President Bingu wa Mutharika is rewriting history to make history. But it takes a sober mind and terrific analysis to reach such a conclusion.
He has redefined politics and a new era of politics has dawned on Malawi. Or, said in straight terms, Mutharika has defined politics correctly as administration of state affairs, not addressing rallies, not buying opposition MPs, not unleashing violence on people with alternative views.
But it has been difficult for some to understand that Mutharika is a politician, so he has been called an economist.
Perhaps it is a question of balance: How should a President balance between party politics and state politics? But the most important re/definition Mutharika has ever done is, perhaps, his choice of Joyce Banda as running mate in the May 19 presidential polls.
Mutharika has introduced a new dimension to presidential politics. He might be old, but he is experimenting new methods that even younger politicians are afraid of trying.
The fundamental question asked by presidential candidates in the choice of a running mate is region or place. This has remained a fundamental question since multiparty was reintroduced in 1993. (Malawi was a multiparty state in 1964 until 1971 when the Malawi Congress Party decreed that it would be the only party in the country.)
Two major contestants in the May polls have running mates based on place. John Tembo has Brown Mpinganjira, so he can woo the Lomwe belt vote for the MCP candidate. Mpinganjira also wants to use his (declining) popularity among the Yao in the Eastern Region to add votes to the MCP.
Muluzi is targeting the Central, hence picking Clement Stambuli. Muluzi has ever targeted the Centre since 1994 when he paired with Justin Malewezi.
The practical choice for Mutharika, according to Malawian politics, should have been from the Central or the North, so he could appeal to a place, a region and a tribe. This is how politics works in Malawi and it was regarded as the way it shall work forever.
But Mutharika has thought about this political clue and found it wanting. Instead of a running mate from the Central or the North, he has picked from the South. He is not appealing to place. Mutharika is not targeting a tribe.
"It is surprising because given the realitie Malawi’s politics to date, one would have expected the DPP’s decision to reflect some kind of regional balancing that has been at the heart of Malawi’s politics," said political economist Blessings Chinsinga in Nation on Sunday this week. "The decision, perhaps, heralds a new era of politics, less beholden to regional considerations but rather driven by issues."
Yes, it does. Mutharika, the politician, has appealed to something greater than region, something greater than tribe. He has appealed to sex and gender which are universal unlike place, region and tribe which are particular.
The choice of Banda has made Mutharika and his running mate appeal to people of different tribes, people from all corners of Malawi.
Or, put it this way, by choosing a running mate from his own region, Mutharika is a sending a powerful lesson that time for tribal politics and politics of place is gone. Instead, this is time for universal issues of gender, development, hard work and visionary leadership.
But the great question is whether or not Mutharika is right to bring an end to politics of place. First President Hastings Kamuzu Banda came from Kasungu. Did the district benefit more than any other? Muluzi comes from Machinga. Did the district benefit more than any other. Mutharika comes from Thyolo. Is the district any better than the rest of Malawi?
Place does not offer anything tangible apart from an illusion of a sense of social and tribal security. Mutharika has gone above cheap politics of place or region and thought of national issues, even international commitments, on gender and development.
This choice is a test of place versus universality because gender is universal; it cuts across cultures, religions and lands while place is cultural, place is religious, place is particular, place is tribal,
Beyond this, the choice of Banda says a lot to a majority of voters who are between 18 and 35. Anyone who wants to win the May 19 elections must appeal to this age group.
It is an age group that does not take tribalism at heart. They are marrying across tribes. They do not believe in employing on tribal lines. Those stuck in tribalism are mainly above 40. This is not that there isn’t tribalism in people below 40, but the degree is not as strong as is the case in people above 40.
The history of revolutions, the story of new political eras, shows that it is the youth who bring such changes. It was so in France; it was so in Iran.
It will be so in Malawi. A new era has come and Mutharika has read the politics rightly.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Sharing Justice
It is World Day of Justice, not just justice as in court of law but also as in accessing benefits from state resources, medicines being one of them.
Usisya in Nkhata Bay in the North of Malawi is a food secure area. There has not been relief distribution in the area for the past 10 or so years.
But people have problems with access to health facilities and, therefore, access to medicines because Usisya is a mountainous area. In fact, it is so mountainous that mobility is a big problem, according to Tonderai Manoto, programme manager for Temwa.
Temwa is a reproductive health organisation with administrative offices in Mzuzu and a field office in Usisya where it is running, among other programmes, a mobile voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) and home based care (HBC).
"Without the mobile VCT," says Manoto, "I don’t know what people of Usisya would have been doing to access health services."
There is one road from Mzuzu, teh capital of Northern Malawi, to Usisya and it is a bad road that needs 4x4s. And when the road’s condition moves from bad to worse, service providers have one option: water transport.
This means Manoto and his team have to board Illala at Nkhata Bay district headquarters and go to Usisya on a Sunday and return to Nkhata Bay eight days later, because they can’t spend on hired boats using project funds which must, as much as possible, be spent on beneficiaries.
The people of Usisya are lucky to have Temwa which goes about the place, following people in their homes and areas. People of Nsanje and parts of Thyolo that border Nsanje and Chikwawa in Southern Malawo are not so lucky. They are far from any health centre. They are far from the Holy Trinity Hospital at Muona, a Catholic health institution in Nsanje.
Transport is a problem on this part of the Shire Valley also called East Bank. Like in Usisya, it is 4x4s that are safe on the East Bank Road.
But people have to travel, especially to hospital. Luckily, somehow, the road has been rehabilitated but with rains it tends to get damaged. Added to that, floods and swelling rivers often cut off whole villages from health institutions like Holy Trinity.
Such people cut from health institutions are, in a way, being denied justice by natural causes, of course—but they are still being denied justice. There are two forms of justice, says Edge Kanyongolo, a respected law academic with the University of Malawi’s Chancellor College in Zomba.
The first is distributive justice which refers to distribution of advantages and disadvantages or benefits and burdens. Roads are benefits, meaning state resources towards construction of roads should be distributed equally in a country. So, too, medicines which are an example of a benefit or an advantage.
The second form of justice, says Kanyongolo, is corrective which is premised on the assumption that every society has equilibrium, some point of accepted norms and that when a person behaves differently, in a deviant way, he or she must be corrected and brought back to the accepted behaviours at the assumed equilibrium.
This is what happens when people are sent to reformatory centres like Chichiri Prison for adults and Mpemba Reformatory Centre for boys.
It is the first form of justice—distributive—that the Malawi Healthy Equity Network (MHEN) is concerned with and wants to highlight today on the World Day of Justice. The organisation is insisting on access to medicines as they relate to issue of equity and health rights.
MHEN is talking about essential medicines like co-trimoxazole for opportunistic infections in antiretroviral therapy (ART) clients and malaria treatment at a time the disease is the number one killer of children under the age of five.
This is from a background of a drug availability survey MHEN conducted with parliamentary committee for health and population in 2004, four years after the formation of MHEN.
"The findings formed the basis for the network’s advocacy and campaign for the availability of drugs in public health facilities at a time when drug [shortage] was the order of the day," says Martha Kwataine, MHEN national coordinator.
The target of the advocacy supported Oxfam is to gain equitable and improved access to medicines by 2010. And MHEN is not doing this out of the blue.
"This access to medicines campaign relates to Millennium Development Goals, especially those relating to maternal mortality, infant mortality and reversing the spread of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria," says Kwataine. "In Malawi, Congoma leads the Malawi Coalition on the Millennium Development Goals. MHEN, which is also a member of the civil society taskforce on MGDs in Malawi, will work with Congoma in launching and taking forward the access to medicines campaign in Malawi."
The launch was done in October last year. Now, MHEN is implementing its plans to benefit especially people in rural corners of Malawi. Even those in urban areas because there are thousands who can’t afford private health facilities and end up at government health centres.
Tereza Ramusa of Namonde Village, T/A Nkalo in Chiradzulu, Southern Malawi, is an 82-year-old woman widowed when her husband was killed gruesomely last month. She is now hopeless, in a way, except for government which should provide her access to medicines, among other needs.
