A nation in ‘crisis’?
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!
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!
Comments