Does Malawi have a post turtle for a president? I beg to differ

In this era of freedom, even the seemingly free individual is unfree; the general outlook being that of a liberated man but inside he’s all chained to the infallibility of self: such is a person who thinks the only truth there is out there is what he says it is—and urges that everyone wholly buys it.

President Peter Mutharika with agriculture minister George Chaponda

President Peter Mutharika with agriculture minister George Chaponda

We have unfree individuals all around us—the self-styled critic who argues that Malawi has a post turtle for a president is such one; and there’s me who here argues that Malawi does not have a post turtle for a president. I’m no better than this critic for we both are unfree: we both hold that what we say is true and is the only truth there is out there.

Here we go;

First, the critic argues that some people made Peter Mutharika president. It is true and this is no secret that “Peter Mutharika did not get where he is by himself.” We all know that no man can run a one man’s show by himself in politics. You surely need a crony there for an advisor, a friend there for a campaign director, someone here for a political strategist, and someone up there for a propagandist. Such is politics the world over. Or is it the case that Malawi is different? I wonder.

Am yet to be convinced if getting somewhere by the help of others makes anyone deserve to be called a post turtle for anything, say, a post turtle for a CEO. Hahaha that sounds wonderful! You can try it in the offices. Isn’t it said that we climb on the shoulders of others to make meaningful achievements in life. Ahaaa! I also remember, it is said that no man is an island. All this, the way I see it (but I may be wrong), means that man does not progress all by himself, that he needs the help of others to reach somewhere.

Second, the critic asserts that Peter Mutharika is “absolutely” clueless as to governance. Accepted, it is true that Peter Mutharika, once in a while, shows tendencies that one tends to wonder if the president has a clue as to governance. That be true as it may, it smacks of ill-intentions to argue that “Mutharika has absolutely no clue as to what to do while perking there….”  Like really? Peter Mutharika has “absolutely” no clue? Oohh well, you readers are a better judge here. But, speaking for myself, absolutely is too strong a word.

Maybe, and this is just maybe, Peter Mutharika’s replacement of Ben with “farty” Goe as assistant, his positioning of “…his fellow geriatric, Dr. George Chaponda” for president, and the sidelining of vice president Dr. Saulos Chilima as potential successor are enough reasons to warrant arguing that Mutharika has “absolutely” no clue as to leadership. For the record, it is untrue that Peter Mutharika has never ever gotten one thing right ever since he ascended to the Malawi presidency. I have in mind the lean 20-person cabinet as one example where Peter Mutharika got it right.

Third, my good critic says, so I read, that we, the people, are “wondering” as to “what got into the heads”, ooohh no, “tummies” of the “Malawi Electoral Commission to put him there in the first place.” I suspect that the learned critic is putting things in the peoples’ mouth. He could be right that us, the people, are wondering about the way Peter Mutharika came to end up at Sanjika Palace given the do-or-die elections debacle.

However, I need a little convincing that the people think that it is the Malawi Electoral Commission which put Peter Mutharika “there”. Really? I take it that it is elementary knowledge (of course am speaking this from the little knowledge I have about elections) that we, the people, are the ones who put who we think is good on the government driving seat. Frankly speaking, I do not and will never understand that it is Malawi Electoral Commission which made Mutharika president.

Should he have blamed our courts? Maybe. All I know is that it is the courts which held that the Malawi Electoral Commission cannot extend the 8-day requirement for announcing election results. But can the courts be a proper entity of this blame? I don’t think so. The courts were simply doing their job in so holding.

Fourth, the colorful critic observes that Peter Mutharika has made a grave mistake in replacing Ben with Geo. I know very little about Ben to make a safe judgment that the under-the-radar man can be equated to a frying pan. Related to this, I don’t think the information I have about Dr. George Chaponda or his initiation of the anti-farting law makes him that bad as to be equated to “fire”. For these reasons, I modestly hesitate to respond to the assertion that Peter Mutharika has, in allegedly replacing Ben with “farty” Geo as his assistant, somersaulted “from the frying pan into the fire.”

Having read the critic’s criticism with an open mind, I have come to the conclusion that the good critic is wrong—the logic is wobbly, the instances hazy, and the flow gauche. In fact, he makes assertions and not reasoned arguments to say the least. It is here that I came to differ with this critic and thus argued that Malawi does not have a post turtle for a president.

The critic believes that the only truth there is out there is that Malawi has a post turtle for a president and he wants us, the people, to buy it. Here he’s free and unfree. And there’s me who believes that the only truth there is out there is that Malawi does not have a post turtle for a president and I want you, the people, to buy it. I’m too here free and unfree. But such is life.