The nearest health facility for her is Chonde Health Centre in Mulanje. But in case of a big hospital, she has to travel to Nguludi which is a paying hospital—of course, being a mission hospital it is cheap but she cannot afford. Otherwise, she has to travel to Mulanje District Hospital because Chiraduzlu District Hospital is far away from her home.
She is old and in need of help. She is not the only one. There are thousands like her who need access to medicines. And this is not just availability of drugs at government hospitals and health centres, but even travel: how do poor people, especially the old, travel from home to hospital?
This is a big question that may appear simple in the comfort of sofas and televisions and cups of tea/coffee and biscuits. But for the poor, it remains crucial in terms of access to medicines.
But it is important to acknowledge that there has been success in access to Aids, TB and malaria treatment and support services aimed at attaining MDGs relating to health. This is so because of Indian generic medicines.
"The concern is that increasing resistance to first line ARVs, SP as first line drug for malaria and the emergency of the multi-drug resistant strains of TB poses serious challenges," says Kwataine. "This has the potential to upward spiral of the cost of managing these conditions of public health significance when second line-patented drugs have to be used. Whilst ARVs may be relatively available, simple drugs to treat opportunistic infections linked to HIV and Aids like cotrimoxazole are often not readily available in most facilities."
Beyond this, there have been reasonable attempts at prevention of malaria, for example. Treated mosquito nets have been distributed to hundreds of women. Their proper use is another story.
What does Malawi need to do now? One, build and spread success to all parts of Malawi, sharing benefits. Two, increase medicines budgetary allocation, demands MHEN. People, says MHEN, must realise that health rights are human rights and essential medicines are, therefore, human rights.
Perhaps after realising this, people of Usisya in the North will begin to demand their fair distribution of justice in the form of access to health facilities and medicines.
That will be a rare moment for Malawi and a meaningful story to share on World Day of Justice in the next years.
Usisya in Nkhata Bay in the North of Malawi is a food secure area. There has not been relief distribution in the area for the past 10 or so years.
But people have problems with access to health facilities and, therefore, access to medicines because Usisya is a mountainous area. In fact, it is so mountainous that mobility is a big problem, according to Tonderai Manoto, programme manager for Temwa.
Temwa is a reproductive health organisation with administrative offices in Mzuzu and a field office in Usisya where it is running, among other programmes, a mobile voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) and home based care (HBC).
"Without the mobile VCT," says Manoto, "I don’t know what people of Usisya would have been doing to access health services."
There is one road from Mzuzu, teh capital of Northern Malawi, to Usisya and it is a bad road that needs 4x4s. And when the road’s condition moves from bad to worse, service providers have one option: water transport.
This means Manoto and his team have to board Illala at Nkhata Bay district headquarters and go to Usisya on a Sunday and return to Nkhata Bay eight days later, because they can’t spend on hired boats using project funds which must, as much as possible, be spent on beneficiaries.
The people of Usisya are lucky to have Temwa which goes about the place, following people in their homes and areas. People of Nsanje and parts of Thyolo that border Nsanje and Chikwawa in Southern Malawo are not so lucky. They are far from any health centre. They are far from the Holy Trinity Hospital at Muona, a Catholic health institution in Nsanje.
Transport is a problem on this part of the Shire Valley also called East Bank. Like in Usisya, it is 4x4s that are safe on the East Bank Road.
But people have to travel, especially to hospital. Luckily, somehow, the road has been rehabilitated but with rains it tends to get damaged. Added to that, floods and swelling rivers often cut off whole villages from health institutions like Holy Trinity.
Such people cut from health institutions are, in a way, being denied justice by natural causes, of course—but they are still being denied justice. There are two forms of justice, says Edge Kanyongolo, a respected law academic with the University of Malawi’s Chancellor College in Zomba.
The first is distributive justice which refers to distribution of advantages and disadvantages or benefits and burdens. Roads are benefits, meaning state resources towards construction of roads should be distributed equally in a country. So, too, medicines which are an example of a benefit or an advantage.
The second form of justice, says Kanyongolo, is corrective which is premised on the assumption that every society has equilibrium, some point of accepted norms and that when a person behaves differently, in a deviant way, he or she must be corrected and brought back to the accepted behaviours at the assumed equilibrium.
This is what happens when people are sent to reformatory centres like Chichiri Prison for adults and Mpemba Reformatory Centre for boys.
It is the first form of justice—distributive—that the Malawi Healthy Equity Network (MHEN) is concerned with and wants to highlight today on the World Day of Justice. The organisation is insisting on access to medicines as they relate to issue of equity and health rights.
MHEN is talking about essential medicines like co-trimoxazole for opportunistic infections in antiretroviral therapy (ART) clients and malaria treatment at a time the disease is the number one killer of children under the age of five.
This is from a background of a drug availability survey MHEN conducted with parliamentary committee for health and population in 2004, four years after the formation of MHEN.
"The findings formed the basis for the network’s advocacy and campaign for the availability of drugs in public health facilities at a time when drug [shortage] was the order of the day," says Martha Kwataine, MHEN national coordinator.
The target of the advocacy supported Oxfam is to gain equitable and improved access to medicines by 2010. And MHEN is not doing this out of the blue.
"This access to medicines campaign relates to Millennium Development Goals, especially those relating to maternal mortality, infant mortality and reversing the spread of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria," says Kwataine. "In Malawi, Congoma leads the Malawi Coalition on the Millennium Development Goals. MHEN, which is also a member of the civil society taskforce on MGDs in Malawi, will work with Congoma in launching and taking forward the access to medicines campaign in Malawi."
The launch was done in October last year. Now, MHEN is implementing its plans to benefit especially people in rural corners of Malawi. Even those in urban areas because there are thousands who can’t afford private health facilities and end up at government health centres.
Tereza Ramusa of Namonde Village, T/A Nkalo in Chiradzulu, Southern Malawi, is an 82-year-old woman widowed when her husband was killed gruesomely last month. She is now hopeless, in a way, except for government which should provide her access to medicines, among other needs.
The nearest health facility for her is Chonde Health Centre in Mulanje. But in case of a big hospital, she has to travel to Nguludi which is a paying hospital—of course, being a mission hospital it is cheap but she cannot afford. Otherwise, she has to travel to Mulanje District Hospital because Chiraduzlu District Hospital is far away from her home.
She is old and in need of help. She is not the only one. There are thousands like her who need access to medicines. And this is not just availability of drugs at government hospitals and health centres, but even travel: how do poor people, especially the old, travel from home to hospital?
This is a big question that may appear simple in the comfort of sofas and televisions and cups of tea/coffee and biscuits. But for the poor, it remains crucial in terms of access to medicines.
But it is important to acknowledge that there has been success in access to Aids, TB and malaria treatment and support services aimed at attaining MDGs relating to health. This is so because of Indian generic medicines.
"The concern is that increasing resistance to first line ARVs, SP as first line drug for malaria and the emergency of the multi-drug resistant strains of TB poses serious challenges," says Kwataine. "This has the potential to upward spiral of the cost of managing these conditions of public health significance when second line-patented drugs have to be used. Whilst ARVs may be relatively available, simple drugs to treat opportunistic infections linked to HIV and Aids like cotrimoxazole are often not readily available in most facilities."
Beyond this, there have been reasonable attempts at prevention of malaria, for example. Treated mosquito nets have been distributed to hundreds of women. Their proper use is another story.
What does Malawi need to do now? One, build and spread success to all parts of Malawi, sharing benefits. Two, increase medicines budgetary allocation, demands MHEN. People, says MHEN, must realise that health rights are human rights and essential medicines are, therefore, human rights.
Perhaps after realising this, people of Usisya in the North will begin to demand their fair distribution of justice in the form of access to health facilities and medicines.
That will be a rare moment for Malawi and a meaningful story to share on World Day of Justice in the next years.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Artistic View of Justice
Edgar ndi Davis do not offer legal service at a fee always. They are also, knowingly or unknowingly, helping thousands with legal services through their songs.
