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 Food Security

First, Malawi's president, Bingu wa Mutharika, who also heads the country's agricultural Ministry, reacted to the Famine Early Warning Network's (FEWS) warning that some districts in southern region will be affected by drought. President Mutharika has ensured his people that the country will produce enough food adding: “We may even produce a surplus, but lower than what we produced in the past three years."

Earlier this year the president assured his people that his government had set aside 215,000 tonnes of maize from last season’s surplus to mitigate hunger that may result from the inadequate rains.

On the other hand, his Ministry (agriculture) has come up with an unusual strategy of banning the traditional selling of green corn by all Malawians, as one way of ensuring food security at both national and household levels. Under normal circumstances, Malawians are allowed to trade green corn until such a time when all the corn in the fields has matured. The trade is then stopped in order to protect farmers from thieves that sell corn from other people's gardens.

This move is a clear indication that President Mutharika is very worried about the food situation despite his words of assurance. Barring this, most people would justifiably be compelled to go with Mutharika's assurance, given his record. Agriculture has been the strongest achievement of Mutharika's presidency so far, having registered the average of 3.1 million metric tonnes of maize surplus in the last three harvesting seasons.

All this is good for Malawi but everyone is missing the point: the main issue with food security in Malawi is its tragic policies, if there are any. Malawi is a very poor country, and people starve even when the country has surplus food. In September 2009 the World Food Programme (WFP) made an international appeal for 5.2 million US dollars to help feed more than half a million Malawians until the end of 2010.

"We are seeking donor support to meet the 5.2 million US dollars shortfall to enable WFP provide the food needs of the targeted beneficiaries up to December 2010... despite a bumper maize yield of 3.3 million tonnes, this national surplus does not automatically and directly trickle down to vulnerable groups such the chronically-ill and orphans", said WFP’s country director, Anne Callanan.

This is the area president Mutharika and his administration must address. Last year Malawi reportedly sold maize to Zimbabwe and Kenya, and according to the president, the country managed to put aside 215 000 tones of maize for emergency. Yet WFP was busy begging money from the international community so it can feed Malawi's "vulnerable" groups, which consists of nearly half (45 percent) of Malawi's 13 million people.

This case clearly shows that the question of how much corn Malawi will have this harvesting season is not all that relevant given that nearly half of the population - the "vulnerable" groups - will starve regardless. To address the situation Malawi could do very well to address the following areas as identified by FEWS:

First, the government must find answers as to why some areas that are considered food secure still show high rates of chronic malnutrition. Second, the country must address the inadequacy of appropriate skills and technologies for food preparation, preservation, and storage, which lead to high food losses in terms of both quantity and quality.

Also, food taboos resulting from cultural and religious beliefs limit consumption and/or use of certain foods, hence reducing food diversity at the household level.

FEWS also recommends that the Malawi government must ensure that traders in food commodities are equipped with information on market dynamics in order to make better decisions in terms of where they can trade in a particular year. Finally, FEWS points out that the government must be in control of food prices, especially in times of scarcity because traders sometimes take advantage of the situation and worsen the problem by pricing food commodities too high for the rural poor, who have little or no purchasing power.

If the government of Malawi is really serious about improving the food situation, then these are the areas that must be looked into very seriously. Going around discussing food surpluses and droughts is good; it shows that the government cares but it will not curb the situation.

Africa: Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse

In the book "Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places", there is a passage where its author, Paul Collier argues that one of the differences between African and Western [referring to western Europe and North America] leaders is that Western leaders always try to smile in their public appearances, which is not always the case with their African counterparts.

Collier is not implying that African leaders are nastier or more grumpier than the westerners, rather, he is trying to emphasize the fact that western leaders acknowledge their people as masters who gets them into the positions of power, hence a smile, even a fake one, can certainly help them in retaining or winning the elector's favour. In Africa elected leaders are still treated the same way as dictators before them; they are masters to be feared and revered: demigods to be praised.

