Situation Report: Malawi: The Slippery Slide Towards Autocracy? Chris Maroleng
MALAWI: THE SLIPPERY SLIDE TOWARDS AUTOCRACY?
Chris Maroleng, 12 November 2003
Executive Summary
Recent developments in Malawi indicate that President Bakili Muluzi’s
attempts to amend the constitution to allow him to run for a third term in
office will continue to dominate the political scene in this country. This
is even after proposals to amend the constitution to allow an open term presidency
were rejected by parliament. This raises serious concerns that democratic
values may be losing ground in Malawi. The tenuous and unstable coalitions
between opposition parties and the ruling party will form an important part
of the political landscape in that country. These weak coalitions are expected
to result in shifts in alliances ahead of the 2004 presidential and legislative
elections. The splits that are expected to occur in Malawian political parties
are primarily attributable to the nature of domestic politics which are largely
based on building leadership personalities. It is for this reason, rather
than disputes over policy or ideology, that each of the main parties have
experienced leadership challenges and severe internal divisions in recent
years. Political trends in this country are beginning to reveal more continuity
with the undemocratic practices of past regimes, rather than the break with
the past that was anticipated by most observers and Malawians.
Malawi: The Slippery Slide Towards Autocracy?
Many political commentators fear that after enjoying a number of years seemingly
on the path towards democracy, Malawi could be regressing to it old autocratic
roots as the current president Bakili Muluzi of the ruling United Democratic
Front (UDF) attempts to change the constitution to allow him to run for
a third term in office. His campaign has been marked by attacks on the
independence of the judiciary, political parties and civil society opposed
to his bid to retain power. Muluzi’s current attempts to cling to
power are not unique to that country as they increasingly bear resemblance
to the stratagems of his predecessor Kamuzu Banda.
Historical Background
When Malawi gained its independence from Britain on 6 July 1964, Dr Hastings
Kamuzu Banda of the Malawi Congress Party (MPC) became the first president
of Malawi. Early challenges to Banda’s grip on power by a coalition
of younger politicians resulted in the security forces intervening on his
behalf. The Banda regime became progressively more dictatorial. Banda subsequently
declared himself life president in 1970, six years after Malawi gained
its independence. From that point on politics in Malawi under Banda’s
reign was described as, “similar to those in the court of an absolute
monarch with no heirs.”
Patronage politics characterized the Banda era. Access to resources was determined
by closeness to the ‘de facto king’, Banda. This resulted in chronic
intrigue and numerous mutual allegations of disloyalty to Banda within the
ruling elite followed by witch hunts as different factions attempted to gain
favour. This political milieu saw the emergence of a powerful political family
the Kadzamira-Tembo family, who benefited and increased in importance because
of their ability to manipulate the Banda patronage system. Cecilia Tamanda
Kadzamira became the ‘Official State Hostess’ for the president,
fulfilling the role of first lady. While she was Banda’s constant companion
and controlled access to the elderly president, her uncle John Tembo, became
Banda’s “eminence grise”.
The 1990’s ushered in a feeling of growing discontentment among the
general populous at the economic inequalities and political repression that
they had to endure under the Banda regime. In 1992 Malawi was rocked by an
unprecedented wave of strikes, student demonstrations and riots. Donors suspended
non-humanitarian aid in May of that year, effectively supporting the pro
democracy movement. Banda responded to these disturbances by cracking down
on opposition elements. Despite this, his grip on power gradually slipped
and he eventually agreed to a referendum on a single versus a multi party
political system. The referendum that was eventually held on 14 June 1993
saw 63% of the voting population opting for multi-party democracy. Two weeks
later opposition parties were legalized and an amnesty given to all political
exiles and prisoners. The new political dispensation led to the formation
of an all-party interim parallel administration with representatives from
all parties, charged with steering the transition to political pluralism.
This process culminated in the drafting of a new interim constitution, which
was rushed through parliament on 16 March 1994, mere weeks before the presidential
and parliamentary elections.
The elections saw Bakili Muluzi; of the UDF oust Dr Banda, thereby ending
33 years of autocratic rule. Muluzi had in the early 1980’s been a cabinet
member until he was sacked after falling out of favour with Banda. President
Muluzi’s UDF has been Malawi’s ruling party since 1994, having
won the countries second democratic election in June 1999.
The contemporary political landscape.
The main opposition parties are the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and the Alliance
for Democracy (Aford). The MCP and Aford formed an alliance prior to the
1999 elections, which is still precariously in place, but were unsuccessful
in gaining a parliamentary majority. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA),
which officially began as a pressure group formed by disaffected members
of the UDF was launched early this year as a political party. It is also
poised to become a dominant force in Malawian politics. Typically, the
distribution of parliamentary seats in Malawi follows stark regional voting
patterns; the UDF remains the party of the populous Southern region, the
MCP controls most of the Central region, and Aford dominates the Northern
region.