Legal fees are expensive for a majority of Malawians whose priority is food and shelter or physical survival, not legal technicalities.
The cheapest rate as set by the chief justice is K7,000 per hour. This is the rate of beginners. It gets high and high as one moves the legal ladder, finally becoming senior counsels. These are hours of reading, representation in a court of law, consultation in the lawyer’s office.
And these men and women can read, and they are paid for reading. A senior counsel is even more expensive that to hire them is prohibitive for the majority poor. It is also important to note almost all lawyers offer free services sometimes. They volunteer to poor people and it is wrong to portray then as seekers of wealth all the time.
But two lawyers are offering free legal services, free legal advice and free legal lessons in style. They are Edgar ndi Davis, lawyers who are also musicians. Or are they musicians who are also lawyers? They have been in court for years and they have come to appreciate that law is, after all, unfair.
In their song Pakuopa, a persona accused of defilement fails to defend himself in a court of law for fear of stunning a court with obscenities which is uncultural.
Ndalephera kufotokoza
Pakuopa kulaula bwalo
Kuti sankayamwa chala
Ankayamwa...
It seems there is a dilemma of age and ability or maturity. The girl is young, less than 13, and cannot make an informed consent to sex. But the girl, according to the man, has mastered the art of sex that she cannot be described as young. This is justice according to the man. But he cannot explain this in court for fear of offending cultural logic.
So, in a way the man has two choices: offend cultural logic and get his freedom or respect cultural norms of communication and language, lose and get convicted.
The suspect chose respect for culture and was sentenced. And he laments that he is in jail yet he is innocent. So, what is the free legal lesson and service being offered here?
It is that law is, by its nature, unfair. In their work, Edgar ndi Davis, as lawyers, have defended or attempted to defend hundreds and they have come to appreciate the unfairness of law. Their song also seems to advocate for a traditional system of justice to take care of some issues because such would understand that the girl was not young just by use of a proverb.
The question they are raising is: why should a person lose just he cannot explain things in public? At the end of the day, they are saying not all convicted suspects are guilty. Some are convicted for failure to explain their side out of cultural respect, a respect of communication rules which are not written.
The song raises a difficult question area. What is justice? Is justice an event? Or is it a report of an event? Perhaps justice is the extent to which reality can be constructed or reconstructed in a court of law, meaning to be free or unfree is a question of how much a person reconstructs reality, hence the personal laments:
Mlandu wanga
sunayende bwino.
But perhaps this is not what the two meant when they wrote the song. Perhaps they have a different meaning. Who owns meaning of a work of art?
Lucius Banda helps the search for an answer. He has experimented and been successful with new forms of music. One area he tried in recent years is hiding meaning.
In his song, Amayi Inu, he sings and reaches a point where he simply hums—"yeleleeeeeeeee, iiiiiiiii, eeeiiii, one, two, three"—and then says something that listeners cannot comprehend. What is it that Lucius was saying?
"That was a mistake in the studio," he said this week. "I wanted to hum and failed [to hum the way I wanted], so I was telling the producer that we retake the [part] of the song."
But at the end of the day, the South African producer used software to manipulate the mistake and made it into what is today: a work of art.
Listeners to the song do not regard it as a mistake. In fact, it is no longer a mistake because it is now a work of art. Now that listeners know the part of the song as art, who generates meaning from it?
"Perhaps listeners should help us [make meaning], says Lucius. He is right. The answer is listeners. People make meaning from humming; listeners can generate understanding according to their experience. The goodness with gaps, silence and humming in music and any other work of art is that an audience has room to think critically, to take part in making meaning.
The song, for listeners, means that there is something Lucuis could not sing in literal terms and, to put across the message, he just hummed, kind of leaving a blank space for everyone to fill with their experience of a spouse who is not faithful.
And it works because whenever the song is played listeners tend to compete by filling the blank space. It is a way of engaging listeners in a dialogue with a work of art which in this song Lucius got right although from an accident. Perhaps there is no accident in art.
So, Edgar ndi Davis have no authority to dictate the meaning of their song, Pakuopa; listeners have that responsibility.
And by singing such a song they have become ambassadors of the poor; the musicians have become critics of law and justice. They are offering free legal services via music. That is the beauty of art, after all.
Legal fees are expensive for a majority of Malawians whose priority is food and shelter or physical survival, not legal technicalities.
The cheapest rate as set by the chief justice is K7,000 per hour. This is the rate of beginners. It gets high and high as one moves the legal ladder, finally becoming senior counsels. These are hours of reading, representation in a court of law, consultation in the lawyer’s office.
And these men and women can read, and they are paid for reading. A senior counsel is even more expensive that to hire them is prohibitive for the majority poor. It is also important to note almost all lawyers offer free services sometimes. They volunteer to poor people and it is wrong to portray then as seekers of wealth all the time.
But two lawyers are offering free legal services, free legal advice and free legal lessons in style. They are Edgar ndi Davis, lawyers who are also musicians. Or are they musicians who are also lawyers? They have been in court for years and they have come to appreciate that law is, after all, unfair.
In their song Pakuopa, a persona accused of defilement fails to defend himself in a court of law for fear of stunning a court with obscenities which is uncultural.
Ndalephera kufotokoza
Pakuopa kulaula bwalo
Kuti sankayamwa chala
Ankayamwa...
It seems there is a dilemma of age and ability or maturity. The girl is young, less than 13, and cannot make an informed consent to sex. But the girl, according to the man, has mastered the art of sex that she cannot be described as young. This is justice according to the man. But he cannot explain this in court for fear of offending cultural logic.
So, in a way the man has two choices: offend cultural logic and get his freedom or respect cultural norms of communication and language, lose and get convicted.
The suspect chose respect for culture and was sentenced. And he laments that he is in jail yet he is innocent. So, what is the free legal lesson and service being offered here?
It is that law is, by its nature, unfair. In their work, Edgar ndi Davis, as lawyers, have defended or attempted to defend hundreds and they have come to appreciate the unfairness of law. Their song also seems to advocate for a traditional system of justice to take care of some issues because such would understand that the girl was not young just by use of a proverb.
The question they are raising is: why should a person lose just he cannot explain things in public? At the end of the day, they are saying not all convicted suspects are guilty. Some are convicted for failure to explain their side out of cultural respect, a respect of communication rules which are not written.
The song raises a difficult question area. What is justice? Is justice an event? Or is it a report of an event? Perhaps justice is the extent to which reality can be constructed or reconstructed in a court of law, meaning to be free or unfree is a question of how much a person reconstructs reality, hence the personal laments:
Mlandu wanga
sunayende bwino.
But perhaps this is not what the two meant when they wrote the song. Perhaps they have a different meaning. Who owns meaning of a work of art?
Lucius Banda helps the search for an answer. He has experimented and been successful with new forms of music. One area he tried in recent years is hiding meaning.
In his song, Amayi Inu, he sings and reaches a point where he simply hums—"yeleleeeeeeeee, iiiiiiiii, eeeiiii, one, two, three"—and then says something that listeners cannot comprehend. What is it that Lucius was saying?
"That was a mistake in the studio," he said this week. "I wanted to hum and failed [to hum the way I wanted], so I was telling the producer that we retake the [part] of the song."
But at the end of the day, the South African producer used software to manipulate the mistake and made it into what is today: a work of art.
Listeners to the song do not regard it as a mistake. In fact, it is no longer a mistake because it is now a work of art. Now that listeners know the part of the song as art, who generates meaning from it?
"Perhaps listeners should help us [make meaning], says Lucius. He is right. The answer is listeners. People make meaning from humming; listeners can generate understanding according to their experience. The goodness with gaps, silence and humming in music and any other work of art is that an audience has room to think critically, to take part in making meaning.
The song, for listeners, means that there is something Lucuis could not sing in literal terms and, to put across the message, he just hummed, kind of leaving a blank space for everyone to fill with their experience of a spouse who is not faithful.
And it works because whenever the song is played listeners tend to compete by filling the blank space. It is a way of engaging listeners in a dialogue with a work of art which in this song Lucius got right although from an accident. Perhaps there is no accident in art.
