September 15 was the International Day of Democracy commemorated under the theme Spaces for Civil Society. The United Nations set aside the day to remind governments that the hallmark of successful and stable democracies is the presence of a strong and a freely operating civil society. JOHN CHIRWA caught up with the Malawi Electoral Support Network (Mesn) executive director Steve Duwa to analyse the state of democracy in the country.
Q:
What is the state of democracy and governance in Malawi? Are leaders accountable enough to the electorate?
A:
The 1993 referendum in Malawi resulted in the reintroduction of multiparty democracy which was followed by multiparty general elections in 1994. Now 22 years down the line, Malawi’s democracy is on track and remains a model in the region in as far as observance of the majority tenets of democracy is concerned. These are participation—to a large extent citizens in Malawi are allowed to participate in the affairs of their country; tolerance and coexistence—majority and minority groups are able to express themselves and accommodate each other regardless of gender, political affiliation, ethnicity, culture, religion, social status; accountability and transparency—though not to the fullest extent, Malawians are able to question elected leaders including the president on the decisions they make and how they perform their duties; respect and protection of human rights—these appear under the Bill of Rights in Chapter IV of the Republican Constitution and citizens are able to demand these rights directly or through constitutional bodies and NGOs; rule of law—which is based on the principle that no person is above the law and everybody is equal before the law; regular free and participatory elections—apart from failing to hold local polls between 2005 and 2013, Malawi has always managed to hold presidential and parliamentary elections as prescribed in the Republican Constitution. Recently in 2014 Malawi held the inaugural tripartite elections.
In terms of state of governance, it is a mixed bag; politically there is stability and very little squabbles between the party in power and those in opposition and the political tension which characterised the immediate period after the tripartite elections appears to diminish save for the usual politicking over national and local development issues.
Economically life is becoming unbearable for the average Malawian as a direct consequence of the Cashgate scandal, coupled with donor withdrawal of budgetary support. Administratively and as a short term measure government appears lost in search of ways to address the many socio-economic challenges facing the country such as the erratic supply of water and electricity, acute shortage of drugs in public hospitals and the impending hunger are but serious signs of a sick nation.
Q:
What should be done to make sure that our democracy matures?
A:
Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that we are still in a democracy consolidation process which commenced soon after the 1994 elections. Malawi‘s democracy has not matured yet. My view is that our democracy is still young but growing relatively fast. Maturity comes when citizens are able to enjoy or exercise their rights with highest degree of responsibility, which is not the case yet in Malawi. While a lot of efforts both by CSOs and government bodies have focused on creating citizens’ awareness on their rights, the inevitable need for obliged responsibility towards enjoyment of these rights remains a big challenge, and this is the challenge we need to address if our democracy is to mature. Again this requires time and coming to grips with complex challenges.
Q:
What has been the state of the civil society in Malawi, because the UN recognises that democracy is the product of a strong, active and vocal civil society?
A:
The multiparty era in Malawi brought with it many civil society organisations which are a link between individual citizens with the public realm and the State. They facilitate better awareness and a more informed citizenry who make informed voting choices, participate in public life and hold government more accountable as a result. In terms of its vibrancy, it is fair to say that the CSOs in Malawi, especially in the multiparty era, have maintained a strong voice and wilful power to fight injustices, corruption and dictatorship. Though divided at times, the voice from CSOs has never died completely.
Q:
The hallmark of successful and stable democracies is the presence of a strong and freely operating civil society—in which government and civil society work together for common goals. Is that the case in Malawi?
A:
Let me start by saying that there is strength in numbers. To say that there is presence of a strong civil society in Malawi at the moment is debatable. However, it would be fair to say that the civil society in Malawi is operating freely at the moment. In terms of registration and operating environment, the civil society in Malawi is better off than its counterpart in the Sadc [Southern African Development Community] region. Restrictions are only in terms of its ability to sustain its presence through demand-driven interventions mainly due to lack of resources. Working together with government for common goals! This would be the ideal situation in Malawi.
Q:
There have been divisions within the civil society defeating the whole purpose of holding government accountable. How best should the civil society be in one spirit because there is power in oneness?
A:
It should be appreciated that every CSO is formed for a particular purpose and function. They can network or form synergies for purposes of avoiding duplication of efforts, maximise on utilisation of resources and avoid unwarranted competition. However, the biggest challenge at the moment is civil society’s sole dependence on donor funding which currently is becoming erratic. For the sake of survival and sadly, for that matter, some CSOs have at times resorted to gossip about their friends to donors and government with the hope of winning favours and receive funding. Some have fallen prey to tactics of divide and rule by politicians especially those in power, resulting in weakening the civil society family.
