ousted in a palace coup and if the AU was looking for anything resembling a crisis, that was one but some of us were stunned by the loudness of AU’s silence.
Was it a tacit approval of the coup — which wouldn’t be surprising given the background of the AU, which has welcomed and encouraged quite a number of dictators who assumed their power through undemocratic means?
When South Africa’s African National Congress split acrimoniously recently, that was a crisis, but I suppose not the sort that they wouldn’t find a solution within their own country.
If the AU wanted to intervene in a real crisis, former Mozambican president Joacquim Chissano shouldn’t have been in Lilongwe bringing together MCP’s John Tembo, UDF’s Bakili Muluzi and President Bingu wa Mutharika. No!
There was one in Blantyre, in Manja — about 400 kilometres away — where the congregation of Zambezi Evangelical Church (Zec) decided to sort out their differences not in the manner prescribed by Jesus Christ. That was the crisis!
If the church resorts to pangas as the means by which they decide to settle matters, that is the crisis.
Our leaders will not desist from name-calling simply because the AU intervened. Name-calling, as we understand, goes with the territory and I wouldn’t be surprised if, hours after the so-called crisis talks, bad blood returns among the three. Now, that won’t be a crisis; it will be our politics as usual!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
I’ll (not) protect Muluzi
Why was it that I wasn’t surprised when John Tembo, Malawi Congress Party (MCP) leader and its presidential candidate in the May 19 polls, vowed to protect United Democratic Front (UDF) troubled chairman Bakili Muluzi from the courts should the MCP make it to the State House?
It is because it all began in Zambia — from which we seem to copy a handful of unpleasant ideas — when Levi Mwanawasa (may his soul rest in peace) was on to his immediate predecessor, Frederick Chiluba, for a raft of corruption cases, some of which the diminutive former leader is still answering in the courts, way after the death of the instigator, Mwanawasa.
But, Mwanawasa was a bad example, so implied a campaigning Bingu wa Mutharika, then a ‘two-minute’ man under the wings of Muluzi in 2004 in Dedza. Instead, Mutharika advocated for harmony between former and current presidents (something we seem not to be very good at) and he pledged to protect Muluzi from prosecution once elected.
Muluzi, unwisely in hindsight, spurned the offer, arguing he had nothing to hide, had committed no crime warranting protection from anyone. Without implying anything, Muluzi should be ruing his unkind reaction to the free offer.
Now Tembo makes the same vow and so far, perhaps wisely, Muluzi has resisted the temptation to decline that offer. With the way Mutharika’s administration has been on his case, Muluzi should have learnt his lesson.
But, then, Tembo’s statement, just like Mutharika’s before him, bears with it a bagful of assumptions, none of which makes for pleasant reading, at least for a voter who aspires for equality of all before the law.
While Mutharika was looking to Zambia for inspiration, as it were, in making that vow, Tembo’s statement assumes that Mutharika’s government is persecuting — and not prosecuting — Muluzi by the many court cases thrown his way.
But we all live under the assumption that our courts are independent from any political influence, hence we expect them to exercise due diligence by discharging him. In that scenario, Muluzi will not need protection from anybody — be it Mutharika, Tembo or even Amunandife Mkumba.
More worryingly, though, Tembo’s statement assumes that Muluzi is very guilty (for which crimes, we don’t know) but for the sake of a cheap vote, Tembo will be prepared to turn a blind eye to Muluzi’s transgressions. If that is the case, Tembo will make for a bad president, someone who has promised to interfere in domains certainly not his and celebrate with the guilty.
Again, people find themselves in the dock for a variety of reasons, some of which may be beyond the protection of someone as powerful as the president himself. For instance, is Tembo is insinuating that even as a citizen, if I decide to sue Muluzi (as Zain and Maulidi Garage have done), will Tembo come forward and block me from claiming what is rightly mine?
Or suppose Muluzi kills someone (and this is just a remote supposition) and all evidence suggests he’s guilty of murder and deserves a life sentence, will Tembo still shield him from the courts, when some people find themselves jailed for five years for nicking a bicycle?
No, JZU, we can understand your desperation to reach out to the reluctant UDF supporters in what should be your last gong, but absurd promises should not be part of the package.
If I were Muluzi, I would be very careful. The last time someone promised him something similarly, it turned out disastrously.
It is because it all began in Zambia — from which we seem to copy a handful of unpleasant ideas — when Levi Mwanawasa (may his soul rest in peace) was on to his immediate predecessor, Frederick Chiluba, for a raft of corruption cases, some of which the diminutive former leader is still answering in the courts, way after the death of the instigator, Mwanawasa.
But, Mwanawasa was a bad example, so implied a campaigning Bingu wa Mutharika, then a ‘two-minute’ man under the wings of Muluzi in 2004 in Dedza. Instead, Mutharika advocated for harmony between former and current presidents (something we seem not to be very good at) and he pledged to protect Muluzi from prosecution once elected.
Muluzi, unwisely in hindsight, spurned the offer, arguing he had nothing to hide, had committed no crime warranting protection from anyone. Without implying anything, Muluzi should be ruing his unkind reaction to the free offer.
Now Tembo makes the same vow and so far, perhaps wisely, Muluzi has resisted the temptation to decline that offer. With the way Mutharika’s administration has been on his case, Muluzi should have learnt his lesson.
But, then, Tembo’s statement, just like Mutharika’s before him, bears with it a bagful of assumptions, none of which makes for pleasant reading, at least for a voter who aspires for equality of all before the law.
While Mutharika was looking to Zambia for inspiration, as it were, in making that vow, Tembo’s statement assumes that Mutharika’s government is persecuting — and not prosecuting — Muluzi by the many court cases thrown his way.
But we all live under the assumption that our courts are independent from any political influence, hence we expect them to exercise due diligence by discharging him. In that scenario, Muluzi will not need protection from anybody — be it Mutharika, Tembo or even Amunandife Mkumba.
More worryingly, though, Tembo’s statement assumes that Muluzi is very guilty (for which crimes, we don’t know) but for the sake of a cheap vote, Tembo will be prepared to turn a blind eye to Muluzi’s transgressions. If that is the case, Tembo will make for a bad president, someone who has promised to interfere in domains certainly not his and celebrate with the guilty.
Again, people find themselves in the dock for a variety of reasons, some of which may be beyond the protection of someone as powerful as the president himself. For instance, is Tembo is insinuating that even as a citizen, if I decide to sue Muluzi (as Zain and Maulidi Garage have done), will Tembo come forward and block me from claiming what is rightly mine?
Or suppose Muluzi kills someone (and this is just a remote supposition) and all evidence suggests he’s guilty of murder and deserves a life sentence, will Tembo still shield him from the courts, when some people find themselves jailed for five years for nicking a bicycle?
No, JZU, we can understand your desperation to reach out to the reluctant UDF supporters in what should be your last gong, but absurd promises should not be part of the package.
If I were Muluzi, I would be very careful. The last time someone promised him something similarly, it turned out disastrously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)