For Mutharika: HRCC day-dreams of the removal of Section 65

The Human Rights Consultative Committee (HRCC) is said to have highlighted the need for the procedural removal of Section 65 from the Republican Constitution at its annual conference on ‘Consolidating our Democracy….’ (The Nation 2/5/08). In his words, Justin Dzonzi, HRCC out-going board chairperson positioned that ‘the provision should be removed from the Constitution, if the nation feels that it does not need it.’ This recent suggestion by HRCC comes amidst the feeling by some quarters that Malawians presently detest Sec 65 due to the endless political impasse between government and the opposition, over the controversial stipulation.  

Probably, HRCC has in store another awful proposition – declaring that the Constitution needs a statute for the abolition of the political party system in Malawi, because the opposition has become notorious and critical of the incumbent government. Indeed, we can be sure that the next thing, which HRCC will suggest before the up-coming general elections is that the Constitution, be abolished because its edicts are becoming a nuisance. 

As it were, many Malawians must be cynical of the idea of eliminating Sec 65, seeing it as utterly myopic and a sign of the lack of understanding of the root cause of the Sec 65 conundrum. In fact, such a thought exposes the dearth of appreciation of what the framers of the Constitution intended upon their reflection of Kamuzu Banda’s 30 year dictatorial regime during which everybody was deemed as solidly supporting Kamuzu, the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and government - (tonse tili nga, nga, nga pambuyo pa Ngwazi, chipani ndi boma). Kamuzu’s appalling one-party rule and long stay in power even against the will of the majority of people was established on this very principle, which was backed loudly and foolishly by a handful of selfish and careless Malawians.  

In other words, the absence of Sec 65 would render Malawi a de facto one-party state, because any ruling party will be determined to poach all MPs from opposition parties. From Muluzi’s regime (1994-2004) to Mutharika reign (2004-todate) ruling parties, UDF and DPP have strongly endeavoured to get opposition MPs join the government. As some people have endlessly highlighted, the essence of Sec 65 is, to ensure and promote multipartyism. This is simple logic, which the young generation born and growing up after Kamuzu’s atrocious era can deduce. Does HRCC consider the implication of one-party rule on human rights in the country?  

HRCC’s proposition is therefore completely naïve to the dangers of not having political opposition in the country. It is similar erroneous thinking that has reduced our Parliament into a classroom of free-sitting, curtailed its legislative function and aided its bullying by government. What the country has built over the years is a shameful legacy of serial political crossbreeding enjoyed by a collage of loose, opportunistic and un-principled MPs/politicians. When will our MPs learn to respect the choice made by Malawians in different constituencies?   

But, whilst some civil society organisations are working tirelessly - trying to build and sustain the country’s democracy, many more are lending their support to anti-democratic forces. For a long time, there has been the outrageous official discourse by the bulk of civil society vocal organisations and agents (chiefs and churches) as well as out-spoken activists and careerists suggesting that Sec 65 is not important to the nation. These civil society activists have reduced the aspirations of Malawians to pure economics of food on the table, just because in their elitist view, Malawians do not have political aspirations to underpin the country’s economic development. Hiding under a dreadfully dark curtain, these civil society organisations advocate the silly philosophy that economic development is superior to political aspirations, a position which is a recipe for political turmoil.  

Slowly it seems, civil society is realising that our democracy is going bankrupt. What do we make of the observation by the current Chairperson of HRCC’s - Undule Mwakasungula, that the issue of Sec 65 has affected progress on good governance and democracy in the country – and the Roman Catholic bishop’s razor-sharp call for soul-searching on how our democracy is functioning, at the weekend?  

Thus, over the past years we have seen a civil society, which has become very weak, discordant, politically biased and far removed from democracy. Devoid of proper foresightedness and clear-headed judgement much of civil society has been committed to galvanising the viewpoint that the current government has the license to disrespect the constitution and rule of law. What is the consequence?  

Civil society organisations have constantly cheered anti-Sec 65 demonstrations by fanatical pro-budget chiefs in our cities, thus besides, holding own aggressive vigils amidst disturbing hooting. All this, without any slightest attention to the many voiceless Malawians who feel cheated and politically disenfranchised because the MPs they voted for have left their primary parties and joined government.  

Several civil society organisations are lying in the cocoon, shamelessly downplaying the excess in authority of the executive arm of government: its intimidation of the judiciary, harassment of the media and the monopoly and hate propaganda on MBC and TVM, corruption and fraud by government officials, threats to the opposition, and political interference in public institutions. Do we really have to wait until we see Security Intelligence Service scaring all of us, and DPP hooligans recklessly intimidating some civil society activists, like Moses Mkandawire of Livingstonia Synod in order to comprehend that things are going wrong? 

While many Malawians reckon the importance of the national budget to the country’s development and would really want the opposition to critically be part of the process of deliberation and sanctioning, they also realise that the constitution and rule of law have to always be respected. So to speak, HRCC is right that both Sec 65 and the national budget are constitutional issues and that it is a pity to force Malawians to choose one.  It is also true that while pressing for the implementation of Sec 65, MCP’s Tembo and UDF’s Muluzi have unbridled greed for power. It is the reason why Muluzi has pushed for his nomination for a comeback - even if UDF faces great risk in the event that he finds himself ineligible just close to the 2009 polls.   

However, against the backcloth of a troubled political scenario since 2004, many civil society organisations like HRCC would rather pretend to be sober in explaining theories on the Sec 65 mystery to show that the antagonism by the opposition on Mutharika’s government has not been caused by anything. Yes! It is because the 2008/09 Budget has to be passed by overzealous and opportunistic illegal aliens from Mars, after all, we just need a handful of MPs to sit casually and confirm presidential appointees. Never mind the president’s embarrassing opening of the current sitting of Parliament - boycotted by the opposition and not forming a quorum. 

Many people have applauded the president’s initiation of dialogue with the opposition. Nonetheless, Mutharika’s thundering threats to the opposition will just add fuel onto the fire. With his stubborn political rhetoric, Mutharika knows that his scheming (with Muluzi then) and with DPP now - has ended up causing the country huge political trauma. It is time he swallowed self-pride and considered a pragmatic and genuine resolution to the deadlock. Yet, Mutharika is dithering under the cover of Sec 65 legal fog because he wants to buy more time until 2009 polls. Of course, well aware that its a joke for DPP with a meagre 6 MPs to be ruling the country based on random sympathy. But DPP’s blatant monkey-trickery will keep on haunting Mutharika until the very rock of deceitful acrobatics hits him in next year’s elections.  

Unfortunately, it will take another millennium for organisations like HRCC to appreciate the root cause of Mutharika’s fragile minority government. Nevertheless, civil society needs to tirelessly safeguard the country’s democracy by speaking out on the need for Mutharika and our leaders to respect the political, economic and social aspirations of all Malawians. In particular, HRCC should stop day-dreaming by taking off its naked veil of hypocrisy and truthfully venture in promoting genuine democracy and ensuring human rights.

Let HRCC open its eyes to the fact that the country’s current woes lie more in the choosing and nurturing of bad political leaders as well as the failure to ceaselessly hold them accountable.