But hey! I could be wrong and the critic right. But you readers are a better judge here, and I give you the chance to make the judgment here.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :

Please share this Article if you like Email This Post Email This Post

More From Nyasatimes

More From the World

19 thoughts on “Does Malawi have a post turtle for a president? I beg to differ”

  1. tilitonse says:

    Jelbin mk, please get a life! We are tired of seeing you accuse others for your lack of strategy. Please Move on!
    Do you know what the rule of law is?

  2. usova says:

    Seriously Apm and his bootlickers akunsewera saulos game yolakwika…..”such important”meeting sidelining him why? Ntaba was there….who is more important…him and the veep

  3. The Analyst says:

    O……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..O
    Koma anthu akanakhala kuti amafa chifukwa chonyozedwa, am sure Henry Chizimba would have been dead and buried by now.

    Good people . . .
    . . . This kid is clearly lost; and needs help, which he can’t get if we just shout at him “Why did you get lost, you this, you that”. Surely, he needs help which he can’t get either; if all we can do is name-call and swear at him.
    . . . If anything, just dismiss his article and give a reason so he can learn a thing or two. Sadly, that he is stupid, can’t be a reason for dismissing his article, coz holding a contrary opinion does not make anyone stupid.
    . . . Even, in democracy where the majority rules, the majority are not always right.
    . . . Even in court, an innocent person can be found guilty just by failing to argue his/her case well.

    And if you look at the background/intro of his article, it’s doesn’t sound that all bad . . .
    . . . only that he failed to hold his head high, present his article with style, and relate his arguements with gusto, confidence and consistency.
    O………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..O

  4. Zoonazake says:

    Peter Mutharika’s performance since he became president in May 2014 is painfully dismal. There is no point in asserting that the 20 member cabinet is an achievement because this is the cabinet that has produced the worst economic performance since May 2014. There is hunger and the highest rate of inflation at 24% since 1964. Peter Mutharika is clueless and a disaster for Malawi. His govt is failing not only to solve the Njaunju murder but also failed to condemn the panga welding thugs who attacked people at the MCP-PP rally in Mzuzu. I urge PAC to stand firm against Peter Mutharika.

  5. Jahan says:

    Firstly your grammar stinks! You are breaking off paragraphs whenever you feel like it, not mind the flow of “nonsense”. Secondly, you are putting five of Ntata’s arguments and answer them with one of your useless may bes? Who forced you to write this article? Boy, you look stupid now that we know what’s in your head!

  6. Mngoni wapa Ntcheu says:

    Though it is your right to public opinion and hence arguing, it could have done you much better if you would just zip your mouth rather than displaying your untold ignorance and stupidity on public. You know what? I like arguments, but you must be quite sure of what you are arguing and you must have the facts at hand.
    Ntata articulated proffessionally with the real facts that we all know and agree, and therefore, we bought his line of argument without reservations.
    Yours, am sorry to tell you that is a complete rubbish and nonsence and very shallow that even when I was doing my primary xool, I could argue better than this.
    Next time babaá, just try to come up with your own topic rather than reacting to somebody’s work.

  7. koma abale inu eeh says:

    Henry Chizimba: Clearly, to me anyway, you have presented your argument against Ntata in a cogent and logical manner. I am with you all the way.
    Some people are trashing your style; others are saying you are contradicting yourself, like they have taken a university course in Logic or Philosophy. Yet others, at least the honest ones, are saying they do not understand you. Let those ones read and re-read your piece, or just let them sweat it out.
    Ntata is a smart guy, no doubt, and he is educated. But he diminishes his force when he attacks people personally by, for example, calling them derogatory names. Not good. In psychology; a sign of desperation or lack of substance on the issue at hand. So desperate and helpless, if it was a fist fight, he would resort to biting!

    Basic problem: most of the internet literati, here anyway, treat certain critics like gods: their views are sacrilege. And how dare you challenge them? Or they will call you derogatory names openly, or in a language they think you do not understand. When did we get to this point, where we can’t agree to disagree, civilly?
    And you know, there are some who are simply afraid to argue against Ntata’s last piece for fear of some wrath, but really based on an inferiority complex. Ntata must love that!
    Solution: There is NONE. Why? Because especially, those on the losing side of the political game invariably take the loss personally, even though in reality, they had no personal stake in the loss. Impossible to change the views of the deluded.
    Broad contradiction: I guarantee you, most of the people agreeing with Ntata, now, were the same people vilifying him when he was a top adviser to Bingu! But now that he’s being shunned by the new DPP (on principle, to be sure), the old adage is apropos to them. To wit: an enemy of my enemy is my friend. These are the same people who were calling Ntata names; and so he should not take solace in their support. It’s only ephemeral.

    Finally, even if a professor of Government at Harvard, published a note commending APM’s government, you would probably read the same comments and sentiments against. Even if the article was too advanced for most of the commentators to understand. With the only difference possibly being the nom de nets; but the critics would be the same.

  8. MathanyulA says:

    I have read this article twice, still trying to figure out what the author is trying to put across.i don’t get it.