So, Edgar ndi Davis have no authority to dictate the meaning of their song, Pakuopa; listeners have that responsibility.
And by singing such a song they have become ambassadors of the poor; the musicians have become critics of law and justice. They are offering free legal services via music. That is the beauty of art, after all.
Friday, February 13, 2009
It Takes One To Build a Nation
It was a speech for his country, the US. Yet it was also a speech for the world. What are the lessons?
The world was watching.
The moment had come on Tuesday, January 20. President Barack Obama placed one foot ahead of another, walked on, a step, another, seemed to check his posture, and took oath of office, becoming the 44th President of the United States of America.
Then 21 guns saluted the world’s newest president in a country that holds the illusion that its leader is the world’s most powerful man. Such a country’s chief justice messed a 35-word oath, and Obama corrected him with a smile.
It was a job well started. One of the first jobs of Obama is to correct the mistakes of George Bush whose presidency was not on reason and common sense, but fear and emotions. Just after the oath, a military aide stood near his commander-in-chief as he opened his heart, to speak to Americans and the world.
But before that, a poetess walked on and read forceful lines. It was refreshing. ‘Praise Song for the Day" was the title. It was not ‘Praise Song for Obama’. It was a praise song the day America did something great, a sense of collective work that was inspired by one person who never rose to claim credit because he realised he was standing on the shoulders of his fellow citizens.
Each day we go about our business,
Walking past each other,
Catching each others’ eyes or not,
About to speak or speaking.
This is typical American life: hard work, busy all time, hence people walk past each other, sometimes, in fact often, without noticing the presence of others. The way had been prepared by the poetess. The heart of the world audience was inspired and moved by the last lines
In today’s sharp sparkle,
this winter air,
anything can be made,
any sentence begun.
On the brink,
on the brim, on the cusp—
Praise song for
walking forward in that light.
This signalled hope, a point when America started anew. The podium had been prepared for Obama.
"My fellow citizens," he started. It was a fitting salutation. It showed the speech was meant for citizens of the US. Secondly, and most importantly, this salutation used by US presidents during inauguration and other state functions, confirms that the highest office in any country is that of a citizen, not a President, not a Prime Minister—but that of a citizen, the master who employs politicians to work for the betterment of a country.
The salutation indicates that at the citizen level, all are equal during state functions, hence no need to salute vice presidents, former presidents, cabinet secretaries.
This is different from Malawi where a President, upon inauguration, salutes positions, the honourables, starting with his vice, ministers, regional governors, and finally, after a long list, ladies and gentlemen—those that do not fall in any category of power, those that are ruled and don’t rule, those that are watched over by the powerful.
But this title of honourable kills the spirit of hard work and honesty because even thieves stealing public funds can be called honourable because they are holding an office that attracts such titles.
True honour does not come from the offices we hold. Honour comes from what we do for our country. This is a point we have missed and, as a result, we have diluted the real source of honour. Now it comes from political power when it should come from patriotism, hard work, honesty, and integrity.
"I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors," said Obama.
It was not a task before him, but "before us". He spoke of "we" throughout the speech, signalling that he was spearhearding the rebuilding of a nation bruised by a bitter campaign. Obama reached out to Republicans; he reached out to Democrats who opposed him vehemently and reached out to independents.
"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms," he said.
He was true to the challenges facing the US today. But he did not talk in a hopeless way. He spoke as if challenging the economic crunch, that it is too small to dwarf American ideals.
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our [forefathers], and true to our founding documents," he said. "So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans."
There was an applause. America has carried on because of the people, not because of leaders? America has carried on because of its ideals. Leaders should not tell people what must be done. It is people that should write national manifestoes.
It is not President Bingu wa Mutharika who is constructing Masauko Chipembere Highway. It is the people of Malawi and the people of Japan. It is our development and noone should claim that his plan has been hijacked or not been followed because this belongs to all Malawians—green, blue, yellow, several mixtures or whatever.
The result is that Malawi has lost faith in itself. The population that labels anything Malawian as inferior is not declining as fast as it should have been 45 years after gaining independence.
Obama spoke of America as a child, saying "we remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things." It is time to leave childish thinking and reasoning—or lack of it—meaning, Malawi must grow up.
Political bickering is childish and must stop. Distributing subsidised fertiliser coupons to people of one party is childish and must stop. Overpraising Mutharika is childish and must come to an end. So too denying him any contribution to the development of this country. Police brutality is childish and must stop. Unnecessary opposition is childish and must stop. Evading tax is childish and must stop.
Littering is childish and must stop. Nepotism is childish and must go. Corruption is childish and must come to and an immediate end. Rape and defilement are childish and have to come and an end now.
Such vices come from childish thinking. Every child wants all to belong to itself, nothing for others. Tit for tat is a game of children, not for adults, not for leaders trusted with taking a country to greater heights in the new century.
This journey to prosperity is what Malawi has started and must continue. This is a season of work, time to devote long hours to real work that can develop this country. This idea goes well with Obama’s view of the world.
"And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.
"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds," said Obama.
The key word is work. America pledges to work with, not give aid to, poor nations. International relations is not new in the US. Foreign policy forms a great deal of their election campaign. Obama is not the first to talk in such terms.
Bush spoke in similar terms in 2004. The purpose of American foreign policy, said Bush, must be the expansion of liberty. It was not a new theme for an American president. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan all spoke in similar tones and terms.
But Obama has spoken in terms of hope. In poetic construction, short and powerful sentences, some just lines, not full sentences, Obama brought hope to an otherwise hopeless world. Bush declared: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
But the gap between talk and reality in the Bush administration was striking. Vladimir Putin presided over a reversal of freedoms across the globe, only to be praised by Bush as a soulmate. So scandalously, Bush sided with Putin in the interpretation of the Chechen war as a defensive action against terrorists.
Now there is hope for a difference: that Obama has brought a reality that portrays real challenges and hopes to work for real solution on a difficult, long journey.
That day, when Obama spoke, he finished with an event that characterised the America’s birth, an event that created a generation.
"In the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: ‘Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it,’" recalled Obama.
And, then, in a powerful conclusion he said:
"America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words; with hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come; let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
"Thank you," he said. "God bless you." There was a deafening applause. "And God bless the United States of America," he finished.
The world watched. Malawi too. Now that we are about to witness a hot campaign, the choice is ours to elect a person who will build or destroy Malawi.
The world was watching.
The moment had come on Tuesday, January 20. President Barack Obama placed one foot ahead of another, walked on, a step, another, seemed to check his posture, and took oath of office, becoming the 44th President of the United States of America.
Then 21 guns saluted the world’s newest president in a country that holds the illusion that its leader is the world’s most powerful man. Such a country’s chief justice messed a 35-word oath, and Obama corrected him with a smile.
It was a job well started. One of the first jobs of Obama is to correct the mistakes of George Bush whose presidency was not on reason and common sense, but fear and emotions. Just after the oath, a military aide stood near his commander-in-chief as he opened his heart, to speak to Americans and the world.
But before that, a poetess walked on and read forceful lines. It was refreshing. ‘Praise Song for the Day" was the title. It was not ‘Praise Song for Obama’. It was a praise song the day America did something great, a sense of collective work that was inspired by one person who never rose to claim credit because he realised he was standing on the shoulders of his fellow citizens.
Each day we go about our business,
Walking past each other,
Catching each others’ eyes or not,
About to speak or speaking.
This is typical American life: hard work, busy all time, hence people walk past each other, sometimes, in fact often, without noticing the presence of others. The way had been prepared by the poetess. The heart of the world audience was inspired and moved by the last lines
In today’s sharp sparkle,
this winter air,
anything can be made,
any sentence begun.
On the brink,
on the brim, on the cusp—
Praise song for
walking forward in that light.
This signalled hope, a point when America started anew. The podium had been prepared for Obama.
