Not yet time for federalism?

Hon Folks, the Public Affairs Committee (PAC), to whom APM entrusted the task of following the calls for federalism and even cessation to their logical conclusion, has announced the outcome of consultative process.

Only five of the 14 stakeholder groups and “opinion leaders” representing Malawians in various sectors were for the adoption of a federal system of government, according to The Daily Times of Friday, 11th December.

This means nine—or more than 64 percent—were against the federal system. The total silence on cessation could be construed to mean the consultations regarded this as a non-issue, otherwise there should also have been a vote on this one.

The narrative for the change has been informed more by frustration with the current first-past-the-post system of presidential election and the glaring elements of nepotism than anything else.

Those that objectively tried to highlight the merits of the federal system easily discovered that there were demerits in equal measure, if not more. What drives calls for change is alienation, a strong sense of being disenfranchised.

Since PAC was tasked by APM to handle the debate on the federal system, it’s now up to the President to make use of the respite to champion a shift from the prevailing divisive system to a more inclusive system.

In our case, this may mean a change from the first-past-the-post system to 50+1 system for electing the President. That way, we may avert the frustrations of the current scenario where a candidate who garnered 36 percent of the votes—which is another way of saying a candidate rejected by the majority 64 percent of the electorate—assumes power in the name of democracy which, ironically, implies the rule of the majority.

Obviously, if APM embraces the 50+1 system, it’s his own stronghold that may feel betrayed by the game-changer. The tribal/regional factor which constitutes the DNA of political parties and ultimately explains the predictability of election outcomes will no longer be sufficient.

The winner will have to sweat a bit to garner a majority vote and that will at times necessitate political alliances which, if properly negotiated, entail some trade-offs on policy and campaign pledges.

The advantage of that system is that the president will have the mandate of the majority of the electorate. To secure that, the president will, at least as a matter of principle, have to take into consideration the interests of the majority of Malawians.

History has taught us that where a president draws mandate from a small, privileged clique, autocracy, like a cancerous tumour, grows on democracy then spread with time.

When Kamuzu Banda fought against change to multiparty politics, he argued vehemently that the system wasn’t good for Malawi as it would only divide the country along regional and tribal lines. The call for cessation or federal system, in a way, proves that the old man’s fears have come to pass.

More and more Malawians no longer consider belonging together as one nation under one President a satisfactory functional unit. Instead, they want to associate more with a smaller functional unit in the name of federal system.

We have to accept that the mediocrity that has characterised the multiparty system from 1994 to-date is a reason for the mess we are in. Presidents worry more about longevity of tenure than serving the larger good.

We’ve seen loyalty replacing merit; what’s-in-it-for-us replacing what’s good for the nation and many other examples where people in power try to squeeze juice from political vices. The result is our failure to move an inch forward on poverty reduction in the past 21 years of multiparty democracy.

You only have to stash scones in your mouth to see merit in such a failed system. The message once again is: do something, Mr. President, before he growing number of frustrated Malawians demand the change. n