Picking the Wrong Fight: Mutharika Misses the Point on Cuba

Malawi’s President Bingu wa Mutharika has drawn a considerable amount of criticism because of his "global trotting" at a time when his country is suffering from severe lack of foreign currency, which has caused massive fuel shortage in the country; a problem that has become perennial.

It is worth mentioning that Mutharika’s Africa Union (AU) leadership may have contributed to it. This is likely to remain a speculative thought, as Mutharika is unlikely to discuss or explain his trip, even though this is in the public interest.

Mutharika’s recent “global trotting” has taken him to Iran, the USA (attending UN summit), and Cuba. Apart from the summit, Iran and Cuba may yet raise few eyebrows in the Global North, particularly the USA as Mutharika denounced USA's long-standing sanctions against socialist Cuba. He made the denunciation as AU chairperson as he assured the Cubans that all African countries opposed the sanctions.

There is no problem with the choice of friends. Malawi is a sovereign state after all. It can befriend whomever it pleases. Interestingly, history indicates that Mutharika is only observing what is becoming a tradition by Malawi presidents. All his predecessors befriended ‘controversial regimes:’ Kamuzu Banda was the only African president to maintained diplomatic ties with South Africa’s apartheid regime. Bakili Muluzi befriended Libya's Colonel Gadaffi.

Mutharika will hope that his visit to Iran, an Islamic country, will scored him few political pints at home, as this will help dispel some murmurings that he is 'anti Islam'. It is his speech in Cuba that he must be questioned. While his call for the USA to lift sanctions on Cuba is plausible and somewhat brave, the Malawi leader simply picked a wrong fight – he cannot win and he has nothing to gain. He may disguise it under the African umbrella, but he cannot hide his Malawian presidentship.

It is quite startling that Mutharika chose to only see Cuba as a victim of USA’s unjust sanctions – which it is, but Mutharika should have paid more attention to what Cuba has achieved despite those sanctions. Cuba has done very well in the crucial sectors of education, health and social welfare. These are sectors that Malawi is seriously lacking in.

Cuba’s level of resources makes it a more realist role model for Malawi. Human rights issues aside; Cuban state provide all the essential needs for its people. The country has never used USA’s heavy sanctions and trade embargo as an excuse not to look after its people. Countries like Bolivia, Venezuela and Chile have adopted some of the Cuba's economic and social policies and they are doing very well economically. 

Mutharika’s policies have helped improve Malawi's agricultural sector and maternal mortality rate. Even though the recent Mo Ibrahim index shows that Malawi's economy has stagnated in the last three years, this is plausible and it deserves a mention. What also needs to be pointed out is the fact that a recent Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET) has indicated that over a million people are still food insecure. Equally disappointing is a recent report by Volunteers Services Overseas (VSO), which indicates that 'sixteen women die every day in Malawi in childbirth, or from related complications.' The report also estimates that 'there are now just two doctors and 26 nurses for every 100, 000 people'

These appalling statics are unheard of in Cuba, a country that Mutharika has decided to rescue and not to learn from. In fact, Cuba is among the three countries with best patient to doctor ratio in the world. World Health Organisation (WHO) figures show that Cuba has 530 doctors for every 100, 000 patients. Is this not a feat that Mutharika must aspire to achieve instead of picking unwinnable fight against the USA?


You can follow my tweets @jkainja

A Case for Malawi Political Parties to Declare Sources of Income

The August of 2010 has been a roller coaster in Malawi politics. The government has changed the national flag against the will of the people; the sacking of four prominent cabinet minister - one whom has died of heart attack, another is reported to be under investigation by the country's anti corruption body; there has been an assault on a female member of parliament in full view of the public - no one has been arrest for the assault; the president has given a ministerial post to his wife; the president has endorsed his brother to succeed him in 2014 and a church reverend who dared to speak against the government's unpopular policies has been arrested for “sedition".

How history will remember this, is a matter of speculation. Amidst this political melee, a significant event that could help explain this undemocratic politicking has happened: Malawi’s former ruling party, United Democratic Front (UDF) has had its headquarters in Malawi's commercial capital, Blantyre swept by sheriffs for unpaid debts. UDF's acting president, Friday Jumbe has since admitted that his party has no money and that it is currently struggling to raise funds for its convention to elect new leaders.

