To participate or not participate in elections debate

Let me start this article by referring to a global milestone reached this year. Polio is on the way out of the world. In March 2014, India, one of the countries which still had polio, announced that t had eradicated the disease from its borders.  This was an achievement of colossal magnitude.

But polio has not been eradicated the world over. Three more countries continue to have polio cases: Nigeria (northern Nigeria), Pakistan and Afghanistan. The common denominators among the countries that still continue to have polio are ineffective public health systems and religion. Northern Nigeria, for example, has a large population of individuals who choose or are forced to ascribe to religious concerns against vaccinations.

The second issue that I want to address is on the self-removal from the election debates that were set to rank this year’s elections as different and unique. The first round of debate among vice-presidential nominees was well patronised and seemed to be leading us in the right direction. The ruling Peoples’ Party (PP)  candidate Sosten Gwengwe, Dr Godfrey Chapola and Saulos Chilima were ranked poorly by listeners and the audience. Topping the bottom were Chapola and Gwengwe. Malawi Congress Party (MCP) candidate Richard Msowoya went home smiling.

Let me hasten to say that feeling victorious or being made to feel victorious from debates may mean many things. It does not always mean that your party will be the preferred candidate at the elections. But it may be reassuring that one’s opinion may be resonating with the audience.

It was, therefore, not surprising to see or hear that PP pulled out from the subsequent debates. Having presenting itself as unprepared, the ruling party did not want to humiliate itself further. The decision to pull out could not be made by Gwengwe only. It may have been made at the highest decision-making level of the party. There may also be some people within the party who feared even if Gwengwe performed at the subsequent debates, the exposure so gained could work in his favour. Having seen him humiliated and as inadequate, some party gurus would have achieved their desires. That is the nature of politics.

Why should a person or party which should have benefitted from the debates pull out? The answer may be straightforward. For opposition political parties, any platform that allows them to showcase what they would do if they become the ruling party is welcome. For the ruling party, however, their platform is different. Saying “we will do this and that” has not the same value. If the ruling party thinks that it can do such and such, it may as well do that now. What is it waiting for?

To be elected into office and yet it is already in the office? It is like a married person telling her husband “I will do to you when I get married to you.”  For a single woman, she can say that to a boyfriend and it makes sense.