"My fellow citizens," he started. It was a fitting salutation. It showed the speech was meant for citizens of the US. Secondly, and most importantly, this salutation used by US presidents during inauguration and other state functions, confirms that the highest office in any country is that of a citizen, not a President, not a Prime Minister—but that of a citizen, the master who employs politicians to work for the betterment of a country.
The salutation indicates that at the citizen level, all are equal during state functions, hence no need to salute vice presidents, former presidents, cabinet secretaries.
This is different from Malawi where a President, upon inauguration, salutes positions, the honourables, starting with his vice, ministers, regional governors, and finally, after a long list, ladies and gentlemen—those that do not fall in any category of power, those that are ruled and don’t rule, those that are watched over by the powerful.
But this title of honourable kills the spirit of hard work and honesty because even thieves stealing public funds can be called honourable because they are holding an office that attracts such titles.
True honour does not come from the offices we hold. Honour comes from what we do for our country. This is a point we have missed and, as a result, we have diluted the real source of honour. Now it comes from political power when it should come from patriotism, hard work, honesty, and integrity.
"I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors," said Obama.
It was not a task before him, but "before us". He spoke of "we" throughout the speech, signalling that he was spearhearding the rebuilding of a nation bruised by a bitter campaign. Obama reached out to Republicans; he reached out to Democrats who opposed him vehemently and reached out to independents.
"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms," he said.
He was true to the challenges facing the US today. But he did not talk in a hopeless way. He spoke as if challenging the economic crunch, that it is too small to dwarf American ideals.
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our [forefathers], and true to our founding documents," he said. "So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans."
There was an applause. America has carried on because of the people, not because of leaders? America has carried on because of its ideals. Leaders should not tell people what must be done. It is people that should write national manifestoes.
It is not President Bingu wa Mutharika who is constructing Masauko Chipembere Highway. It is the people of Malawi and the people of Japan. It is our development and noone should claim that his plan has been hijacked or not been followed because this belongs to all Malawians—green, blue, yellow, several mixtures or whatever.
The result is that Malawi has lost faith in itself. The population that labels anything Malawian as inferior is not declining as fast as it should have been 45 years after gaining independence.
Obama spoke of America as a child, saying "we remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things." It is time to leave childish thinking and reasoning—or lack of it—meaning, Malawi must grow up.
Political bickering is childish and must stop. Distributing subsidised fertiliser coupons to people of one party is childish and must stop. Overpraising Mutharika is childish and must come to an end. So too denying him any contribution to the development of this country. Police brutality is childish and must stop. Unnecessary opposition is childish and must stop. Evading tax is childish and must stop.
Littering is childish and must stop. Nepotism is childish and must go. Corruption is childish and must come to and an immediate end. Rape and defilement are childish and have to come and an end now.
Such vices come from childish thinking. Every child wants all to belong to itself, nothing for others. Tit for tat is a game of children, not for adults, not for leaders trusted with taking a country to greater heights in the new century.
This journey to prosperity is what Malawi has started and must continue. This is a season of work, time to devote long hours to real work that can develop this country. This idea goes well with Obama’s view of the world.
"And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.
"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds," said Obama.
The key word is work. America pledges to work with, not give aid to, poor nations. International relations is not new in the US. Foreign policy forms a great deal of their election campaign. Obama is not the first to talk in such terms.
Bush spoke in similar terms in 2004. The purpose of American foreign policy, said Bush, must be the expansion of liberty. It was not a new theme for an American president. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan all spoke in similar tones and terms.
But Obama has spoken in terms of hope. In poetic construction, short and powerful sentences, some just lines, not full sentences, Obama brought hope to an otherwise hopeless world. Bush declared: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
But the gap between talk and reality in the Bush administration was striking. Vladimir Putin presided over a reversal of freedoms across the globe, only to be praised by Bush as a soulmate. So scandalously, Bush sided with Putin in the interpretation of the Chechen war as a defensive action against terrorists.
Now there is hope for a difference: that Obama has brought a reality that portrays real challenges and hopes to work for real solution on a difficult, long journey.
That day, when Obama spoke, he finished with an event that characterised the America’s birth, an event that created a generation.
"In the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: ‘Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it,’" recalled Obama.
And, then, in a powerful conclusion he said:
"America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words; with hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come; let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
"Thank you," he said. "God bless you." There was a deafening applause. "And God bless the United States of America," he finished.
The world watched. Malawi too. Now that we are about to witness a hot campaign, the choice is ours to elect a person who will build or destroy Malawi.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Season of Rumours
It is right to call this period a season of rumours. But Brown Mpinganjira must go on to accept that crucial political truths in Malawi start as rumours.
Brown Mpinganjira, the cleverest politician in Malawi according to Jack Mapanje, is good at communication. He knows words that are loaded with meaning, he speaks poetry, and he can confuse people, even journalists, who don’t follow him critically.
In what can safely be called beautiful interviews this week with Blantyre Newspapers Limited journalists, Mpinganjira denied that he is being considered as a running mate for the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) president John Tembo in the May 19 presidential polls, saying this is a season of rumours.
He was clever, and right. Election times have been seasons of rumours since the 1994 polls. But one truth that Mpinganjira has not considered is that important crucial political truths start as rumours.
It was so with the coming of multiparty. Just a rumour, something from nowhere. It was so with the coming of Alliance for Democracy (Aford) into partnership with the United Democratic Front (UDF), just a rumour, something from crazy minds. Still, it was so with the divorce between Aford and UDF. Yet it was so with the open term and third term bids. It cannot be true, said Muluzi. Finally, it was so with the anointing of Bingu wa Mutharika as candidate for the UDF in 2004.
Even the birth of National Democratic Alliance, Mpinganjira’s own baby which he killed, started as a rumour. Yet in the face of such historical truths, Mpinganjira had the courage to tell The Daily Times of Monday (26/01/09) that he is not leaving the UDF.
"I am going to hold a press conference either on Tuesday or Wednesday to reiterate that I am yellow, yellow, yellow. The day I will leave the UDF, ask me about this and tear me apart on that decision," he told The Daily Times.
The following day, on Tuesday, he was in The Daily Times again, speaking poetry, using powerful construction, full of rhythm. He was speaking his mind on former president Bakili Muluzi who desires to contest in May.
"It would be naive to deny that there are problems there [in UDF], there are concerns stemming from the fact that there are a lot of rumours that ...Muluzi would not be allowed to stand. That he would be barred at the last minute; that he would be taken to court, all sorts of things. That is working on the minds of the UDF supporters," said Mpinganjira in visible poetry that can be re-arranged as follows:
It would be naive to deny
That there are problems there,
There are concerns
Stemming from the fact
That there are a lot of rumours
That...Muluzi would not be allowed to stand
That he would be barred at the last minute
That he would be taken to court.
It is interesting also that while Mpinganjira is calling this a season of rumours as a way of dismissing news that he is joining the MCP’s presidential ticket, he speaks his mind on Muluzi based on rumours as well: That there are a lot of rumours, that...Muluzi would not be allowed to stand, that he would be barred at the last minute and that he would be taken to court.
Why should Malawians disregard the rumour about the Mpinganjira-Tembo ticket but take seriously the rumour that Muluzi may be taken to court, that he may not be allowed to stand?
Mpinganjira is being selective. He is imposing one rumour on Malawians as truth and dismissing another as a product of a season of rumours. Aren’t both rumours a product of the same season of rumours? This is a question he is yet to answer. Or, perhaps, a question Mpinganjira, or BJ as he is called, is yet to be asked.
The most likely truth is that BJ is leaving the UDF or he is wooing the UDF to MCP. His assessment of the UDF alliance is honest and what people have said all along.
The parties that have partnered UDF do not necessarily bring numbers as in votes. All of them: from Kamlepo Kalua’s MDP, Uladi Mussa’s Maravi Peoples Party (MPP), Ralph Kasambara’s Congress of Democrats (Code), Amunandife Mkumba’s Malawi Democratic Union (MDU), with an exception of Gwanda Chakuamba’s New Republican Party (NRP) which may, perhaps, bring countable votes.