This is of course a familiar story in Malawi politics. It is always the party in power that finds money and resources for its activities. Prior to the 1994 general elections it was Malawi Congress Party (MCP), then in power that had all the resources it needed for its campaign. They gave away t-shirts, party cloth, bicycles and party flags. Now the MCP are in opposition cannot afford any of these things. It was the same case with UDF; they had everything they needed during their time in power. Suffice to say; today it is Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that has everything.

Is it a mere coincidence that political parties can only raise money only when in power only to go bankrupt once in opposition? If MCP and UDF could raise money whilst in power why do the same people fail to raise money once in opposition? Mutharika could hardly raise any money during 1999 elections when he contested for presidency under his United Party (AP), now disbanded, before he re-joined the then ruling UDF, which then sponsored his ascendance to presidency before he abandoned it again to form the DPP – now a ruling party.

It is this nature of democracy that get political parties complacent once in power. They know the opposition has no resources to compete. Malawi political parties and politicians alike thrive on giving handouts to the electorate. This ought to be stopped if Malawi democracy is to be of any benefit to the country and its people. Political parties must declare all their sources of in come. This must be a prerequisite to competing in any election. 

After his re-election victory in May 2009, President Mutharika pledged to reveal all the sources of funding for his campaign. 15 months on, Mutharika has not done so. And who is to ask him? It is not legally binding for him to declare it. The point here is that politicians are aware of this loophole and they are happy to exploit it. Mutharika benefitted from it when Bakili Muluzi handpicked him as his successor. Today Mutharika is delighted to do likewise:  he's chosen his brother, Peter to succeed him in 2014. 

It is time to make it an electoral condition and legally binding that all the contesting political parties must declare their sponsors and sources of income. This will not only enhance transparency and accountability, it will also help leveling the playing field for all contesting parties. It would minimise political tensions and stand offs when it comes to succession. Even better for the country, it would mean that more people would be elected on merit and not only because they belong to a ruling party. 

Malawi: Time to Realise that Elections can be Free but not Fair

Picture from George House Trust

 website

Malawi's opposition leader, John Tembo, has demanded that the country's President, Bingu wa Mutharika clarify the statement he recently made in Lusaka, Zambia, that it was the Zambian President, Rupiah Banda, who helped him to win Malawi's 19th May 2009 general elections in which Mutharika won with 66.1 percent of the national vote against Tembo's 30.6 percent. 

Despite Mutharika's landslide victory, Tembo has always maintained that the victory was aided by Mutharika's vote rigging; a claim, which Tembo says has an evidence for. Tembo launched a court battle to state his claims only days after the election but his case was dismissed by the high court because Tembo filed the case outside the constitutional 48 hours, within which any legal case against election results must be submitted. 

Given that it is not the first time in Malawi's 16 years of democracy that an opposition party has gone to court in protest against elections results, it is safe to say that it is unlikely that Tembo was going to win the case. However, it could have given Tembo an opportunity to exhibit the evidence he claims to possess. This could have been important for the country. Now Tembo has to settle for the role of the whingeing sore loser – a role that has become emblematic of opposition leaders in Africa where ruling parties rarely ever lose elections. 

I do not know the kind of evidence Tembo has, but he has a valid point: elections in Malawi are never fair. Plain-and-simple. Malawi's ever-present elections observers, including ARTICLE 19, European Union, Commonwealth, and EISA all have demonstrable evidence supporting this. For instance, in their reports for both the 2004 and 2009 elections they all agreed the election had been "free" but not "fair" due to the ruling party's abuse of public resources (especially the media) at the expense of the opposition parties. 

EISA’s 2009 elections observer team noticed "the unlevel playing field in terms of access to campaign finance and state media”. They made similar observation in 2004:

“The elections in Malawi were substantially free. The mission notes however that the playing field was not levelled, which made it difficult for opposition parties and candidates to have equitable access to public resources including the state media.” 

