Opinion: UTM’s role in MCP’s 2020 victory has been overestimated

The belief that the UTM was the driving force behind MCP’s 2020 election victory is an overblown narrative that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny when you examine the numbers. While the Tonse Alliance delivered a decisive win against the DPP-UDF coalition, the UTM’s actual contribution to that victory was far smaller than some people claim.

Let’s break it down.

In the 2019 tripartite elections, the DPP led the pack with 39% of the vote, translating to 1,940,000 votes. The MCP came second with 35% and 1,781,000 votes, while the UTM secured 20% with 1,080,000 votes. Fast forward to the 2020 fresh presidential election: the DPP’s vote share remained stagnant at 39%, but their total votes dropped to 1,751,000—a loss of 190,000 votes. Meanwhile, the MCP-led Tonse Alliance soared to 59%, securing 2,504,000 votes.

This means the Tonse Alliance added 723,000 votes to MCP’s original 1,781,000. On the surface, this might seem like a direct transfer of UTM’s 1,080,000 votes from 2019 to the alliance. However, that is far from the truth. If UTM had truly contributed all its 2019 votes to the alliance, the total would have been at least 2,861,000. Instead, the actual additional votes fell far short of that figure.

The Truth Behind the Numbers

It’s critical to remember that the Tonse Alliance wasn’t just an MCP-UTM collaboration. It was a coalition of eight parties, including PP, AFORD, Petra, Freedom Party, PPM, and others. Each of these parties brought votes to the table. The 723,000 additional votes MCP received in 2020 were a collective contribution from all alliance partners, not just the UTM.

In fact, when you consider the distribution, it’s fair to estimate that UTM contributed only about 400,000 votes—significantly lower than the 1,080,000 votes it secured in 2019. This drop is hardly surprising.

Why Did UTM’s Influence Shrink?

By 2020, UTM’s support base had weakened. Many of its voters, disheartened by the 2019 loss, became disillusioned and withdrew their support. These were voters who had hoped Saulos Chilima, the UTM leader, would clinch the presidency. His youth-focused and reformist campaign had generated enthusiasm in 2019, but the 2020 partnership with MCP alienated a portion of his supporters.

For many UTM voters, Chakwera and the MCP represented the old political order they had opposed. Disenchanted and frustrated, some UTM supporters chose to abstain from voting altogether in 2020, resulting in a diminished turnout from the party’s base.

The Reality of MCP’s Strength

Contrary to claims that MCP cannot win without the UTM, the numbers tell a different story. MCP retained its 2019 vote share of 1,781,000 and possibly added more due to a motivated supporter base eager to capitalize on the second chance to put their party in power. MCP supporters were energized by the fresh election, and their determination was evident in their turnout.

Looking ahead to 2025, MCP’s position appears even stronger. The Afrobarometer report suggests that MCP supporters are more motivated than ever before in Malawi’s electoral history. They are likely to register in large numbers and vote en masse. In contrast, parties like the DPP may face significant voter apathy, with their supporters less willing to participate despite being in opposition.

A Final Word

Historical statistics suggesting that MCP cannot win without UTM are misleading. The 2020 victory was not solely about UTM—it was about a coalition effort, with MCP carrying much of the weight. If anything, UTM’s influence was already waning in 2020, and its contribution to the Tonse Alliance was far less decisive than many assume.

As we approach 2025, it is clear that MCP has the momentum and a motivated base to stand on its own. The party’s focus should be on capitalizing on this energy, while others, like the UTM, must grapple with their dwindling influence and the need to red

Sharing is caring!