The challenge in UDF is that most people are afraid to speak. But not so with BJ. He does speak his mind. And so he has spoken, just short of Sam Mpasu’s hit: Muluzi can’t win.
Way back in the year 1999, there were rumours that Muluzi was supposed to pave way for BJ to stand on UDF ticket.
Just a year or so later, rumours were in town that BJ and Muluzi were not seeing eye-to-eye. Then BJ was Minister of Roads, Works and all the names that went with it. On the day Muluzi opened the Limbe-Thyolo-Mloza Road, Mpinganjira nearly knelt down, pledging his support to Muluzi and asking him to "remember me when you appoint your next Cabinet." This was at Luchenza on October 21, 2000.
"My loyalty to President Muluzi is unquestionable," said Mpinganjira, visibly angry at journalists who reported that he was harbouring presidential ambitions.
Next, BJ was fired from Cabinet, formed his NDA and was arrested, resulting into a court case that made him popular.
Just weeks ago, BJ repeated the Luchenza speech at Thawale Primary School in Mulanje. Mpinganjira reminded Muluzi that it was UDF’s Sapitwa region that first asked him to be candidate for UDF; that it was BJ who offered personal support for Muluzi; that the region has supported Muluzi throughout and that Sapitwa region of the UDF will support Muluzi to unseat Mutharika.
He spoke the tone of Luchenza when he pledged his allegiance to Muluzi. Now he has done the same. It seems likely that he will move out of UDF.
This is so despite his insistence that he is yellow, yellow, yellow. It is not the first time Mpinganjira has ever made such a claim. He did so just before the eve of the 2004 elections in which he was a presidential candidate.
Then, former editor of Focus on Africa and Network Africa, Robin White visited BJ at his Chitakale residence.
They became friends that whenever BJ went to London, he visited Bush House where the BBC is based and on one such trip, White, in an interview, suggested to Mpinganjira that Muluzi might invite him to UDF, meaning he should leave NDA and become UDF’s candidate in the elections in 2004.
The answer was interesting. BJ said he can "never, never, never, never, never, never, never"—seven times—join the UDF. (I used to record BBC programmes and still have the tape which I played to BJ the day we spent about seven hours together. He just laughed at my historical interest.)
Yet at the sunset of the 2004 elections, BJ dissolved NDA and joined the UDF, forgetting the never he said seven times on the BBC.
Now he claims he is "yellow, yellow, yellow" and that the day he leaves UDF he should be torn apart on this aspect. This invites one message for Mpinganjira, in some form of a letter, a brief one:
Dearest BJ,
You are right. This is a season of rumours because electoral rains have fallen and insects are singing. But some rumours, especially about Tembo and yourself, seem to be the kind that end into what was was rejected: truth.
Brown Mpinganjira, the cleverest politician in Malawi according to Jack Mapanje, is good at communication. He knows words that are loaded with meaning, he speaks poetry, and he can confuse people, even journalists, who don’t follow him critically.
In what can safely be called beautiful interviews this week with Blantyre Newspapers Limited journalists, Mpinganjira denied that he is being considered as a running mate for the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) president John Tembo in the May 19 presidential polls, saying this is a season of rumours.
He was clever, and right. Election times have been seasons of rumours since the 1994 polls. But one truth that Mpinganjira has not considered is that important crucial political truths start as rumours.
It was so with the coming of multiparty. Just a rumour, something from nowhere. It was so with the coming of Alliance for Democracy (Aford) into partnership with the United Democratic Front (UDF), just a rumour, something from crazy minds. Still, it was so with the divorce between Aford and UDF. Yet it was so with the open term and third term bids. It cannot be true, said Muluzi. Finally, it was so with the anointing of Bingu wa Mutharika as candidate for the UDF in 2004.
Even the birth of National Democratic Alliance, Mpinganjira’s own baby which he killed, started as a rumour. Yet in the face of such historical truths, Mpinganjira had the courage to tell The Daily Times of Monday (26/01/09) that he is not leaving the UDF.
"I am going to hold a press conference either on Tuesday or Wednesday to reiterate that I am yellow, yellow, yellow. The day I will leave the UDF, ask me about this and tear me apart on that decision," he told The Daily Times.
The following day, on Tuesday, he was in The Daily Times again, speaking poetry, using powerful construction, full of rhythm. He was speaking his mind on former president Bakili Muluzi who desires to contest in May.
"It would be naive to deny that there are problems there [in UDF], there are concerns stemming from the fact that there are a lot of rumours that ...Muluzi would not be allowed to stand. That he would be barred at the last minute; that he would be taken to court, all sorts of things. That is working on the minds of the UDF supporters," said Mpinganjira in visible poetry that can be re-arranged as follows:
It would be naive to deny
That there are problems there,
There are concerns
Stemming from the fact
That there are a lot of rumours
That...Muluzi would not be allowed to stand
That he would be barred at the last minute
That he would be taken to court.
It is interesting also that while Mpinganjira is calling this a season of rumours as a way of dismissing news that he is joining the MCP’s presidential ticket, he speaks his mind on Muluzi based on rumours as well: That there are a lot of rumours, that...Muluzi would not be allowed to stand, that he would be barred at the last minute and that he would be taken to court.
Why should Malawians disregard the rumour about the Mpinganjira-Tembo ticket but take seriously the rumour that Muluzi may be taken to court, that he may not be allowed to stand?
Mpinganjira is being selective. He is imposing one rumour on Malawians as truth and dismissing another as a product of a season of rumours. Aren’t both rumours a product of the same season of rumours? This is a question he is yet to answer. Or, perhaps, a question Mpinganjira, or BJ as he is called, is yet to be asked.
The most likely truth is that BJ is leaving the UDF or he is wooing the UDF to MCP. His assessment of the UDF alliance is honest and what people have said all along.
The parties that have partnered UDF do not necessarily bring numbers as in votes. All of them: from Kamlepo Kalua’s MDP, Uladi Mussa’s Maravi Peoples Party (MPP), Ralph Kasambara’s Congress of Democrats (Code), Amunandife Mkumba’s Malawi Democratic Union (MDU), with an exception of Gwanda Chakuamba’s New Republican Party (NRP) which may, perhaps, bring countable votes.
The challenge in UDF is that most people are afraid to speak. But not so with BJ. He does speak his mind. And so he has spoken, just short of Sam Mpasu’s hit: Muluzi can’t win.
Way back in the year 1999, there were rumours that Muluzi was supposed to pave way for BJ to stand on UDF ticket.
Just a year or so later, rumours were in town that BJ and Muluzi were not seeing eye-to-eye. Then BJ was Minister of Roads, Works and all the names that went with it. On the day Muluzi opened the Limbe-Thyolo-Mloza Road, Mpinganjira nearly knelt down, pledging his support to Muluzi and asking him to "remember me when you appoint your next Cabinet." This was at Luchenza on October 21, 2000.
"My loyalty to President Muluzi is unquestionable," said Mpinganjira, visibly angry at journalists who reported that he was harbouring presidential ambitions.
Next, BJ was fired from Cabinet, formed his NDA and was arrested, resulting into a court case that made him popular.
Just weeks ago, BJ repeated the Luchenza speech at Thawale Primary School in Mulanje. Mpinganjira reminded Muluzi that it was UDF’s Sapitwa region that first asked him to be candidate for UDF; that it was BJ who offered personal support for Muluzi; that the region has supported Muluzi throughout and that Sapitwa region of the UDF will support Muluzi to unseat Mutharika.
He spoke the tone of Luchenza when he pledged his allegiance to Muluzi. Now he has done the same. It seems likely that he will move out of UDF.
This is so despite his insistence that he is yellow, yellow, yellow. It is not the first time Mpinganjira has ever made such a claim. He did so just before the eve of the 2004 elections in which he was a presidential candidate.
Then, former editor of Focus on Africa and Network Africa, Robin White visited BJ at his Chitakale residence.
They became friends that whenever BJ went to London, he visited Bush House where the BBC is based and on one such trip, White, in an interview, suggested to Mpinganjira that Muluzi might invite him to UDF, meaning he should leave NDA and become UDF’s candidate in the elections in 2004.