Commonwealth Observer Group, 2009, which was led by the former Ghana President John kufuor, also pointed out that "we are extremely concerned at the conduct of the state-owned media in its coverage of these elections," and accused it of bias towards Mutharika. In 2004 commonwealth said:

“Our three major concerns throughout our time in Malawi have been the incompetence of the commission’s handling of the voter registration process, the overwhelming pro-ruling party bias in the state media over the months prior to the election and the unfair and blatant exploitation by the ruling coalition of the advantages of their incumbency.”

This has been the case throughout Malawi's short democratic history. It is not a coincidence that it is only a ruling party that always has resources to buy and distribute party materials; t-shirts, party cloth, bicycles, etc... United Democratic Front (UDF), the first post-colonial party to rule Malawi had all these resources whilst in power. Mutharika left the party shortly after his 2004 elections victory, he formed his DPP whilst still President and now it is his ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that can afford to distribute party materials and not the UDF. 

In Malawi there is no difference between a state function and a political function. This means that a ruling party through its president and ministers use public resources to make political statements and score political points over opposition parties who are denied such opportunities.

It also means that the ruling party campaigns throughout the five-year period while the opposition cannot do the same due to the lack of resources. The opposition are only allowed minimal air time on the state broadcaster when the electoral commission officially opens the campaign period - three months before elections. There is no fair election where the playing field is uneven – a level playing field is one of the most important prerequisite for fair elections. Whenever elections are free of violence, elections in Malawi are generally free, everyone is happy to call them "free and fair." This is wrong. Elections can be free but not fair. This has been the case in Malawi. It is not until we recognise this difference that we can appreciate Tembo's grievances. 

Malawi: Chakumba's case undermine virtues of good governance

They say time is a healer, I fully agree. You may also wish to accept that old age can save you from persecution; well, especially if you are a former political prisoner, a former leader of opposition and a failed presidential aspirant like Gwanda Chakuamba Phiri in Malawi.

Chakuamba was recently found guilty of inciting violence by a Malawian court but the court cannot sentence him due to his old age, apparently. Mr Chakuamba is 78. I find the ruling very troubling and shambolic, to put it in lighter terms.

Does this ruling suggest all the prisoners currently behind bars are under 78 years of age? Fair enough, degrees of crime are considered in every judgement and that is traditionally reflected in the length of a sentence that one gets, but if someone can incite violence surely they are young enough to serve jail term of every capacity - house arrest, travel ban or prison. Will I not be arrested at 78 if I incite violence? I wish I had 50 years to add on current my age!

What is more puzzling, perhaps more significant about the whole thing is that one can be a president in Malawi at 81 years old, which is what the incumbent president, Bingu wa Mutharika will be in 2014 when his last term in office finishes. Here it gets more complex. Suppose Mutharika's successor(s) are suspicious of some wrong doing by him, will they not take legal action against him, just as Mutharika's administration is doing with his predecessor, Bakili Muluzi? If found guilty would Mutharika not be sentenced at 81?

Comical as this case may sound, it has some serious implications on good governance and the justice system in the country. Previously I have argued that good governance in Africa is undermined because public figures have too much immunities and protection. Chakuamba's case has nothing to do with his age but everything to do with who he is. Any ordinary citizen in his shoes could have been behind bars - without trial in many cases. Malawi and indeed, Africa will not improve if our leaders and public figures are not held accountable for their actions.

This case brings to mind Bakili Muluzi's well publicised medical treatment in the UK, which is being payed for by Malawi taxpayers. Muluzi ruled Malawi for 10 years and failed to improve health care system, taxpayers in the country are dying from curable diseases because public hospitals cannot afford medicine among other things yet their money is spent on an ex-leader to go abroad for his medical help? Where is the justice? I am not faulting Muluzi here, he is just benefiting from inefficient system that is in place.

How would our leaders improve health care system when they know taxpayers will fly them abroad for medical attention when when they are down? These people must be treated in our local hospitals, that will not only serve money, but it will bring justice to everyone, and perhaps improve services as well. If anyone wants treatment abroad let them pay for it.

Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, that is what the Republican Constitution preaches but on this evidence, some people are more important, even failed leaders!

Africa must do away with presidential immunities

The news of Fredrick Chiluba's acquittal came as surprise to many given that the former Zambian president had already been convicted of similar changes by a UK High Court in 2007. Luck enough for Chiluba, his UK conviction can not have him jailed in Zambia, as it is outside the country's boundaries.