Perhaps African democracies must be allowed time to mature given that it was only in the 1990s that most African countries turned democratic after gruelling decades of dictatorship, which was preceded by another uncomfortable era: colonialism. This is valid point, and must be acknowledged.

However, the biggest mistake that Africa and Africans can make is to use these past experiences as excuse for the continuing treatment of its leaders or rulers, in this case, as demigods. Given the circumstances in Zimbabwe, it may not be ideal to use Robert Mugabe's reported lavish 86th birthday party and the on coming 30th anniversary of his coming to power, as an example of this point.

Even so, it is still shocking that the Zimbabwe parliament, among other public institutions, is spending a lot of money placing advertisements in the media to wish Mugabe a happy birthday and happy anniversary while 1.6 million Zimbabweans are without food; 1.9 million Zimbabweans are currently surviving on food aid and four in five of the country's young cannot afford school fees.

Of course the money being spent on these lavish activities cannot feed all the people needing food support, but these activities indicates a complete lack of concern and diminished responsibility on the part of the officials.

Incidentally, Zimbabwe is not the only African country that is spending big on its leader while majority are struggling to make ends meet. Recently in Malawi media organisations that are still in good books with the government got more than they bargained for, in advertising revenue. The election of Malawi's president, Bingu wa Mutharika as African Union (AU) leader came barely two weeks before his wedding. Just like in Zimbabwe, both public and private sector seized the opportunity to shower their praises and congratulatory messages for their leader in the local media.

Even charity organisations that are always looking for donations joined the frenzy. One European expatriate working with Population Services International (PSI) in the country was so dismayed that they let it be known on micro-blogging site, Twitter. This is happened in a country where more than half of its 13 million people are leaving below the poverty line.

Walk in every office, bank, shop or any public building in Malawi and you will be greeted by a flamed picture of the president. It was the case under Hastings Kamuzu Banda's presidency; it was the same during Bakili Muluzi's era, and now it is Mutharika turn.

Malawi is a poor democratic country; its constitution guarantees that there will be a different president every ten years, or five years if the incumbent fails to win their second term; and change is a certainty in the case of death of the president. Now, does Malawi have resources to replace all these presidential faces every time there is a change? How much does it cost? Can the government not use this money for better initiatives? Improve the high poverty and illiteracy rates for example.

There is nothing wrong with people being nice and appreciative to their leaders but it must not come at the expense of more important and urgent issues. It is our leaders who take an oath to serve their people and not the other way round. As for Malawi, presidents have enough packages once they have done their time; including tax-free imports.

Ignore the skeptics: Malawi will benefit from the AU leadership

The recent election of president Bingu wa Mutharika as head of African Union (AU) has divided opinion in Malawi. In particular, the Daily Times (Malawi's daily newspaper) and Economic Association of Malawi's vice president, Paul Kwengwere.

On one hand, Kwengwere contends that Mutharika's election means that he 'will be so much involved in African issues to the point some people may think he is doing so at the expense of domestic issues.' On the other hand, the Daily Times believes that Mutharika's position may help bring Malawi (hitherto a less known country to many people) to international recognition and therefore help bolster its efforts to attract international investors.

Meanwhile, Mutharika has insisted that 'there won't be any chunk of money flowing into the country because we have assumed the chairmanship of the AU.' In fact, Malawian government has asked the Malawian parliament to approve $3 million to run Mutharika's AU activities.

Inevitably, a section of Malawians will question this spending. More so given the fact that the parliament is unlikely to question (let alone declining it) the funding request, as Mutharika's party holds a huge majority in the parliament.

The hardest thing in life is to please everyone. If you can manage it, the chances are that you are not doing something right. On my part, I feel Malawi stands to benefit from the policies that Mutharika has promised to initiate during tenure. He said:

 "Our agenda for Africa should focus on agriculture and Food Security... Africa must share this dream so that five years from now no child in Africa should die of hunger and malnutrition. No child should go to bed hungry."

This is a statement of intent, no doubt about it. But those with longer memories will know that others have given promises before, and nothing came out of it. I would definitely empathise with such skeptics.

