Messianic promises in some way characterize Malawian politics.  In fact, each of our two past presidents claimed to be a saviour in his own way.  While Kamuzu Banda claimed to have saved Malawians from colonial bondage, Bakili Muluzi sang the song of his messianic intervention that rescued Malawians from the tyranny of Kamuzu’s one-party dictatorship.  Kamuzu sang the song of his messiaship till his voice got so husky that he could sing no more.

Muluzi too chanted the monotonous melody of this chorus till the electoral “master of ceremonies” ordered his exit from the presidential stage.  Perhaps a Gamaliel principle that can be used to judge if these leaders were just a Theudas and a Judas is the extent to which they led Malawians to a better socio-economic existence.  Were Malawians better off with Kamuzu than with the British colonialists?  Did Malawians lead more dignified lives with Muluzi than with Kamuzu?

Without minimizing the great contributions of each of these leaders, the truth still stands that by May 2004 Malawi’s socio-economic situation continued to cry out for emancipation.  The 2004 General Elections were in some sense an attempt to identify and “anoint” a messiah that would lead Malawi from the Babylon of poverty and human rights violation, through the highway of good governance, to the promised land of socio-economic prosperity.

The million-kwacha question is: Have Malawians, through the May elections, identified and anointed a messiah?  If the answer is in the affirmative, another question arises: is the messiah an individual or a group of people (like the faithful remnant of Israel)?

A REMIX OF “REDEMPTION SONG”

The period leading up to the May 2004 General Elections witnessed a resurfacing of the redemption song with differences only in tone colours and rhythms.  Listening carefully to manifestos produced by different political parties and independent candidates, one could clearly tell that there were not major ideological rifts among the manifestos of different groups.  They were all talking about poverty reduction (or eradication?) through improved agriculture, better education, better and easier access to health facilities, and employment creation.

The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP) press review on voter registration and elections notes that issues highlighted in the manifestos included the subsidization of agricultural inputs, improvement of health facilities, and the improvement of educational structures.  Clearly, these are the issues Muluzi and his contesters talked about during the 1994 General Election campaign.

One may say that this was a happy development since it dramatized a convergence of visions which would in turn make policy-making processes easier and more sustainable, than in a situation where different parties have fundamental differences such as being for or against homosexual marriages, abortion, capital punishment, socialism’s regimental economic system or capitalism’s laissez-faire worldview.

However, one wonders why there was so much mud-slinging and rivalry between parties and political figures during the campaign period.  Why did Muluzi (then outgoing president) insult Justin Malewezi (independent presidential candidate and former Vice-president)?  Why did Brown Mpinganjira cast a stone on Bingu wa Mutharika (candidate for UDF/AFORD/NCD Coalition)?  If, in religious parlance, all these visions were God-given, why did the parties and political figures not act like Jesus who instructed his disciples not to fight a person whose worldview was like theirs?

It makes perfect sense to say that merely having the right vision does not mean one is the right candidate.  We have known people who say nice things but cannot implement an inch of what they promise -- people who indeed make very attractive the questionable opposition between word and action.  In this regard, one may justify the pre-election political feuds as a struggle to find a party and candidate in which or whom existed both the vision and the implementing ability.  Possibly this is the criterion voters used to discriminate between mere ideological parrots and action-oriented geniuses.  Yet the results of the election still pose another question: do such qualities apply to Bingu wa Mutharika and his political group?

BINGU: THE STONE THAT BUILDERS REJECTED?

It is not a secret that many people were against Bingu wa Mutharika for different reasons.  While some thought that electing him was tantamount to electing his predecessor Bakili Muluzi, others were concerned with his alleged unpleasant performance as COMESA secretary general.  The Church particularly encouraged the formation of Mgwirizano Coalition so as to defeat the ruling party by fielding one candidate instead of many candidates of tiny popularities.

Though the underlying motive of such civil societies was to enable the introduction of political and socio-economic changes, the immediate motive was to prevent Mutharika from winning the elections.  In his speech at the State House (Lilongwe) at a thanksgiving Mass celebrated by the bishop of Lilongwe Diocese, Bingu regretted that some Catholics in Lilongwe even celebrated   the  Eucharist  asking God to prevent Bingu from winning the elections.  Indeed, when the election results were announced by the troubled Electoral Commission of Malawi, quite a number of people dismissed Bingu’s success as a product of rigging.

However, his inaugural speech won the hearts of many.  His message about poverty being his number-one enemy, his pledge to commit himself toward good governance by not tolerating corruption and by cutting down on government spending sounded like words of Deutero-Isaiah announcing the end of the Babylonian exile.  His incisive critique of the Malawian political economy seemed to suggest that, if he did not have the patch, at least he saw the puncture.