  9. All-i-can-say says:

    Machende ako ndithu. Just enjoy the money your buffoon of a president is paying you. Which Malawi do you live in? You can’t even string an argument and hope this will redeem your failed president and DPP. Don’t waste our time, you silly man. Malawi has been dragged to such pathetic levels by this imbecile of a president and you have the temerity to try to convince anyone that Peter Mutharika is performing in his role.

    Go screw yourself you stupid retard.

  10. Ze Roberto says:

    The very first paragraph of this article by a worst enemy of Malawi who is presumably paid to counterargue the truth in pursuit of defending ineptitude reveals it all. I guess the writer must be a victim of Alzheimer who has forgotten that Peter Mutharika was handpicked by his late brother. And the author of the article wants us to believe that hand picking is a democratic process to elect a leader.Shame! You know, it’s very very cumbersome to defend Peter Mutharika whose leadership frailties are too vivid to be noted even by kindergarten children.

  11. Lipenga says:

    the writer should be arrested for extreme umbuli.it WS going to be very nice if you just kept quite ,amazingly the writer went to some university in the east oh what an advisor to the accidental sleepwalking post turtle President.

  12. The Analyst says:

    O………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….O
    Henry . . .
    . . . The idea to respond to one of the most decorated and celebrated articles in the week, is a very good one, but the way you have done it, leaves a lot to be hankered after.

    First, you are being too uncertain about whether what you are saying is true or not and therefore too cautious on your choice of words.
    . . . If you care to do simple maths (Mat 101), you will realise that at least 96% of your write-up is I MAY BE WRONG or HE MAY BE RIGHT or YOU PEOPLE ARE GOOD JUDGES or WE ALL THINK OUR ARGUEMENT IS TRUE and other tasteless words.
    Now . . .
    . . . being uncertain is a clear manifestation of a weak arguement and yours is.
    Corollary, it helps a lot to be sure of what you are saying. Say it and give reasons why you think it’s true without being apologetic.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Also, you have miserably failed to stay true and faithful to your line of arguement hence been contradictory, many a time.
    . . . Most notable is the very last sentence, wherein you are not even sure whether what you have written (in the whole article) is sensible or not; thus even acknowledged that Ntata may be right; yet your whole purpose of putting forth this writing or whatever it is; is to argue Ntata off.

    Now . . .
    . . . Can’t you see that you are not making any sense at all, when you come here to argue off Ntata and end up agreeing with him with a benefit of a doubt that he may be right?
    . . . What good does it do a man to want to fight a giant yet have no-strong weapons in his arsenal?

    Do better next time! Otherwise, you have tried your best but your best is not good enough.
    O…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..O

  13. Wayamba says:

    Where was Saulos Chilima at the PAC/ Government meeting at the State House. I saw the two turtles in the name of Chaponda and Pitala, also the other cabinet ministers and the party zealots but no Chilima. This makes me to wonder. Such a sensitive meeting like this no government VP? Hmmmm!

  14. Jelbin Mk says:

    Mr Chizimba you have not argued with facts while your so called critic narrated more facts that made most of us agree with his observation and that included you when you agreed on this article that your puppet president has no clue when it comes to making decisions. Your fellow was right to say the Electoral commission put this inept president into power, he knew what he wad talking about because during elections he followed all the unfoldings related to polls. Mbendela made some back and forth decisions, he accepted to recount the votes while at the same time sending DPP diehards to rash to court obtaining injunctions and asking Kenyata to nullify the need to have the votes recounted by giving a very silly statement of verdict from a corrupt judge. He said he could not extend an 8 day period even though there were some clear discripacies that showed that the said winner did not win and that there were more ghost voters. Mr you are trying to defend the indefensible. You have embarked on a very hard job of defending APM because you will have to do that now and then. To justify that he is really inept, he denied to appear before Parliament to answer questions from members of the chamber, he failed to debate with PAC he had to yake his whole cabinet with him including a swarm of advisors. The list keeps going of his failure so please save your time by not defending this imposed President by Kenyata and Mbendela.

  15. Chimsy says:

    This is the crying of Chaponda camp. I am sorry, Malawians are not ready for you.We are watching you.

  16. NYC says:

    Hahahahahahaha! Two old turtles trying to lift each other in the name of Peter and Chaponda. My fellow Malawians. If this is the way we want to two old men to play us, I will denounce my Malawi citizenship and go and live with Bingu at Ndata.

  17. tay says:

    This is rubbish writing. I just don’t make sense.

  18. Hayt says:

    This wring is too stale. What are you trying to say? If this was my student, I would give a grade of F -. And immediately drop this student from my classes.

  19. Top says:

    Okkkkkkkk! We have heard you Chaponda. Why whining like a small baby. No wonder your voice sounds like a little boy.

Comments are closed.