Similarly, Mutharika may not yet act on his promise. But any attempts he would make will benefit Malawi first. For the simple reason that Mutharika would not want to be seen as a success elsewhere but a failure at home. The fact that Mutharika had to tussle with Colonel Gaddafi for the AU leadership means that he has more than a point to prove, this should give Mutharika an added impetus to act on his promises.

'Food security' has been Mutharika's strongest selling point during his presidency. Malawi has registered maize surpluses in three of Mutharika's six years in power. Even so, the World Food Program (WFP) still estimates that about 45 percent of Malawi's 13 million population will need food aid this year.

WFP's estimate could yet raise in the coming year as Malawi is among many southern African countries that are currently facing dry spells, wich will inevitably lead to poor harvest. Mutharika will have to do something about it; fulfiling his roles both as a Malawian president and AU leader. Malawi stands to benefit.

I feel this is the area where Malawian analysts and comentators should be focusing when discussing the impact that Mutharika's AU leaderships will have on Malawi.

African Union!

I have been reading media reports from the African Union's (AU) just ended 14th Assembly in Addis Ababa where my president (Bingu wa Mutharika) has been elected as "chairman" of the organisation after seeing off Libya's Colonel Gaddafi's attempt to hold on to the position. I wish Mutharika all the best.

I hope Mutharika succedes. However, the reports suggest that history wil be repeating itself for the organisation that's very good at making bold statements but very bad at following them with any useful action.

In the 47th year of its establishment, under the discarded the name Organisation of African Unity (OAU), AU has nothing to show for its existence but ideas.

Malawi: The case of Sweet Sixteen Marriage Bill Indicates the Lack of Evidence-based Policies

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.

Malawi: Why Mutharika Must not Set Price on Agricultural Products

Folks, you have to excuse me but I will not stop ranting about the state of affairs in loved country, Malawi. President Bingu wa Mutharika has been in the headlines of late, both locally and internationally after ordering deportation of 'foreign' tobacco buyers. Mutharika accused the tobacco buyers of paying less than his set price on the commodity.

I do not have an idea how tobacco is graded and priced. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effectiveness of his policy of having a fixed price on a commodity with quality that constantly changes. What is apparent however, is the fact that Mutharika will have to find buyers from somewhere. Tobacco selling season in Malawi is coming to an end but there is disaster looming in the agricultural industry.

For instance, about a moth before this tobacco incident, The Nation news site reported that cotton farmers in Southern Malawi had pleaded with the government to lower down the set price of MK75 (MK is Malawi Kwacha)because buyers were unwilling to pay the amount due to poor quality of the product. This standstill meant that the quality of the cotton was getting worse by day whilst still in the hands of the farmers. According to the story, the farmers resorted to selling their product to "unscrupulous" buyers who were paying MK30, which is even less than Mutharika's set price.

What this means is that Mutharika's policy may be tough on the "foreign" buyers that he is chasing away, but the truth is that the policy is affecting the very farmers that Mutharika was meant to be protecting. If Mutharika wants to protect farmers, the best move is to anchor the industry to the market; attract as much buyers as possible, the more bidders for the product the higher the price.

I strongly believe this is the only way forward. State regulations will always be there but resorting to dictatorial threats is not a solution. After all, tobacco is a dying industry. I am not trying to write its eulogy here but as a concerned citizen I am surprised that the government has not started looking at its alternatives more seriously.

By the admission of the Principal Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Andrew Daudi, in the last two or three harvesting seasons Malawi has had good tea and coffee harvests. This has also coincided with the rise of the price of the commodity on the international marker. Yet our country stays mum on this and keep its focus on tobacco. Malawi is second-biggest tea producer in Africa, after Kenya. The commodity brings 7.9 per cent of foreign exchange, annually; only second to tobacco. Yet Malawi has only one tea market (in Limbe) where farmers can sell their product?

My point here is that by chasing or deporting "foreign" tobacco buyers branding them "colonialists", right or wrong, Mutharika has priorities and his main priority in this case are the farmers who are clearly not going to benefit from this policy. Mutharika needs to look at a bigger picture. The policy in place will only hurt Malawian farmers, the very people Mutharika is meant to be protecting!