Even the fears of his antagonists that he would be Muluzi’s puppet were partly laid to rest when he began showing signs of personal authority not necessarily opposed to consultation.  Slowly, people are beginning to feel that maybe Bingu is the stone that builders rejected but finally became the cornerstone -- the crooked stick drawing straight lines.  But is he becoming the cornerstone in action?

SOME POSITIVE ACTIONS

Bingu has effected a few things that seem to suggest that, if he continues on the current path, he may be the cornerstone of Malawi’s socio-economic and political edifice.  In the first place, he has downsized the cabinet (from Muluzi’s 46 members to 28).  He has also eliminated the post of the second Vice-president (against the contents of the UDF/AFORD/NCD Memorandum of Understanding which reserved this seat to AFORD president).  When he finally announced his cabinet, he also spelt out conditions of service which underlined discipline and accountability (partly by requiring each minister to produce a monthly progress report on successes and challenges in his/her ministry).

Perhaps another big move he has undertaken so far is to explicitly spell out the distinction between government and the ruling party.  Since the national chairperson of the ruling party is no longer at the same time the president of the nation (as it used to be the case with Muluzi), Bingu seems to feel free to concentrate on government issues rather than mere party functions.  For instance, he once declined to attend an “important” UDF meeting, excusing himself for being too busy with matters of the State.

Again, when he addressed a UDF political rally in Thyolo, he told the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation not to cover the event since it was not a government function.  This move was a radical departure from his predecessors’ way of proceeding which saw little or no distinction between the ruling party and the government.

This distinction seems to be giving Bingu some psychological freedom to let the law take its course.  For instance, with the appointment of a new Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Ishmael Wadi), some big political figures such as Peter Fachi (former Justice Minister), Patrick Mbewe (ex-Home Affairs Minister), and Clement Stambuli (former Information Minister) have been called upon to answer some charges of mismanagement during their terms of office.

However, Bingu’s emphasis on the distinction between the party and the State has not gone down well with some political bigwigs within the ruling party who have always thought that the government and the ruling party are one and the same entity.

On the economic front, he has incessantly encouraged increased and improved production of food and cash crops.  He is strongly opposed to the so-called “culture of handouts” apparently encouraged by the former president.  He is convinced that true sovereignty comes when one produces one’s own food.  His consultations have so far been characterized by his encouragement of the business community and Malawians at large to do their homework for the development of the country.

This may appear to be trivial and commonplace, but it may lead to an overhaul of a developmental paradigm -- emphasizing the collective messiaship rather than individual messiaship.  Perhaps one of the problems with the previous administration is that it seemed to pretend to have the potential to single-handedly develop the country.  The developments that have obtained so far seem to be bringing back donor confidence.

RAISE YOUR HEADS HIGH, BUT NOT TOO HIGH

A line by the Chorus in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King says something to the effect that we should not call anyone blessed until his or her death.  There is some wisdom in this thought.  People have too quickly sung “Hosanna to the son of David” to people who at best failed to work the socio-economic and political redemption, and at worst became enslavers of the very people they were supposed to liberate.

There are many challenges ahead.  Firstly, though the President seems to be promising, he cannot do things single-handedly; he needs the support of all Malawians and the international community.  He may be tough on corruption, for example, but he cannot single-handedly effect a complete elimination of corrupt practices.

This is because such issues require the involvement of the police, the judiciary and ordinary citizens.  True economic growth requires the commitment of both the government and the citizens.  The government cannot single-handedly develop Malawi if people continue to engage in economically non-viable activities. In a nutshell, if not all Malawians are committed to development, we will also one day shout,  “crucify him” to Bingu wa Mutharika.

Secondly, power can be intoxicating.  We have heard of and seen presidents who, on accepting the mantle of leadership, promised to listen to people’s suggestions and criticisms but later walked on the path of dictatorship.  When power intoxicates it makes one hallucinate.  He or her then starts to swim in the illusory sea of infallibility.  Bingu wa Mutharika may be said to be in the initial phase of the experience and exercise of power.  He may not be intoxicated yet.  The glass of power’s wine is still full.  Maybe time will soon come when he will not tolerate suggestions and criticisms, dismissing them as politically-motivated sentiments bent on derailing the progress of the government.

In the meantime, the bell for Malawi’s socio-political and economic exodus seems to be sounding, albeit softly, in the hearts of many people.  Maybe the long-awaited socio-economic and political messianic era is close at hand.  Time will tell.

Wilfred Sumani, S.J.
Jesuit Community
Lilongwe