The answer was interesting. BJ said he can "never, never, never, never, never, never, never"—seven times—join the UDF. (I used to record BBC programmes and still have the tape which I played to BJ the day we spent about seven hours together. He just laughed at my historical interest.)
Yet at the sunset of the 2004 elections, BJ dissolved NDA and joined the UDF, forgetting the never he said seven times on the BBC.
Now he claims he is "yellow, yellow, yellow" and that the day he leaves UDF he should be torn apart on this aspect. This invites one message for Mpinganjira, in some form of a letter, a brief one:
Dearest BJ,
You are right. This is a season of rumours because electoral rains have fallen and insects are singing. But some rumours, especially about Tembo and yourself, seem to be the kind that end into what was was rejected: truth.
Monday, January 26, 2009
In Search of One Person
Life is a journey and we meet hundreds, even thousands, and millions if you are the Pope or Obama, on the way. They help us understand who we are because the definition of our identity becomes clear when we interact with others.
So, too, our country. We know who we are when we interact with other countries or when we see what they are doing. The week January 18-24 was marvellous. We all admired Barrack Obama when he took oath of office of the President of the US on Jan. 20. For a moment, some Malawians wished they were Americans.
I did not. In fact, I have never desired to leave Malawi and work elsewhere. The streets of Washington can be interesting. I have walked on them. I have lived them. But Malawi is my home and remains priority.
Which is why we must not stop at admiring Americans. We must do for our country some of the things they have done for their country. Or, put clearly, some of the things our forefathers did for America. Those who were captured into slavery.
Why should we admire another country as if we do not have our own? I believe it takes one person to build a nation, not that he or she does the work on his or her own, but he or she inspires hundreds who work hard to develop their country. At a time we are so divided on political, regional, religious and tribal lines, Malawi is searching for one person, just one, to lead this country to a higher level the country deserves.
We need one person to rise above petty politics, triabalism, religious divisions, and all such vices, and talk about Malawi first. We need one person to come and speak of a new vision that will take Malawi out of poverty of the mind. We need one person to speak in new tones about the future of this country. We need one person to set Malawi on fire, the fire of self-awareness, hard work, honesty, and integrity. These are ideals missing in our society at national level. There are those who have these qualities but this is at individual levels and such individuals have not been able to recharge the country, to put Malawi on fire and move the country forward.
Instead, we look at Malawi not as a country of one history, but divided history. The Kamuzu era and its development; the Muluzi era and its development programmes; and the Bingu era with its roads and subsidised fertiliser. The result is that we say this belongs to Kamuzu, that to Muluzi and that one to Bingu.
No. Everything belongs to Malawi. We need someone to put Malawi first, to demonstrate that Malawi is more important than all of us.
This is how Bingu wa Mutharika started when he delivered his inaugural speech. But on the journey of his leadership, on the way, on the via, he met selfish politicians who taught him to castigate opposition leaders at rallies. He met leaders who have no sense of leadership. He made appointments based on religion, region and such unimportant qualification, forgetting that merit is the best.
On the way he has become like any other president. Yet he remains different and still has a chance to prove that he can set the country on fire, the fire of patriotism, to make all Malawians feel to be part of the country.
But what do the rest of us do to make such a person? Our leaders do what we allow them to do. If we demand leadership, we can get it. But we all over-praise our leaders as if they were gods and we make them believe they are miracles to Malawi even when they are failing.
I was writing this piece while listening to News and Reports on MBC Radio One and Minister of Local Government George Chaponda was on radio. He started by saying: "This is what Ngwazi Dr Bingu wa Mutharika wants to see." He was talking about tree planting. Is this really something only Mutharika wants to see? Why didn’t Chaponda say "this is what Malawians want". This means Chaponda is serving Mutharika not Malawi.
I am searching for one person who shall rise above petty politics and build Malawi as one country. I am searching for one person who shall speak like a Malawian to all Malawians. But I am also looking for Malawians who can be masters of politicians and demand from them what we deserve.
My plain view is that this search will be long but will come to an end, anyway. It may take years, perhaps decades, but the search shall yield results. I am hopeful for my country, that someday, someone will become a change agent. I long for that day.
Feedback: mzatinews@yahoo.com
So, too, our country. We know who we are when we interact with other countries or when we see what they are doing. The week January 18-24 was marvellous. We all admired Barrack Obama when he took oath of office of the President of the US on Jan. 20. For a moment, some Malawians wished they were Americans.
I did not. In fact, I have never desired to leave Malawi and work elsewhere. The streets of Washington can be interesting. I have walked on them. I have lived them. But Malawi is my home and remains priority.
Which is why we must not stop at admiring Americans. We must do for our country some of the things they have done for their country. Or, put clearly, some of the things our forefathers did for America. Those who were captured into slavery.
Why should we admire another country as if we do not have our own? I believe it takes one person to build a nation, not that he or she does the work on his or her own, but he or she inspires hundreds who work hard to develop their country. At a time we are so divided on political, regional, religious and tribal lines, Malawi is searching for one person, just one, to lead this country to a higher level the country deserves.
We need one person to rise above petty politics, triabalism, religious divisions, and all such vices, and talk about Malawi first. We need one person to come and speak of a new vision that will take Malawi out of poverty of the mind. We need one person to speak in new tones about the future of this country. We need one person to set Malawi on fire, the fire of self-awareness, hard work, honesty, and integrity. These are ideals missing in our society at national level. There are those who have these qualities but this is at individual levels and such individuals have not been able to recharge the country, to put Malawi on fire and move the country forward.
Instead, we look at Malawi not as a country of one history, but divided history. The Kamuzu era and its development; the Muluzi era and its development programmes; and the Bingu era with its roads and subsidised fertiliser. The result is that we say this belongs to Kamuzu, that to Muluzi and that one to Bingu.
No. Everything belongs to Malawi. We need someone to put Malawi first, to demonstrate that Malawi is more important than all of us.
This is how Bingu wa Mutharika started when he delivered his inaugural speech. But on the journey of his leadership, on the way, on the via, he met selfish politicians who taught him to castigate opposition leaders at rallies. He met leaders who have no sense of leadership. He made appointments based on religion, region and such unimportant qualification, forgetting that merit is the best.
On the way he has become like any other president. Yet he remains different and still has a chance to prove that he can set the country on fire, the fire of patriotism, to make all Malawians feel to be part of the country.
But what do the rest of us do to make such a person? Our leaders do what we allow them to do. If we demand leadership, we can get it. But we all over-praise our leaders as if they were gods and we make them believe they are miracles to Malawi even when they are failing.
I was writing this piece while listening to News and Reports on MBC Radio One and Minister of Local Government George Chaponda was on radio. He started by saying: "This is what Ngwazi Dr Bingu wa Mutharika wants to see." He was talking about tree planting. Is this really something only Mutharika wants to see? Why didn’t Chaponda say "this is what Malawians want". This means Chaponda is serving Mutharika not Malawi.
I am searching for one person who shall rise above petty politics and build Malawi as one country. I am searching for one person who shall speak like a Malawian to all Malawians. But I am also looking for Malawians who can be masters of politicians and demand from them what we deserve.
My plain view is that this search will be long but will come to an end, anyway. It may take years, perhaps decades, but the search shall yield results. I am hopeful for my country, that someday, someone will become a change agent. I long for that day.
Feedback: mzatinews@yahoo.com
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Search for Power
The study of the story and history of power can be illuminating. What is power like and how do politicians use it?
On a warm May Monday afternoon in 2004, former president Bakili Muluzi witnessed the swearing-in of President Bingu wa Mutharika.
Parts of the country were witnessing violence in the aftermath of the elections because some people who considered themselves in majority, led by some members of the clergy, wanted Gwanda Chakuamba to win. Thus the victory of Mutharika was bad news, especially in Blantyre where a trigger-happy Police Mobile Service man killed a 10-year-old girl, Epiphania Bonjesi. The country was divided. It needed a uniting power.
