OF VENDORS AND FLEA MARKET

By Pacharo Felix Munthali

It is an undisputable fact that the many times of life that the vendors clung to the streets, without any epitome nor lavish expression, made our once modest cities and, of course, our only municipality unhygienic to the degree that you could hardly walk more than 200 metres before you got entangled in a terrible malodorous.

The few toilets that are there are impaired to the extent that going into these toilets means ‘constructively’ putting your life at risk. As a remedy, after being architects of their own fate, the vendors and helpless citizens resorted to urinating on the walls of most buildings in our cities as if they were urinary drains.

Also, the ugly face that the benches brought to our cities cannot entirely be overemphasized either, hence the government needs to be pated on the back for the job well done. For removing hundreds upon fifties of vendors, which involved armed soldiers with millions of Kwachas being blown in the process, who can resist the temptations of joining the government on the dancing floor in jubilation?

Furthermore, the introduction of identity cards will surely help to discard the multitudinous population of illegal immigrants, who in the name of vendors are making a more decent living than their local counterparts.

Much as government is commended on the job not goofed, by successfully flashing out the vendors, I, for one, feels the whole episode of problems and expenses that were order of the day in our press before 15th April, 2006 could have been prevented long time back. Honestly speaking, until 15th April the question that kept on tommernting my brain had been: “who owns the flea markets?” I don’t mean that it was good to have the vendors on the streets nor that their should not occupy the flea markets, but the process that was involved in building the markets.

Unscrewing the whole mayhem blow by blow, from the word go, the whole issue, to some extent, was mauled by lack of thorough consultation between the vendors, on one hand, and the government on the other. Although we understand that it is the duty of the City Assemblies to ensure that our cities have better amenities, which in this context are flea markets, I feel the vendors being the direct beneficiaries were supposed to be in one way or the other.

It is a no longer a secret that every time government said they consulted the vendors, the latter would accused the government for giving false information in media. Gerald Chimutu, one of the vendors who went to Zimbabwe to learn from their counterparts, lamented in the Weekend Nation of 15-16 July, 2000 that the-then responsible minister told the press that construction of the markets was underway whilst the beneficiaries (vendors) were ignorant of the take off. Mind you, this was project planning period, yet disagreements had already overshadowed the whole process. Also, in the Daily times of 10th February 2006, Grant Phiri, chairman of Lilongwe vendors complained that the city Assemblies did not understand their problems at the same time, he said the problems were not forwarded to the right authorities. This translates that there was lack of direct communication between the beneficiaries (the vendors) and officials of Assemblies responsible.

These lamentations by the vendors cannot arise from the blues, hence sum up the depth of lack of consultation on the part of the government in as far as establishing of flea markets was concerned.

Whether it was negligence on part of planners or not it is not the bone of my contention in this article. Rather, the bottom line is that the assemblies forgot that issues of development that involve the whole range of people with different levels of thinking, reasoning, perception to the problems at hand are very sensitive.

As already stated, the whole higgledy-piggledy which was there before 18th April was preventable had it been that the vendors were involved from the beginning.

Sad to say, the vendors’ perception of their problems and their perceived solutions were either overlooked or intentionally neglected from the start. Even if there was any consultation, I feel it was a kind of Top-Down approach where the government just imposed solution on the vendor’s problem .As a result, it is not surprising that these magnificent markets, sooner than later, would have transmuted into national monuments. Why? This would have been like that as the vendors tried to ignore government’ directives since their perception of the problem was considered not worthy.

Back to issue of involving the vendors. This involvement would have empowered the vendors to share their opinions and identify their needs and problems, both among themselves and the city assemblies. Consequently, this would have enabled the vendors to have influence in decision-making, resulting in establishing of a general consensus between the vendors and the government. In the same regard, once both parties (the vendors and government) made a joint decision on the flea markets, it is unquestionable that such decision would have resulted into a more effective and readily acceptable solution.

The participation of the vendors in the project planning and implementation would have instilled the spirit of ownership, since the solution suggested would have been seen as more as more relevant to their needs.

In the same vein, the current issue of inadequate space would have been easily dealt with as the vendors would feel the ownership of the market. Unlike the current wrangles between the vendors and the government, where the latter was forcing the former to get into the market, which forced the press Trust to bring to halt the project. But if the participatory approach was used, it would have attracted more donors so as to the market being enlarged to accommodate the growing number of the vendors.

Last but not least, even though the vendors have been reallocated to their respective designated places there is still room for consultations. The government should call for constant meetings with the vendors. These strings of meetings might centre on issues like sanitation, security, inadequate space as well as other simmering issues that the vendors deem as problems.

Finally, the government through its assemblies should be aware that much as we are under the rule where people’s inputs are highly appreciated, the same tradition should follow suit in development projects where direct beneficiaries should be heard. In other words, people must be involved in their development projects if the realization of development for people not on people is to materialize.