As is the norm with court battles, many people would be suing for damages. Instead Chiluba has decided to fight for restoration of his immunity, as a former president. His immunity was revoked as a result of his conviction in the UK.

I find this a truly bizarre stance by the former president and his legal team. I am not a legal expert and I am not advocating that Chiluba seek damages either, but if he is an innocent person, as the Zambian High Court has found him, why is he fighting for his immunity?

In the last couple of months, or also, I have repeatedly said that presidential immunities undermine transparency and good governance in Africa, and indeed elsewhere. Apart from the high price that tax payers have to pay in legal fees, immunities are also incentive for these leaders to cling on to power or handpick the leaders that they think will protect them.

This is exactly what Chiluba and his Malawian counterpart, Bakili Muluzi did. They both failed their unconstitutional third term bids then forced successors on the people, late Levy Manawasa and Bingu wa Mutharika, respectively.

Today Malawi's online news site, Nyasatimes and Afrik.com are reporting that Chiluba's acquittal gives Muluzi hope of winning his on going corruption case where he is accused of diverting government funds into his personal accounts.

There is a tell in Africa: when elephants fight it is the grass that gets trampled, while these leaders are spending their retired years in courts, the poor people are dying in prisons without trial; the poor tax payers are meeting these legal costs that could be avoided simple by abolishing the stupid and unnecessary presidential immunities.

Now in my loved country, Malawi, ex-leaders won't even be paying tax for their 'personal' imports. Yet another incentive for our greedy leaders to cling on to power. With immunities in place we can all forget the rhetoric of good governance, transparency and whatever good democracy entails.

Malawi revenue body is having a laugh

About a fortnight ago I posted a blog article arguing that immunities offered to politicians, presidents in particular, undermines good governance in Africa. I stated two main reasons: the first one was that it encourages corruption at the top, as officials know they cannot be persecuted. The second reason is that it promotes political tension, as presidents sought to cling on to power in order to maintain the immunity. If this fails, the presidents imposes leaders on the people.

I gave the examples of Bakili Muluzi in Malawi, Fredrick Chiluba in Zambia and Daniel arap Moi in Kenya. Both Muluzi and Chiluba failed to run for unconstitutional third terms in their respective countries and later on forced their preferred candidates on the people; Bingu wa Mutharika and the late Levy Mwanawasa (RIP).

These are historical lessons that must be heeded in order to improve the way things are set and to avoid repeating the same mistakes again. Unfortunately this is not the case, at least in my loved, Malawi.

According to the Daily Times report, the country's revenue body, Malawi Revenue Authority (MRA) has announced that with effect from 3rd July 2009, incumbent president, his deputy, all the retired presidents and their deputies will be tax exempted on things that are for 'personal use'.

I detest this provision. Knowing the greed and self-centeredness of African leaders, this provision will only bring controversies and corruption. What constitutes to 'personal use'? would Muluzi's 100 vehicles he imported in 2004 fall in this category?

Sure, the vehicles were used by Muluzi's Party, United Democratic Front (UDF), but does the provision stop someone from sharing their 'personal' stuff? In Africa we leave communal life, more or less. We share 'personal' things like cooking utensils, bicycles, etc... Will these imported things, which are meant for 'personal use' not be available for share? What if ex-president buys a car, a shirt, or a boxer-short, uses it for a year and then feels that they have had enough of it; will they be allowed to give it to their uncles, unties, nieces, nephews or their village chief?

Who will be policing the maneuvers of the 'personal use' items? Maybe that will be the only positive thing about the whole thing, as that would get someone employed?

In all fairness to all those who will benefit from this provision, I think this is just another reason why ex-presidents will be spending more time in courts trying to clarify how they interpreted the 'personal use' of their property. It is a shame that suspects spend years in Malawi's jails without trial when our policy makers are happy to introduce more and more legislation that will surely get the courts congested even more.

