SERVING OWN BUTTER

By Pacharo Felix Munthali
Echoes of euphoria that gripped the nation in 1994 are still fresh. They were heard as the answers to numerous chains of oppression that the country had experienced during the one party era. Everyone thought time was ripe, when freedom would surely illuminate people's way of life.
In the country where no constitution was of concern in one party era, the concept of constitutionalism instantly reared a new face. Everybody will abide by the rule of law. From Nsanje to Chitipa, Mchinji to Salima, Malawians were told that their voices would be heard. They voices would be an important ingredient in the running of the government.
About fourteen years down the road, more questions than answers that people had expected to be answered are still lingering in numerous people's minds. Are Malawians truly the captains of this democracy? Are their having the legal muscle that can help them run the nation?
As Gerald Chigona observes in his Pitfalls of Democracy, "the wholesale and uncritical acceptance of democracy as a conditio qua non for human advancement is proving to be a nightmare, probably, a mitigated political disaster," with each passing year this is becoming true.
Once Kamuzu Banda said that, "you can't have everybody deciding what to do," in the running of the country. Coming from a tradition where the leaders such as a chief and a group of few have much to say, nobody, when accepting democracy had an idea on how it was like. How will it be like? Up to date many still disagree on the definition of democracy. Others say it is a rule by the electorates, yet others are looking at it as the rule by the few over others.
Two of the basic tenets of democracy are the acceptance of the right of the people to rule and letting the rule of law prevail. But is Malawi practicing the same? Is the repealing of the recall provision, which is section 64 that gave the powers to the ordinary folks to remove their member of parliament if he is not performing or conducting himself the way he is supposed to be, justified as they did?
Like the majority of a colossal of African countries, the coming of political pluralism brought to light tribal and regional stratification. The politicians for their own gains used the divide and rule theory in encouraging tribalism and regionalism for their personal gains. It is only recently that some areas have been liberated, where they no longer choose the candidate based on where he or she is coming from.
Taking advantage of the illiterate masses, the politicians are using that as a point to achieve their ends. The masses are not well informed. There are many issues they need to be informed. This has a risk. The majorities who are not well informed are involved in decision-making. They are there to be manipulated. They are there to be used by politicians to serve their own wishes.
Dr Bakili Muluzi offers himself a very good individual who has rare gut that he can employ to perplex the ordinary folks, before stage-managing them to tag along his views. The mere look at one of his numerous arguments, where he says that during his rule sugar was less than K50 but now it is more than K100, it makes sense to a village folk – especially the one with no basic knowledge of economics. But do the village folk has knowledge of soaring prices of petroleum products, loss of strength of kwacha or dollar? To the village folk, all these jargons are nonsense. Dr Muluzi may know or otherwise, but being a crafty politician, he identifies the niche and uses it – perhaps to serve his ego.
Further, since democracy is a form of rule where the views of the majority government, irrespective of constitutionality, are followed, it is bound to rape the constitution inside out. The parliament as long as it gives a majority representation to the government, it is high likely that the parliament in such instances can rubberstamp anything emanating from the high office.
The UDF- led government before 2004 upon having the majority repealed the section 64 from the Constitution. This meant the MPs were not to be answerable to the electorates. From 2001 using the advantageous numeric presence in parliament, the ruling party then, thought of bringing up the open third bill which was brought to its kneels by a few votes. That is why democracy, says Aristotle, "is a corruption of constitution." Very recently some quarters on the DPP side were calling for wiping out of section 65; some of them say it is in conflict with freedom of association. Who should be believed? Whoever the winner, all these political embarrassments to the country's constitution are there to serve the interest of someone, not the people.
The DPP government has more than once made public its displeasure with section 65. It has spoken on the need to wipe out the provision from the constitution. But analysts believe DPP is just afraid that if the injunctions were lifted. If the speaker used the powers invested in him, DPP will be one of the biggest losers as it will remain with at least five MPs. With not much MPs, the DPP government had no option but use all it can to hook MPs from other parties as a way of achieving its agenda in parliament. The opposition, aiming also at achieving their own interests, with the majority presence, it is feared that if section 65 was applied the President could as well be shown the exit go. The opposition on numerous occasions has made it crystal clear that all they want is to remove Bingu.
Democracy seems to be there as a game of confusion. It is there to help handful individuals to achieve their goals. Frederick Engels says, "Democracy is as I take all forms of government to be, a contradiction itself, untruth, nothing but hypocrisy at the bottom." The very concept of bwana referring to the president whenever addressing him, lucidly implies a lot. The president is more powerful. The democracy that people got in 1994 is a non-starter – never will it be. The people with poverty are becoming more voiceless than 1994. They have been abridged to mere puppet of politicians, who are manipulating them for their own gains. Yet, democracy theoretically is said to be government of people to people for the people and by the people, which people? The few?
Democracy is said to frequently rest upon compromise. But are the country's politicians practicing that? More than once they are aiming political mudslinging and daggers at each other. As Professor Robert Dahl sees it "democracy theory is itself full of compromises – compromises of clashing and antagonistic principles." No compromise is traceable in Malawi. Since two or three years ago the DPP government has used all sorts of tactics to pass the bills in parliament at the expense of section 65. The battle-hardened opposition, out of frustrations for not having the section applied is doing all it can to frustrate the government. Who is the loser? All have their own interests.
As the echoes of political quagmire and fallacies of the grown ups still make jingles in the air and Malawian's minds, for the pain that democracy has brought with 2009 elections approaching soul-searching is everybody's responsibility. Has democracy brought what the country wanted or not? Who are the politicians serving? Is government justifying by launching scathing public outbursts aimed at the opposition, yet they expect them to collaborate in serving the public? Who is serving who?