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.

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.

Possible Answers to Western Media's Coverage of Madonna's Adoption

The last three weeks have been particularly fascinating for news media, there has been Iran elections and its subsequent fiasco, and 'the king of pop', died of suspect cardiac arrest. As you and I would expect, all these issues caused a stir and excitement among news makers, more especially in the West (Western Europe and North America). One thing that these issues managed to mask was Madonna's success in her appeal for the adoption of the second Malawian child.

While Madonna's adoptions have always been a hot topic, this time it faded rather quickly due to Michael Jackson's death and Iran's election protests. However, the issue sparked a fair amount of debate among Malawians. The central issue being whether the adoption was a good thing or not. Various opinions have been expressed and I am not adding mine to that corpus. What I want to comment on however, is the fact that the representation of Malawi in the Western media has been put to question.

I am by no means the first person to discuss this issue, many have discussed it before and I am sure many will do the same in future. On the 12th June I posted a blog article in response to Jacques Peretti's article on Madonna's adoptions in Malawi. I complained about the inaccuracy of the article and my surprise that the Guardian of all publications carried the article. As a result, I registered my fears for the Channel 4 (UK's terrestrial channel) documentary that Peretti went to Malawi to make, which was based on Madonna and her adoption business.

Barely a week later, a Malawi journalist and blogger Kondwani Munthani also posted a blog article on the same topic, bemoaning about Peretti's lack of journalistic professionalism. Two weeks after these blog posts it was the turn for Malawi's state president, Bingu wa Mutharika to have a go at Western media albeit with a different topic. Mutharika accused Western media and governments for not telling the 'success story' of the fight against HIV/Aids by his government.

In fact, the publication of Mutharika's story coincided with the broadcasting of the Peretti's documentary on Channel 4. Judging from comments that followed Nyasa Times' news article based on the story, most Malawians who saw the programme were well disgusted. I am one of them, but the documentary did not surprise me. Not only because I anticipated it as a result of my reading of Peretti's article earlier in the month, but also because the documentary did not differ from how the people of the East are generally portrayed and viewed by the Westerners. This is not exclusive to the media, but all the powerful institutions also.

Some of us will have noticed how quickly non-Westerners are reminded how far they have come whenever they achieve something, as if our history started with colonialism and slavery. Non-Westerners or the people of the East existed way before colonialism and slavery and there are plenty of monumental landmarks to show for that. Count seven wonders of the ancient world and you will see where they are to be found. These things show that the people of the East are not mentally inferior even though they have been constructed and forced to live as such.

The better explanation of this phenomenon can be drawn from post-colonial theory, more especially Edward Said's (1935 - 2003) seminal work, "Orientalism". Since its first publication in 1978 Said's book on Orientalism has attracted considerable criticism, especially from Western academics. This is typical of every influential work. Orientalism is a term Said used to mean the people of the East and he used the term Occidental for the people of the Western.

Said observed that through the period of history the people of the West have significantly manage to disguish themselves and their cultures, from that of the East, the East has thus become the place of its fantasy. He defined eighteenth century as the main starting point where the Westerners started patronising the people of the East by making statements about it, authoring views of it, describing it, teaching it, settling it and ruling over it. In other words, dominating, restructuring and having authority over the people of the East.

Here is Said in his own words:

"Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between "the Orient" and (most of the time) "the Occident." Thus a very large mass of writers among whom are poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists, economists, and imperial administrators have accepted the basic distinction between East and West as a starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, social descriptions, and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, mind, destiny and so on."

I think this assertion from Said sums up everything. Peretti's article and documentary including Mutharika's complain about Western media's misrepresentation is not mere prejudice on the part of the Western media, rather, it is a code they have to follow. this is something their audiences (Westerners) know and must be told about the people of the East - the Orientals. Anything other than that is not acceptable. Every movie has its hero and villian, in this case the West is the earlier and the East the is the latter.

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