For the Big Four, debate is about defending record

The first of the two presidential debates starts next week to be followed by a second seven days later. The debates will be on domestic policy.

On display will be style and substance—both of which are important performance indicators in this political theatre.

Had all the 12 presidential candidates participated in this pageant of ideas and image, my view is that it would have been about the ‘Big Four’—People’s Party’s (PP) candidate President Joyce Banda, Malawi Congress Party’s (MCP) Lazarus Chakwera, Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Peter Mutharika and United Democratic Front’s (UDF) Atupele Muluzi—defending their records given that all of them have been in government at some point in our history.

For the smaller candidates who, to be frank, are merely ‘also runs’, their task will be to demonstrate that they can be a credible alternative to the bungling four—assuming that anyone will listen to them.

As is tradition—and it was proven during the first Zodiak Broadcasting Station (ZBS) vice-presidential debate that President Banda’s running mate Sosten Gwengwe participated in the first one before ducking the second—it is the incumbent candidate that is put on the defensive most. But as I am writing this column, President Banda has also pulled out of the showcase. What a pity. What a missed opportunity.

While Cashgate and Jetgate are bulky folders for the three leading opposition parties to exploit, Mrs. Banda would not have been a lame duck.

The President would have taken advantage of the debate to remind Malawians that she inherited a mess from the DPP. She would have cited foreign currency shortages and the resultant fuel woes that crippled the economy as an example of DPP’s ineptness.

She would have cited the ‘restart button’ she pressed to normalise relations with the international community, which were damaged under the temperamental DPP regime. Mrs. Banda would have reminded us of the atrocious political and economic governance in those dark days; human rights infringements as well as deadly political intolerance that claimed the life of a university student, butchered 20 innocent citizens that were demonstrating peacefully against an increasingly autocratic administration and led to the bombing of critics in the media and civil society.

President Banda would have pointed out that her free market policies she shoved down our throats have brought forex and fuel; that the country is enjoying fairly good relations with foreign powers; that she got rid of dictatorial laws such as the Injunctions Bill and Media Laws.

These are no mean achievements and Mrs. Banda does deserve a lot of credit. But, of course, she would have had a lot of defending to do for the continuation of looting of public funds from the DPP regime under her watch as well as for the way her government handled the sale of the presidential jet.

The President would also have had to answer why the wheels of justice on Cashgate are grinding so infuriatingly slow.

MCP’s Chakwera is coming into the ring as an outsider since he has never been an active politician until now.

He may argue that he represents change and could try to convince voters that he can drive a much needed reform agenda.

But Chakwera will be on the defensive regarding his qualification for office. He has a near zero understanding of how government works and has never run anything other than the church.

He will also be forced to defend the MCP record on human rights and other political crimes during its iron rule days.

Sure, he will argue that it will be unfair to compare the party’s one party days to democratic ones; that it would operate differently in a multiparty setup and that this is a new MCP.

But then, it could be pointed out to the man of the collar that MCP secured power in a multiparty environment and it is this party that killed off multi-party democracy by wiping out all opposition political parties and most of its leaders through assassination and imprisonment on tramped up charges.

What will stop MCP from eliminating all the opposition parties again if it wins elections this time around?

On the question of MCP being new, that is hard to believe. The party continues to cling to its so-called four corner stones like a child to a teddy bear.

And just so you remember, one of those ‘corner stones’ is ‘Obedience’. In other words, it remains the assumption of the MCP that citizens must obey it, which is dangerous. How will it enforce obedience? The answer is scary.

As for the DPP, Peter Mutharika will have to take a position on the theft of K92 billion on the party’s watch between 2009 and 2012.

Peter may also have to shield questions and innuendos on his brother’s accumulation of K60 billion in wealth from a merely K150 million eight years early.

Furthermore, will DPP return the country to the ruinous economic policies or will it change course? Will Peter preside over a government that challenges its citizens to street fights if they disagree with him or bomb activists critical of his agenda?

He will also have to defend his party’s handling of diplomats and whether that will remain the DPP doctrine and foreign policy.

As for Atupule, he has been long on generalities, but embarrassingly short on specifics. He will have to provide them during the debates.

I hope that he will not take the attitude of his running mate Godfrey Chapola who angrily scoffs at the idea of providing specifics.

As they say, the devil is in the detail and Atupele’s so-called Change Agenda is starved of details, especially the ‘how’.

Atupele will also have to defend himself against the narrative that he is his father’s son—literally. Can he be his own man or he is some kind of Manchurian candidate? Some say the UDF government is the father and founder of multi-party era fraud and corruption. You just have to look at the K187 million (more than K2 billion) to day.

His own father, Bakili, is answering corruption charges in courts. How will he shake these ominous shadows?

Indeed, it can be argued, persuasively so, that the only thing that appears to have changed about UDF is that it has a youthful leader who speaks better English than his father, but can he govern differently?

This should be interesting. Hold your breaths.