Rule of Law is the only prerequisite for good governance

After the G8 summit that was dominated by Silvio Berlusconi's scandals than demonstrations, the world's most popular leader, Barak Obama headed to Ghana for a snap visit. The speculation was that the choice of Ghana was due to its 'good democratic record', even though Botswana can match that. Nonetheless, Ghana is more visible on the world map and has larger presence on the global scale.

Given the reasoning behind Obama's choice of Ghana, one would easily predict that the theme of the visit would rally around democracy, good governance, development, aid, civil war etc... all the four topics sprung up, civil war did not, Mr Obama preferred to use the softer word: conflict.

However, I believe good governance is the key if any of the issues that Obama highlighted are to be achieved. The primary prerequisites of democracy are separation of powers, executive, legislature and judiciary. For checks and balance, we may include the media, which is free of corporate interest, free of state interest and manipulation, the media that is there solely to serve the interest of the nation. Such media holds the three branches accountable while also acting as a connective tissue between the electorate and the elected.

These are basic prerequisites of every functioning democracy. However, the mere existence of these structures do not guarantee good governance. Good governance can only work where public office holders are not immune to scrutiny and persecution. This is where Mr. Obama's words and plea for good governance will not deliver. Mr. Obama has acted like a farmer who sow his fertile seeds on hard ground, if the seeds germinate they won't bear any fruits because the roots will be two shallow to support it.

Just as many nations around the globe, rich and poor, great and small, a huge majority of African states have rule of law that fosters bad governance and not otherwise. According to ARTICLE 19's press release of 13th July 2009, its survey on decriminalisation of defamation laws has shown that of the 168 countries it surveyed, 158 have criminal defamation laws and 113 countries have laws offering special protection to the most powerful and privileged figures in public life.

"These laws shield public figures from criticism, public scrutiny and investigation by virtue of the power they hold, thereby eating at the very heart of global efforts to promote good governance and combat corruption."

Not only does such laws encourage corruption they also offer incentive to incumbent presidents to cling on to power or try to hand pick a successor that will not persecute them. The best example is Bakili Muluzi of Malawi, who unsuccessfully tried to change the Constitution to stay in power and later hand picked a successor when he had ran out of options. Fredrick Chiluba of Zambia, had the same case. Today Muluzi is under investigation by Malawi's anti-graft body and Chiluba is in the dock answering corruption charges. Daniel arap Moi of Kenya and most recently Olusegun Obasanjo in Nigeria all hand picked successors who failed in the subsequent elections.

Until these constitutional issues are dealt with, once and for all, good governance in Africa and, indeed elsewhere, will remain but a fretting illusion to be pursued but never attained.

To all the unsung heroes of Malawi

Malawi has been celebrating her Independence for 45 years, having emerged from British colonial rule in 1964. What has Malawi got to show for that independence? Is the question that has been circulating on social networking sites, mostly on tweeter and facebook. I do not have an answer for the question but I think it depends on what one considers independence to be.

Nonetheless, every struggle has its winners and losers, heroes and villains. The supposed heroes of Malawi independence were decorated at the independence celebration ceremony at Kamuzu Stadium on 6th June 2009, which is the independence day.

As is usually the case with these issues, I am sure the list of those honoured cannot be agreed across all the political spectrum. And, it has to be said that there has been some controversial choices.

For instance Cecilia Kadzamira, ex-official hostess of the former president Kamuzu Banda walked away with an award but not Justice Anastasia Msosa who has presided over Malawi's two of the most successful general elections (1994 and 2009). Former vice president Justin Malawezi got a gong but not the man he deputised, the first president of democratic era, Bikili Muluzi. Long at last, Chakufwa Chihana got a posthumous recognition he deserves for his bravery in his fight for democracy, but there was none for John Chilembwe. One of the first Africans to stand up against colonial oppression. The man whose face is a Malawi currency bearer. How unfitting could this be?

These anomalies could perhaps be understood in the context of a speech that the former leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro made at University of Venezuela, Caracas in February 1999. The speech was entitled: "Imperialist Globalisation" and it was given at the request of his pal, the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. Castro is well known for his long speeches, and this one was not exception. It was a historical lesson for those who were privileged enough to be in attendance.