At Chichiri Stadium, Muluzi spoke first. Typical of him, he was overjoyed, telling off opposition leaders to accept results because the clergy prayed to God, asking for a leader, and God answered by providing Mutharika.
Then Muluzi handed over power to Mutharika who, minutes earlier, had taken oath of office, ending with "So help me God."
Just then, a country that had one president, welcomed a President and a living ex-president. First President Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda died in 1997 and left Muluzi without an ex-president.
Even in 1994, Muluzi had an ex-president from a different party, one the UDF and its supporters opposed and pushed out of power.
It was reasonably easy for people, especially government departments, to understand that Kamuzu had lost power and Muluzi was at the State House. This was partly because Kamuzu understood that he was no longer in power; instead, someone else, Muluzi, was in control.
The 2004 case was different. Mutharika had an ex-president who had become his party’s national chairman and it did not take long for trouble to appear.
He handed over power to Mutharika but out of Chichiri Stadium, Muluzi rode with the new Mutharika in the presidential, open Land Rover which for UDF supporters was love: an ex-president taking a new President to State House. But for students of power, it was the ex-president’s failure to appreciate his new status, that his name had attained the prefix "ex".
Weeks later, Muluzi, as national chairperson of the UDF was on a journey to thank people for voting for Mutharika. The Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) was in a dilemma, whether or not to cover him live. Who was in power?
Power, as was the case in Malawi, can be understood in terms of command and control. "It is either the capacity to make others do as you wish (the command function) or to reorder the environment around you (the control function)," says a scholar of power, Jon Meacham.
Muluzi’s clinging to power showed that he was doing the command type because even after the State House, he wanted to enjoy some visible privileges exclusive to a President.
The command and control concepts of power became extremes. Mutharika was trying to reorder the environment around him (Malawi). There was a difference in the two people’s pursuit of power. Muluzi’s pursuit of power was for domination while Mutharika, it seemed, wanted to use power to make possible a journey towards paradise.
Some thoughts, as a result, became true. Decades ago, Machiavelli wrote: "It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things."
It was difficult for Muluzi to carry out or initiate a new order of things after taking over from Kamuzu because such work requires leadership lessons which, it now appears in retrospect, Muluzi did not learn. He replaced the MCP Youth League with UDF’s Young Democrats who beat up people in full presence of a helpless Police.
Mutharika, on his part, attempted to do what Machiavelli called difficult and doubtful: change and initiate a new order of the state of affairs in Malawi.
Constructive evaluation of Mutharika and his DPP must consider the world in which he started his rule and formed his party. The DPP, in the thoughts of Machiavelli, is a party attempting to do what is "more difficult to carry out…more doubtful of success [and] more dangerous to handle", a point analysts miss.
This does not mean Mutharika is perfect. He is a visionary leader, good mostly, but with one strong weakness: he is running an administration without a reverse gear. It is a government that does not look back to reflect on what has gone wrong and take responsibility, a leader whose vocabulary does not contain the word "but" which in the study of power is a reverse gear.
The subsidised fertiliser programme cannot be 100 percent correct. Food security does not mean universal food availability of the staple. Reports show that some houses, and they are in thousands, do not have maize.
Information about hunger and scarcity of maize is everywhere yet this is one thing. It is another for Mutharika to accept reality and be proactive by defining hunger and famine, instead of reacting to shortage reports and refuting starvation.
He is failing to say "but", a reverse gear, to appreciate that the subsidised fertiliser programme and nature’s kindness that brings rains, but accept that some things went wrong somewhere and indeed hunger is biting hard some parts of the country.
Mutharika is yet to work on his communication strategy, which is largely a failure even in the presence of visible success. He fails to construct reality for people to accept.
Still, that May Monday afternoon, when Muluzi and Mutharika spoke at Chichiri Stadium, politician’s use of power for good or worse became visible.
On a warm May Monday afternoon in 2004, former president Bakili Muluzi witnessed the swearing-in of President Bingu wa Mutharika.
Parts of the country were witnessing violence in the aftermath of the elections because some people who considered themselves in majority, led by some members of the clergy, wanted Gwanda Chakuamba to win. Thus the victory of Mutharika was bad news, especially in Blantyre where a trigger-happy Police Mobile Service man killed a 10-year-old girl, Epiphania Bonjesi. The country was divided. It needed a uniting power.
At Chichiri Stadium, Muluzi spoke first. Typical of him, he was overjoyed, telling off opposition leaders to accept results because the clergy prayed to God, asking for a leader, and God answered by providing Mutharika.
Then Muluzi handed over power to Mutharika who, minutes earlier, had taken oath of office, ending with "So help me God."
Just then, a country that had one president, welcomed a President and a living ex-president. First President Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda died in 1997 and left Muluzi without an ex-president.
Even in 1994, Muluzi had an ex-president from a different party, one the UDF and its supporters opposed and pushed out of power.
It was reasonably easy for people, especially government departments, to understand that Kamuzu had lost power and Muluzi was at the State House. This was partly because Kamuzu understood that he was no longer in power; instead, someone else, Muluzi, was in control.
The 2004 case was different. Mutharika had an ex-president who had become his party’s national chairman and it did not take long for trouble to appear.
He handed over power to Mutharika but out of Chichiri Stadium, Muluzi rode with the new Mutharika in the presidential, open Land Rover which for UDF supporters was love: an ex-president taking a new President to State House. But for students of power, it was the ex-president’s failure to appreciate his new status, that his name had attained the prefix "ex".
Weeks later, Muluzi, as national chairperson of the UDF was on a journey to thank people for voting for Mutharika. The Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) was in a dilemma, whether or not to cover him live. Who was in power?
Power, as was the case in Malawi, can be understood in terms of command and control. "It is either the capacity to make others do as you wish (the command function) or to reorder the environment around you (the control function)," says a scholar of power, Jon Meacham.
Muluzi’s clinging to power showed that he was doing the command type because even after the State House, he wanted to enjoy some visible privileges exclusive to a President.
The command and control concepts of power became extremes. Mutharika was trying to reorder the environment around him (Malawi). There was a difference in the two people’s pursuit of power. Muluzi’s pursuit of power was for domination while Mutharika, it seemed, wanted to use power to make possible a journey towards paradise.
Some thoughts, as a result, became true. Decades ago, Machiavelli wrote: "It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things."
It was difficult for Muluzi to carry out or initiate a new order of things after taking over from Kamuzu because such work requires leadership lessons which, it now appears in retrospect, Muluzi did not learn. He replaced the MCP Youth League with UDF’s Young Democrats who beat up people in full presence of a helpless Police.
Mutharika, on his part, attempted to do what Machiavelli called difficult and doubtful: change and initiate a new order of the state of affairs in Malawi.
Constructive evaluation of Mutharika and his DPP must consider the world in which he started his rule and formed his party. The DPP, in the thoughts of Machiavelli, is a party attempting to do what is "more difficult to carry out…more doubtful of success [and] more dangerous to handle", a point analysts miss.
This does not mean Mutharika is perfect. He is a visionary leader, good mostly, but with one strong weakness: he is running an administration without a reverse gear. It is a government that does not look back to reflect on what has gone wrong and take responsibility, a leader whose vocabulary does not contain the word "but" which in the study of power is a reverse gear.
The subsidised fertiliser programme cannot be 100 percent correct. Food security does not mean universal food availability of the staple. Reports show that some houses, and they are in thousands, do not have maize.
Information about hunger and scarcity of maize is everywhere yet this is one thing. It is another for Mutharika to accept reality and be proactive by defining hunger and famine, instead of reacting to shortage reports and refuting starvation.
He is failing to say "but", a reverse gear, to appreciate that the subsidised fertiliser programme and nature’s kindness that brings rains, but accept that some things went wrong somewhere and indeed hunger is biting hard some parts of the country.
Mutharika is yet to work on his communication strategy, which is largely a failure even in the presence of visible success. He fails to construct reality for people to accept.
Still, that May Monday afternoon, when Muluzi and Mutharika spoke at Chichiri Stadium, politician’s use of power for good or worse became visible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
