Malawi, one of Africa’s least developed countries, has just inaugurated Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika, aged 85, as its president. He took the reins of power from Dr Lazarus Chakwera, having won the September 16 presidential election by 56.8% of the votes of Malawians. The interesting thing was that Dr Chakwera, like President Goodluck Jonathan in 2014, conceded defeat before the vote counting ended. But the meanings are much deeper than they appear.
Mutharika, a Professor of law and younger brother of Malawi’s third president, Bingu wa Mutharika, was the country’s fifth president between 2014 and 2020. He succeeded Madame Joyce Banda but lost his re-election bid to Chakwera, a Pastor and Theologian, who came from the Pentecostal Church movement as a leader of the Assemblies of God Church to fly the flag of the Malawi Congress Party in the 2020 presidential election, which he won on the second ballot.
Chakwera was popular among Malawian voters. He struck them with his eloquence and deep insight into how to solve the challenge of poverty in the country. However, his bid for the presidency was thwarted, on the first ballot, by massive rigging. He challenged the outcome of the election, and the Constitutional Court of Malawi, after a rigorous review process, voided the result and ordered a fresh election. At that point, the judiciary in Malawi stood firm in upholding the sanctity of the ballot and the rule of law. In ordering fresh elections, the court did not pander to sentimentalism about the cost of elections, like Nigerian politicians would argue. It simply upheld the facts and the law. Malawians were happy for this. For them, their judges have come of age and weaned themselves of clandestine influence by political heavyweights, including the president.
The re-run election came out in favour of Chakwera, and he was inaugurated in 2020 as the country’s sixth president. His assumption of office came with a huge expectation for change. Indeed, he had promised changes and was expected to address poverty and other pressing challenges. Malawians credit Chakwera with starting well. But he finished badly. His initial policy decisions were people-centric. However, he soon lost the plot. Initial criticisms about his government came after he constituted his cabinet, wherein he appointed several family-related members. For instance, six members of his cabinet were relations of another cabinet member. He appointed husband and wife, brothers and sisters, or in-laws into his cabinet. He further irked Malawians by appointing his daughter and his mother-in-law to diplomatic positions. Malawians stated that more than 70% of their appointees were from a single region of Malawi. Despite these facts, the president ignored their calls for inclusivity, gender balance and respect for the country’s diversity.
As criticisms mounted and the cost of living rose, Chakwera quickly suspended all international travels for government officials as a measure to cut the cost of governance. He further ordered the immediate return of all Ministers abroad, which meant cessation of their missions overseas. Not done, he ordered a 50% reduction in fuel allowances for senior government officials; ordered a reduction of income tax on individuals to ease the pressure of the cost of living, and also devalued the Malawian Kwacha by 44%, as a precondition to borrow $174 million from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). But the gains of these did not materialise as they were considered too little, too late. He had lost the people.
Despite being 85 years old, weak and unable to travel around Malawi on campaigns like Chakwera did, Prof. Mutharika campaigned on restoring Malawians to their past, which was considered better than what President Chakwera delivered. He constantly hit the president by focusing on his failed campaign promises, which delivered and spread more poverty than they cured. He was confident that he would get the nod to lead Malawi again, as President Chakwera’s performance and acceptability rating had taken a significant dive. Somehow, he became the preferred choice of the people against a Chakwera who was in his 70s.
Before the ballot was completely counted and final results released, Chakwera had called Mutharika to concede defeat and congratulate him. Final vote tally showed that Mutharika polled 56.8% of the votes. It was significant that the votes followed widespread public frustration over the economy, including high inflation rates and out-of-control cost of living, with many people in the country surviving on less than $2 daily.
Chakwera had himself lauded the emerging seamless power transition in Africa, wherein those who lose an election willfully accept defeat and move on. He remarked on such a transition in Zambia, suggesting the world must take special note of and applaud the new development in Africa. However, in Malawi, while conceding defeat, he said he was not unaware of some irregularities, but added that they may not drastically change the outcome of the result like they did in 2019.
The reality is that though Malawi has given Africa teachable moments in power transition two times, African leaders seem yet to realise the connection between the policies they adopt and the people. For government policies to make a difference, they must be focused on driving a greater number of the population out of poverty. For leaders to be considered to be positively impactful, they must wear the shoes of the led, feel the pain of the led and become hungry like the led. A situation where leaders insulate themselves from the people that they lead, and cocoon themselves in the comfort of the government palace is deceptive. It breeds the tendency to manipulate elections because sooner or later, such leaders come to the truth that they have long lost the people.
If Chakwera had listened when the people complained against his appointments, or given them an ear when they cried out over the cost of living, or shown empathy to their pain in the face of hunger and deprivations, perhaps, they would back his re-election and not dump him for an 85-year-old grandfather who may likely lead them from a hospital.
This should be a lesson for Nigeria’s leaders as the journey towards 2027 continues. The walls of the Government House keep the people away, no doubt, but they may not be able to keep protest votes away. Heavily armed security personnel will secure even transactional and irrational leaders as they do transformative and positively impactful leaders, but they may not be able to secure one against protest votes. The only alternative to stopping such votes is to tell the people that their votes will count only as justification of an election outcome that was decided even before accreditation of voters began, and the only way to tell them so is by one’s actions.