Castro discussed a number issues relating to the speech title but also the Cuban Revolution that he successfully led from 1952 to 1958. One of the main points he made in relation to the revolution is that achievements in our lives are, to a great extent, influenced by time and space. Historical occurrences play a big part in what one can do and cannot, which is the main byproduct of success and failure. Castro'S revolution succeeded not only because Castro was the best revolutionary ever lived, but also because he had the backing of the people of Cuba who had grown tired of Fulgencio Batista's regime. Yet Cuban people hardly get a mention for the role they played in the revolution.

Malawi has similar case here, Mutharika has so far done very well, as a president. The economy is healthy and stable and his good agricultural policies have improved food sufficiency in the country. Yet these things could as well be attributed to Muluzi's failure. Muluzi did very little for the country, therefore Mutharika could only improve things. Similarly, Chilembwe is undoubtedly the first hero of the Malawi nation but he has little to show for his patriotism and bravery. This is only because Chilembwe was way ahead of his time, not many Malawians at that time were ready to fight for what was theirs. Now, contrast contrast Chilembwe with Chihana.

The fact that Chihana's cause was a success does not mean he was any better than Chilembwe, but the people of Malawi had grown tired of Kamuzu's regime and they were ready to support his cause. People's attitude made the difference. We must also remember that international aid to Malawi had been frozen on condition that Kamuzu improve his political and social policies. All these factors were too much for Kamuzu to ignore. He had to do something about it, that's when he called for a referendum that took place on 14 June 1993, for Malawian to decide whether they wanted to continue with one party rule or if they wanted multiparty democracy. This is where the real hero of Malawi emerged: the people of Malawi. The unsung hero of our freedom and independence.

I would be ungracious of me if I fail to congratulate those who got the awards: congratulations! For those who feel grieved for losing out: don't worry trails of history will absolve you. On my part, Malawians are my heroes, true heroes of our freedom and democracy. And, I truly believe Aleke Banda is the best president Malawi never had.

Give us the Cabinet Please Mr. President

Malawi has had the most interesting 3 weeks in recent history: peaceful elections; female vice president; some established political heavy weights have fallen; some have retired; national economy continues to progress, good maize harvest has been project; and perhaps the most important, the state president, Bingu wa Mutharika has mapped out his plan for the next five years: 'development'.

Mutharika has told Malawians and everyone interested that he is ready to work with literary everyone for the benefit of the country, which can only be a good thing, especially that all the opposition leaders but John Tembo have predged to support Mutharika and his government. The prospects are even more interesting considering that Mutharika has achieved the recent economic success despite the hostile opposition that he endured in his first five years coupled with the tragic loss of his wife - RIP.

Nonetheless, Mutharika has stressed that reconciliation does not tantamount to amnesty, those who have found themselves on the wrong side of the law will have to face justice, regardless of their political positions and status.

It would appear that the politics of uncertainties and secrecy is fast fading in Malawi, as Mutharika announced couple of weeks ago that his Party will disclose the names of the people who helped the party with election campaign materials even though the degree of the disclosure is not known.

However, Mutharika has been mum on one issue and it appears that everyone has overlooked it: the cabinet. It is exactly 18 days since Mutharika was sworn in for his second term and yet there is no cabinet in sight. I wonder if this is just one way of admitting that it is Principal Secretaries who do the real job at the ministries? Otherwise who is running it?

I know Mutharika will have headache picking the cabinet, the elections have claimed some major casualties, but this need not be a problem, after all Mutharika has already broken most of the political traditions in Malawi. He does not need MPs to become cabinet ministers as has largely been the case in Malawi's young democracy. The best example is Aleke Banda who was a successful senior minister in Muluzi's adminstration even though he was not a parliamentarian.

I am anxiously waiting, and so is Mr. Nicholas Dausi, I think, and if Dausi makes it as a minister that would mean all journalists in Malawi will have to visit Dzuka or Maneno Bookshops to buy Advanced English Dictionary. The man has some vocabulary

John Tembo Must Ebrace the Realities of Democracy

John Tembo’s refusal to accept the outcome of the 19th May presidential election has more to do with his past rather than him being a bad loser. This is a man who perhaps dreamed of being president of Malawi long before Bakili Muluzi and Bingu wa Munthariks entertained such ambition. He was Kamuzu Banda’s baby boy. He could do no wrong.

