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.