Q & A

‘There is brewing legitimacy crisis’

In this interview, EPHRAIM NYONDO sat down with political scientist Dr Michael Jana to get the theoretical perspectives on the raging debates regarding secession and federalism.

Q

: Briefly, when citizens start debating secession and federalism come into public, what is it in a political system that necessitates it?

Jana: There is always room for debate
Jana: There is always room for debate

A

: Calls for secession often come when a section of a political unit feels that their welfare is not (adequately) taken into consideration by being part of the unit, and that pulling out and being autonomous is the only solution to attain social justice. Federalism, however, is a higher form of political and development decentralisation and may be necessitated by the need to efficiently and effectively respond to respective provinces’ political and development needs. In a unitary government like Malawi, when such calls start gaining momentum, the cause is more often than not a sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo by those proposing the secession or federalism; and if we can find a lot of traces of this dissatisfaction and calls for secession or federalism in different sections of the country, this may imply that the authority of the government and the state is undermined – this becomes a typical case of brewing legitimacy crisis.

Q

: Do you think Malawi needs these debates?

A

: In an open society, which I believe Malawi is one, there is always room for debates on any issue. It is true that many parts of the Northern Malawi, Neno, Mwanza, Chikhwawa, Nsanje, just to mention a few, are less developed than other parts and that things would have been better if certain policy choices were made. Countries need to constantly debate and take policy directions that should ensure equitability and inclusivity amid differences especially when distribution of development goods is inherently political. So these debates are not necessarily about the North only. As long as these debates are not hijacked by individuals whose interests are merely to gain political power; as long as some section is not stifling the debate by masking the merits of the proposals with propaganda, I think these debates are perfectly in order.

Q

: What actually is political secession, where has it worked, and can it work in Malawi?

A

: As I have said, political secession is when a section of a political unit, normally a section of a country, pulls out of that country and forms a separate country or political unit. This normally happens when there are grave injustices suffered by the people of the section that is demanding secession. The most recent secession in Africa that I can remember is the formation of the new Republic of South Sudan that pulled out of Sudan after suffering gross human rights abuses and exclusion from power and development distribution. Well, typical of any new State undergoing such transition in a state formation stage, the country is not stable at the moment but I am hopeful they will find a political solution and move on; actually I think South Sudan is better off independent from Sudan. But it normally takes arms conflict for a unit to secede because to secede is essentially to divide sovereignty which is the heart of State authority.

However, in Malawi, I don’t think any section of Malawi has suffered grave injustice warranting secession. Of course, there are development distribution issues that need to be rectified. But in the absence of grave injustice, calls for secession for whatever reason can be tantamount to chaos because it means that any section of Malawi with some dissatisfaction should secede; I mean, if the North should secede because it has been sidelined in the distribution of many development goods, what can stop Neno and Mwanza, Chikhwawa and Nsanje, from doing the same? That translates into anarchy.

Q

: How do you assess the demands of federalism in the context of Malawi?

A

: One thing to note is that federalism is a very fluid term both in theory and practice; and it only takes some shape after constitutional provisions have been agreed upon and put into effect. Federalism in India is not the same as federalism in Brazil and is not the same as federalism in South Africa; and all these forms have different advantages and disadvantages; and are not magic bullets to solving development or political issues. What I see missing in the current Malawi debate is an articulation of what form of federalism and how it will solve the problems. One may actually argue that, by definition, Malawi already has a form of federalism through political and administrative powers devolved to municipalities, cities and district councils; that district councils can make by-laws, prioritise and allocate development resources, respond efficiently and effectively to local needs and increase local accountability. In this context, what the federalism proponents are proposing is merely adding another layer at regional level. In my opinion, I think we need to strengthen and give chance to our form of federalism, the local government system, before we add another layer of federalism at regional level. I think the current local government system has the potential to solve the problems raised by “federalism” proponents.

Q

: How would you want government to handle these debates?

A

:  I think government needs to provide a space conducive for open debate on these issues. Unfortunately, I think government seems to be so opposed to these ideas to the extent of killing a healthy debate through parading only those who are biased towards a single side.

Q

: Anything you would want to add?

A

:  It is clear that the current debates are a result of dissatisfaction in some sections of Malawi society about power and development distribution. As I said earlier, this can be a case of brewing legitimacy crisis and can only be ignored at the government’s peril. Since May 2014, amidst concerns on our electoral system that bred a minority president and government; concerns over biased appointments and so on, I don’t think government has done enough, or at least seen to be doing enough to promote inclusive power and development distribution. It’s high time this must be rectified.

Related Articles

Check Also
Close
Back to top button