That dream might yet come true one day, but it has to be said that Mr Tembo will be 82 years old when he will get another chance to have a go at it. Kumuzu contested when he was well in his 90’s and I do not think age would deter Tembo either, he is a pride man. However, I think his party, Malawi Congress Party (MCP) will, and rightly so. If MCP is to survive they need a change in leadership, perhaps with the likes of Tembo and Louis Chimango on advisory role.

This is the challenge that Tembo is facing; and there are interesting days ahead, especially with cracks that have already started to appear within MCP. For instance, after the elections Mr Tembo called a press conference at his residence in Lilongwe where he told the gathered members of the media that he was not going to accept the outcome of the elections. Tembo’s argument was that it was impossible for Mutharika to win even in the districts that for a long time have been MCP’s strongholds. Thus, Tembo argued that the elections had been rigged.

The following day however, MCP’s spokesperson, Ishmael Chafukira told a local radio that his party had accepted the outcome of the elections and that that MCP had been beaten “hands down.” Chafukira assured Malawians that his party would support Mutharika and his administration. Chafukira went on to observe that people had enough of the “tired leadership” of MCP and called for a change of leadership in the party.

On the face of it, I think Tembo mis-judged the public mood by refusing to accept the elections results; he perhaps thought his supporters would take to the streets in protest. It turned out that his supporters understood the situation better than him. In fact, the only other people to have protested are Loveness Gondwe (a presidential candidate) and Tembo’s running mate, Brown Mpinganjira. Both failed to win even parliamentary seats in their own home districts. Roughly, there are three factors that Mr Tembo should have taken into considerations before jumping into conclusions based on rather bizarre conspiracy theory of rgging.

First, it is pretty easy for anyone to understand Mutharika’s victory given the number of parliamentary seats that his party has won. At the time of election results announcement, Mutharika’s party had a total of 91 seats against MCP’s 25, Tembo's running-mate, Mpinganjira failed to win even a parliamentary seat; and with such catastrophic record, it is rather difficult to see how Tembo and Mpinganjira would have been expecting to win the national vote.

Secondly, it is pointless for Mr Tembo to cling on to the past voting patterns as it is clear that this time the people of Malawi purely voted on merit and not reputations, regions, ethnicity, religions, and so on. Mr Tembo know just as well as everyone that this is the first time that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) were contesting in a national election therefore it is illogical to assume that the party had won seats in the regions that were strongholds of other parties. Indeed Mr Tembo would testify that for the first time Mangochi and Machinga voted for him.

The third indicator that Mr Tembo should have taken into account is the number of independent parliamentarians that have succeeded, many of which are first timers. Indeed, most of these new comers have succeeded at the expense of more established and experienced politicians such as George Ntafu, Heatherwick Ntaba, Gwanda Chakuamba, Loveness Gondwe, Louis Chimango, Friday Jumbe, Brown Mpinganjira, etc. These are factors that every interested individual, including the MCP itself, has noticed and yet Mr Tembo has decided to ignore it.

I think Tembo’s main problem is that he is a spoiled man. For a better part of his career he never had to earn anything, everything was given and granted to him by Kamuzu. Out of a sudden the corner has turned and Tembo has found himself in a political system where positions of power have to be earned. One cannot question Tembo’s experience at the top level, he served as a governor of the Reserve Bank of Malawi for 13 years and he was, at some point, a chairman of more than five corporations. Yet all these positions were appointed, he never had to compete with anyone for it.

One would point out that Tembo has won parliamentary seats every time he has contested; this is true. What is also true however is that in his home district of Dedza, he has never really faced any opposition worthy pointing at. People vote for him regardless, that is why he is a frustrated man at the national level. He expected the same elsewhere.

If Tembo is the man he thinks he is, he must show that by organising his own MCP and find new leaders within. He could not find a running mate within the party this time and that is why he resorted to Mpinganjira, an outsider. Did this alienated MCP supporters to vote for the independents? It is hard to say; but Mr Tembo must stop living in the past and embrace the present, Malawi is a democracy and positions have to be earned. Gone are the days when positions were granted on reputation alone; people are craving for action and they will push for it the only way they know how: voting.