The last Parliament sitting passed more laws than any other sitting in Malawi’s democratic history. The Malawi government justified it by stating that there were a number of laws, the Penal code in particular, that needed reviewing. This is indeed necessary, as Malawi has changed a lot since the Penal code was first drafted in the late 1960s; and I believe the Penal code could adapt more.
Despite the fact that social and economical changes can be observed, it is necessary that studies and research be done in order to substantiate such changes. It is the findings of such studies that must then inform the necessary steps to be taken - changing laws, policies etc. This is what is known as evidence-based policy.
Mo Ibrahim recently bemoaned the lack of statistics in many African countries; and according to him, Malawi is one of these countries. Nonetheless, Malawi has the National Statistics Office (NSO) and Malawi conducts population and housing census every ten years. Therefore, I feel this is an indication that Malawi is aware of the importance of statistics in the running of government and policy formulation.
However, the recent rejection of the bill to allow children to marry at the age of sixteen, with the consent of their parents is an indication that policy makers in Malawi do not engage statistics in policy making. As a Malawian with a very good social knowledge of my country, I can understand the outrage towards the bill.
Malawians are supposed to be “God fearing people” who are against anything “immoral”. This indicates the huge conservatism in the country, but in the presence of hard evidence the policy makers must not shy away from the “inconvenient truth”. It is such act that will help the nation grow and perhaps liberate many from all forms of societal ills.
For instance, available statistics (both national and international) indicates that infant mortality has improved in Malawi while life expectancy has not; life expectancy remains at 49 for women and 51 for men. In fact, according to United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Malawi is one of the nine sub-Saharan countries (sub-Sahara has 49 countries) that will have the life expectancy of its people dropping by 20 years begging in 2010.
Thus, from 2010 life expectance in Malawi will be around 39 years for women and 41 for men. With the lowered infant mortality levels, this suggests that Malawi is going have a very young population; and policies to reflect these changes have to be implemented today. It’s those who adapt that survive; and to adapt one needs to have foresight.
According to Allafrica’s report, the marriage bill, known as “sweet sixteen bill” to many Malawians, was introduced as an improvement to the current legislation, which apparently pegs marriage age at 15 with consent of parents. The parliament initially passed the bill but the state president, Bingu Wa Mutharika, refused to sign it.
Knowing President Mutharika's arrogance, which has really worked for him so far; I cannot speculate that president Mutharika gave in to the huge protest from local NGOs and faith groups. However, given the statistics, I strongly believe the bill was necessary and president Mutharika should have signed it. This legislation would have done Malawi more good than harm – in the long term.
Nevertheless, given that the policy makers could not argue their case successfully, I do not suppose they knew why they proposed for the bill in the first place other than the flimsy argument that 16 years was an improvement from 15 years. Now here was the argument: if 16 years was an improvement from 15 years, then why not 17, 18, 19 or 20 years?
If this brilliant piece legislation (in my reckoning) was to be evidence-based, the policy makers could have argued that this was the reason why 16 years was an appropriate age:
Suppose one gets married at 16 and has a child, two or three before the age of 30; the statistics shows that at the current life expectancy rate, the parent(s) would have another 15 to 20 years to look after their children. This would inevitably ease the current burden of orphans fending for themselves because the children would be a bit older and more capable to handle the situation.
Now based on the UNDPs above statistics, (life expectance to drop by 20 years) these parents would have only 5 to 10 years to look after their children. Here one do not need to be a genius to see that the children will have no one to cater for them, as they are not old enough to look after themselves; the country would be clattered with hopeless and helpless orphans. This would be catastrophic!
Policy makers must forget and ignore the need to be popular with traditionalists and moralists. Instead, policy makers must stick to helpful indicators of human development. I should think this is why Malawi has National Statistics Office in the first place. History has taught us that only those who dared to differ are the ones that have made positive changes: Galileo Galilei, Martin Luther (the protestant) Socrates, Mahatma Gandhi… etc
This is my theoretical interpretation of the status quo and there is a possibility that I am wrong. I would love it if someone can prove me wrong.