Malawi’s democracy under radar

Malawi is a developing country in more senses than the economic sense which dominates the phenomenon of development. I have in mind the evolution of public management and service institutions and systems, but more importantly to its own survival as a modern polity, the state of its democracy.

Though in common use a long historical the time, there is no consensus how the concept of democracy is defined, but there is considerable agreement on the centrality to its practice of values of equality before the law, rule of law and freedom through protection of fundamental rights.

Democracies are founded principally upon five features, namely the right to vote for all adults; the conduct of scheduled free and fair elections; fair competition for leadership among two or more political parties; a free media providing multiple sources of information; and a vibrant civil society free to project people’s voices on public issues.

Power of the people is the most dominant feature of democratic states, and with it the sanctity of rule of law. In a democracy, human rights are the principal tools intended to give all people equal inalienable title to practice all forms of freedom unhampered by the State, be they private and personal or public and political.

Rule of law, people power and rights combined separate rational from despotic governments. Similarly, failure to enforce rule of law is the one factor that sets apart functional and dysfunctional democracies. While rule of law, that is governance bound to legal norms, substantiates popular rights, those rights empower citizens to demand accountability from elected leadership.

The phenomenon of accountability relates to the obligation of elected leaders to answer for unpopular decisions when the citizenry so demands, directly through media or indirectly through elected representatives and the voice of organised civil society. Accountability in action comprises explaining objectively decisions queried by the electorate; justifying the decision to the satisfaction of the people; and meting out appropriate punishment for the negative consequences of the decision.

In good democracies, the minimum for government is to ensure all citizens enjoy rights and freedoms in a context of equality; for the citizens to be led by an elected and legitimated regime which musters that right to lead and satisfies all citizens; and to operate public institutions which have the confidence and support of the masses.

Citizens in democracies have the power to police government and ensure that leaders pursue the goals of liberty, legal equality and efficiency in the application of the law. Further, citizens demand accountability and responsiveness on the part of government to the needs, desires and expectations of the people.

Where do developing democracies such as Malawi lie in all this? I would say progress is steady but challenges weigh down much of the democratic architecture that Malawi has evolved to date. Failure to advance the democratisation process is not for lack of precedent but rather the combined impacts of local histories, leadership culture and outright incompetence.

Unlike Western democracies, the Malawian and for that matter the African version(s) will not thrive because leaders take up power without express drive to change and improve people’s lives, or perhaps such drive dissipates on the throne. Our democracy is not founded on a tested political morality that commits to seeking policies and actions that improve all people. There is no culture of honest self-evaluation among leaders nor is there humble readiness to make honest admissions and adjustments when things go wrong.

There is a relationship between democracy and prosperity, democracy and freedom, democracy and wellbeing which eludes most of Africa, Malawi included. It is a legitimate expectation and part of the social compact with citizens for government to uplift their social and economic lives. However few governments ever satisfy this basic need. Democracy is coterminous with freedom, but few leaders grant freedom without subtle, undercurrent and sometimes blatant autocratic tendencies that gag whole or part of populations.

Little wonder failure to meet public expectations fuels incessant reactions, widespread breakdown of public peace and discipline and a significant slowing down of people’s application to productive work. ‘Incomplete democracies’ tend to project promising pledges and generate hopes that are never fulfilled because leaders do not always understand how public systems work nor do they grasp the demands that democracy places upon them.

The reality is that in Malawi like most parts of Africa, democracy has not necessarily led to freedom and prosperity. Deepening poverty attests to failure of democracies in developing countries as much as do violations of rights and freedoms. The majority are feeble democracies emerging from the shadows of virulent messianic governments where one party, one man and one government prevailed unchallenged for decades.

Sadly from this background comes the tendency for leaders to consolidate power around one ruling party and one leader; the tendency to ignore the opposition and manage public affairs as though no other parties existed. The drive to ‘lead completely’ curtails open dialogue both inside parties and government with the result that divisions emerge between a ‘core inner circle’ of preferred diehards of party and government on the one hand and followers who serve to survive without commitment to popular public will on the other. Opposition parties tend to compromise the power of leverage by aligning with parties in power for gluttonous ends.

This is a typical scenario that generates a scramble for resources, deepens corrupt practices and creates a leadership structure which keeps alive through use of fear and mistrust. When new government forms in such a context, the immediate drive is to curtail alternative opinion in party and government alike. A culture of inter-party, inter-government vengeance inevitably dominates the narrative making bi-partisan dialogue unattainable.

In Africa, not least Malawi, the tribal culture remains the greatest deterrent to the emergence of free flowing democracies. Very limited efforts have been made to rally people around principles of law, human rights and legitimacy such that numerous other forces come into play that diminish and undermine the power of western-type democracies, and the tribal group is the most venomous culprit.

We know that democracy requires diversity of opinions, it requires debate and it requires on-going dialogue on issues affecting people. That is the essence of having parties, civil society organisations and of course Parliament. We also know that societies have to achieve a certain level of education to be able to practise pure democracy. For societies used to tribal strong men alternative opinion is dissent, not the practice of democracy. In other words, many experts argue, the essence of western-type democracy fundamentally contradicts the structure and organisation of traditional societies.

What is left in such incomplete or forming democracies are numerous detractors of democracy or indicators of dysfunctional democracy and the Malawian elite have pointed these out candidly and consistently in the past six months.

First what you see is not only inefficiency in the application of the law, rules and procedures in the judicial and civil service, there is unequal and often hampered access to the public justice system often favouring the elites especially where the lawsuits involve institutions of government. Second, there is unwillingness to accept responsibility when things go wrong and to make amends that are then made known to the people. In other words, weak democracies struggle with the basic of accountability.

Third, forming democracies are characterised by inefficient police institutions, often not attuned to the culture of human rights and therefore unable to respect rights enshrined in the constitution and guaranteed by the law. The same is reflected through instances of corruption in the judicial system at all levels, incomplete independence of the judiciary from political emasculation and an increase in organised and violent crime. The net effect mistrust of government and political leaders and disinterested donor partners which ultimately slows down development.

What action do we take, therefore?

It is my view that the greatest detractor to democracy in Malawi is lack of dialogue and debate at all levels: community, party, Parliament or government. We seek to attain a democratic status without investing in discussion of the principles of democracy. There is room for Malawi to initiate such discussion and evaluation of our democracy through schools, colleges, community structures and community leaders.

Government and civil society must work together to bring democracy education to the people where they are and in a language they can understand. The media must play a special role in developing media and communication strategies and approaches that support democracy education and mobilisation of people to take action and decisions on how their country must be governed. For example, people must understand what elections are, why they should participate and how they should make an individual informed decision un-influenced by political parties or organisations with interest in power.

The armed forces and the police service, while being security organisations of modern societies, are critical to the organisation and management of effective elections through deliberate study and regulation of the law, protection of human rights and the preservation of peace over distabilising political forces.