Transition without transformation?

 

Suddenly, the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) has resumed playing Lucius Banda’s songs.

That is not all.

Apart from numerous Executive directives and reshuffles to the station, in her State of  the Nation Address delivered in Parliament a week ago, President Joyce Banda clearly specified how MBC, under her leadership, will operate. 

“We have opened up the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) to cover all Malawians, including opposition parties and to act as a public broadcaster other than a mouthpiece of a ruling party,” she said.

Living to the President’s word, on Sunday, the station aired a new programme, Tikambirane, which drew panellists from ruling and opposition parties.

It was moving to listen to DPP’s publicist Nicholas Dausi speak on MBC Radio One, something that could not have happened just two months ago when his DPP-led government was in power.

So, is MBC finally changing for the better?

Before the victory is declared or denounced, it is important to underline that this is not just a story about MBC.

It is a story about how transitory directives affect the functional or dysfunctional of the country’s politics.

How? Simple.

During transitory period, especially the first 100 days in office, our leaders fall prey to a common governance move.

They dust off instant but weighty directives aimed at cleaning the perceived mess of their predecessors.

For instance, they fire and hire new staff. They reverse some of the previous administration’s policy gambles. They build where their predecessors had destroyed. And the list is endless.

The desired end of these transitory directives is to achieve a complete transformation of the country’s political thought.  

But history shows that most of these transitory directives are not fundamental. They bring about change, of course; but such changes are temporal. They wither with time.

The question is: Why is it that these transitory directives fail to transform thought and bring about lasting change?

Why is it that instead of bringing lasting change, these transitory directives help, in the long run, to multiply the same problem they claim to solve?

Since she rose to office two months ago, President Banda has made a number of such transitory directives.

The one she made on the problem of the traditional chiefs’ undefined role in democracy looks classical. 

Chiefs, since colonial times, have always found themselves siding with powers. Instead of speaking for the people, chiefs have used their privilege to defend wrongs of sitting governments.

Interestingly, President Joyce Banda understands the depth of the problem as well. 

That is why her first public engagement was an audience with chiefs on 25th April 2012.

Addressing a cross section of them, she directed, just directed, that chiefs should no longer be used for partisan political ends.

Of course, chiefs, responding to the directive, have come out apologetic of their past sins and promised to abide by the directive.

The missing link

But policy and governance specialist Dr Henry Chingaipe sees something missing in the whole process.  

“Firstly, the President projected the assumption that it was chiefs who were to blame for their partisan involvement in politics. The main culprit has been ruling politicians and not the chiefs per se.

“They have preserved and used the 1967 Chiefs Act to compel chiefs to collaborate with State elites in order to broadcast and consolidate the power of incumbent politicians in ways that do not augur well for democratic governance,” he says.

Even more tragic with the directive, adds Chingaipe, was that the President did not spell out concrete policy measures and institutional reforms that would liberate chiefs from the centre of partisan politics.

Granted, will the directive, in the long run, really manage to solve a political problem that has been around since colonial days? 

Or consider the story of MBC.

Her directive to have the station open up to cover all Malawians, including opposition parties, and to act as a public broadcaster other than a mouth piece of a ruling party is nothing new. 

In fact, her predecessor, late Mutharika, made a similar directive in 2004, few days after ascending to the presidency.

The results of the directive then, just as the case is today, were instant.

Airing of Bingu’s political rallies were banned. Opposition voices could have airtime. Spectre of women clad in yellow was no more. And so on.

But with time, the station reverted to its despised role: being a mouthpiece of a ruling political party. The changes could not be sustained.

Today, President Joyce Banda has used the same-old Bingu strategy of issuing directives to reform MBC.  Of course, MBC is changing since.  

Are the directives permanent?

Is there something different in JB’s directive today for Malawians to believe that the changes being witnessed at MBC will be sustained? 

It might be a directive on the problem of the chiefs; it might be a directive on MBC. It might be a directive on hiring and firing of staff; it might be that of selling a presidential jet. It might be the directive to revert to the old flag; it might be that of repealing bad laws. It might be a directive to mend the country’s international relations; and it might be any directive that influences the country’s course.

However, if the directives continue to be a product of the President’s intuitive thinking, the need to win instant support during transitions, the change they bring will always be short-lived.

The President needs to spell out concrete policy measures and institutional reforms that should accompany these transitory directives and stand by them. Otherwise, Malawi will continue to experience transition without transformation.