Malawi new ‘cashgate report’ and politics of donor accountability – Prof Danwood Chirwa

The enhanced intrigue, puzzlement and speculation about the deepening levels of State rapine by the governments led by the People’s Party (PP) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that the Price Water House Coopers’ (PwC) so-called ‘final analytics report’ has sparked raises the issue of the troubled relationship between donor-related government accountability and democratic accountability.

Dr Danwood Chirwa

Dr Danwood Chirwa

It has increasingly been claimed that the accountability mechanisms that African governments are subjected to by donor countries often conflict with those for holding these governments domestically accountable by the electorate. This typically happens, for example, when donor countries offer aid or loans for development projects or proposals that have not been sufficiently discussed in local deliberative bodies such as Parliament or without involving the general public.

While the relationship between donor countries, African governments and the local electorate is inherently conflictual, it is often wrongly depicted in mostly negative terms. Cashgate investigations prove this.

It is no longer in doubt that the state in Malawi has become a criminal institution. Politicians see it that way and use it as a means of self-enrichment on a massive scale. This is despite the fact we have a relatively workable democratic system of governance.

How is it that after four democratic elections, we still have governments that are in the criminal business of self-enrichment more than in the business of serving the public? The answer lies in the fact that our democratic institutions have worked only to a point—that is to the level of Members of Parliament (MPs). We have sufficiently held MPs accountable at the ballot box, but not the Executive, especially the President.

Although the last election resulted in the defeat of an incumbent hugely implicated in State rapine, the one that was installed in her place already had serious questions related to possible involvement in similar crimes hanging over his head.

Democratic accountability assumes that those who hold public power are not themselves criminals and thus that they will be able to hold accountable those that transgress the law. But where the leaders are themselves the criminals, they gridlock the mechanisms of accountability in order to prevent them from fulfilling their responsibilities. In Malawi, this has happened in several ways.

Between 2004 and mid-2014, Parliament was reduced to a puppet of the executive or a forum for petty power battles that prevented it from performing its oversight function. During the same period, investigative and prosecutorial agencies were rendered generally ineffective through underfunding, political cooptation and outright political manipulation.

For their part, the professions for bankers, accountants and lawyers barely have had effective self and external regulatory mechanisms. Thus, with a largely illiterate and poor population, politicians have managed to abuse state resources at will, not only to corrupt the electorate but also to undermine further the systems of accountability at all levels of society.

This is why the so-called ‘Cashgate reports’ are not a product of Malawi. They are foreign generated reports.

How is it that so much money could be stolen without the knowledge of the government, and after having been made aware of such loss, the government could not of its own accord launch a single credible comprehensive investigation into it? What do we know about the period of 1994-2009? Are these really new crimes?

‘Cashgate crimes’ are political crimes, meaning government-led crimes implicating the ruling political elites.

One could say that the two cashgate reports constitute a ‘donation of accountability’ to Malawi by the foreign electorate. They succeed where local mechanisms of accountability failed. The electorate in the West now knows that development aid does not reach the grassroots and demands full accountability from their governments for all donor aid.

Here then lies the point at which the interests of foreign and local electorates meet. The electorate of Western governments wants donor money to be spent where a real difference is likely to be made. The local electorate demands that governments use donor money obtained in their name for its intended purpose.

This shows that that local and donor accountability can complement each other to make the African political elite fully accountable to its citizens.

  • Danwood Chirwa is a Malawian professor of law based in South Africa. The article was published in the Weekend Nation of June27,2015
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

16 thoughts on “Malawi new ‘cashgate report’ and politics of donor accountability – Prof Danwood Chirwa”

  1. musolin says:

    I want to vote today that Britain should close their Embassy in Malawi because they are the ones who made us miserable since colonialism…

  2. Foxyandy says:

    Thumb up! The executive and members of the parliament are opposing vectors, each going in its own direction thus allowing the government into criminology of enriching those in executive and bootlicking politicians.Onthe illiteracy,let me once again attack our system of education where the educated elites seems as they never sat for history and literature in class as a result the are incapable of contributing positively to government’s regulatory mechanism.For the sake of information, history is dying out in schools in Malawi,find out.What do you think the future of Malawi is holding without history? A comment on recent development,let me commend both government and opposition on the passing of the budget.Let’s see together how it is going to be implemented.We can make our governments ACCOUNTABLE.

  3. marble says:

    We thank Chakhwantha for letting malawians know something about 577 billion which we couldn’t have known by now. MP azitero osati zija za 2009-14

  4. Manganya says:

    Chimene ndimaukondera Mtundu wanga wachitonga ndi chimenechi. Akati munthu ndi polofesa, maginizo ake amasonyeza kuti pagonadi polofesa apa. Osati MA polofesa achilomwe ngati achina Mutharika.

    Well done Danwood, proud of you being Tonga.

  5. Rodgers Banda says:

    Electorate gangsters choose the party of their Choice which will give them billions. JB wanted to stop this and was voted out. MCP preached seriousness and their votes were thrown in bins or burnt. That’s why they hate fedelism knowing that they will be crucified.

  6. nick says:

    Excellent article, Mr Chirwa. An alliance between western electorates and Malawian electorates against the foreign and local kleptocrats is a fine idea. The big problem is that these electorates haven’t the faintest idea what is being done in their names by their own leaders!
    Politicians and their agencies are out of effective democratic control. Western donor agencies, and African governments and NGOs, are free agents and do their own things: not usually to the benefit of the poorest of this earth of ours!

  7. mbambayila says:

    mweeee banthu mbankhungu aba thena malalwi yinga tukuka nthena very shame politicians.

  8. sir bentby says:

    is indeed pathetic

  9. Ntchona says:

    So what’s the the solution going foward prof ?

  10. chechisyano says:

    koma amalawi tili m’madzi tilibe pothawira

  11. ben says:

    Forex ya atha mu commercial banks get ready for shortage of diesel and petrol next

  12. puludzu says:

    Good piece. Only those who can read between the lines will see the rich stuff in this one. Sure it is sad that we even need donors to show us Malawians that out roof is leaking and that we need to take cover. This nation is sick

  13. Charombanthu says:

    It all started with the first democratically elected president of the republic, Bakili Muluzi in 1994, who despite evidence that he was a criminal, having been incarcerated in 1969 or there abouts for stealing, the electorate went ahead and voted – “wakuba yemweyo!” The tone was set then and now we are in all this mess because stealing has become a way of life, it has been entrenched in us. If a criminal can ascend to the highest office in the land, what do you expect? Malawi will continue to be ruled by criminals and those that are not will turn into criminals as soon as they get into government. The majority of the electorate is so poor and so ignorant that they are easily swayed to put these criminals in power blindly. Comparatively, a citizen from the developed/donor world is educated and will always question how his or her tax that he or she pays has been utilised.

  14. Kenkkk says:

    Totally agree.

  15. oh yes! Cashgate is a poltical crime. politicians r taking adv of the majority illiterate n poor population to satisfy their ego. God is not aslumber he go intervene accordingly.

  16. tsetsefly says:

    Good article. The truth of the matter is that DPP and PP are organized groups of thieves. They don’t deserve to rule Malawi. I once wrote that before the elections that it was a big mistake to vote DPP to power. This is what I feared. We are doomed with DPP leadership. Are surprised that the leader seems clueless on development issues? He and his puppets work for their stomachs and for good of the common man.

Comments are closed.