The MCP has suffered from internal divisions, caused by infighting between
the party’s vice president, former Banda strong man, John Tembo and
its President Gwanda Chakuamba. Chakuamba emerged as the president of the
MCP in a surprise victory over Tembo in 1997. In 2000 the two factions held
parallel leadership elections, which were followed by a lengthy High Court
battle over the party’s leadership. Most observers agree that for all
intents and purposes the MCP has already split, with the majority, led by
Tembo, aligning themselves with the UDF. Meanwhile, Chakuamba’s faction
has maintained the alliance with Aford. Nevertheless many within the MCP
are disappointed by the party’s performance under Chakuamba’s leadership.
Chakufa Chihana, the leader of Aford and a reportedly “shrewd political
operator” has not been able to garner support beyond his party’s
traditional northern power base. Failure to extend his party’s support
base and criticism of his strategy of allying his party to the MCP led to
Chihana’s unsuccessful attempts to form a government of national unity
with the UDF. Chihana’s switch towards the UDF may indicate that he
is confident that the UDF will win the next election in 2004, or that he
will be offered a prominent job in the next government or both. Aford’s
decision to ends its alliance with the MCP was taken without the consent
of its full national executive, raising the possibility that the party could
split in the near future.
These political developments would seem to indicate the emergence of two
centers of power in Malawi; a government bloc consisting of the UDF, MCP
(Tembo) and Aford (Chihana) and an opposition bloc comprised of the MCP (Chakuamba),
the NDA led by the former UDF minister of transport and de facto second in
command Brown Mpinganjira, and the remainder of Aford. Domestic politics
in Malawi is largely based on building leadership personalities, and it is
for this reason, rather than disputes over policy or ideology, that each
of the main parties has experienced leadership challenges and severe internal
divisions in recent years.
Muluzi’s bid for a third Presidential term
Malawi’s constitution only allows for two consecutive presidential
terms, an arrangement that excludes Muluzi from attempting to stand
for a third term in 2004. However, reports earlier this year indicated
the beginning of an active campaign emanating from influential quarters
within the UDF. The campaign, led by Presidential Affairs Minister
Dumbo Lemani, sought approval from parliament to amend the constitution
(Section 83 (3)), in a way that would allow an open term Presidency.
These efforts were preceded by a constitutional amendment passed in November
of 2001 that effectively reduced the majority required to amend the constitution
from two thirds to “50 and one percent”, to ensure that the UDF
would have sufficient representation in parliament to approve constitutional
changes. This prior constitutional amendment was crafted in by the UDF in
anticipation of the decisive future debate in parliament concerning the third
presidential term. The attack on the constitution was timed to coincide with
parliamentary attempts to impeach judges who were perceived to be in league
with the opposition and replace them with others who would be more supportive
of the proposed constitutional amendments. The judge who bore the brunt of
this attack on the judiciary is Judge Dunstain Mwaungulu who was one of three
senior high court judges eventually impeached by parliament, a development
that has allowed the UDF to replace them with more amenable judges. The standoff
between the executive and the judiciary reflects the strained relationship
between the ruling party and the judiciary that has developed in recent years.
The actions taken by the UDF did not go unchallenged as Church groups and
civil society organizations in Malawi openly declared their opposition to
a third term for Muluzi.
A previously unknown organisation, calling itself "Kachitatatu ayi takana",
("We reject a third term".) together with the Blantyre synod of
the Church of Central African Presbyterian (CCAP) and the Catholic Church
especially came out in strong opposition to the amendment proposal. These
groups have expressed their opposition by, among other things, distributing
critical pamphlets in the local language and urging people to wear a purple
ribbons as a symbol of protest.
Muluzi responded in the tradition of Banda by banning all public demonstrations
in Malawi. Influential religious groups, including the Roman Catholic Church
and the Law Society of Malawi, applied for an injunction against Muluzi`s
threat to stop demonstrations against a third term. Judge Dunstain Mwaungulu
, still sitting at the time, subsequently ruled that Muluzi`s ban “violated
the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and assembly”. In
a bizarre twist, a new judge of the high court assigned to preside over this
case overturned the previous court ruling, after an application was filed
by Justice Minister and Attorney-General Henry Phoya, who accused lawyers
representing groups opposing Muluzi`s controversial third-term of shopping
for sympathetic judges. Most analysts saw the last decision by the high court
as a boost for Muluzi, who had previously gone on record saying that he would
ignore the previous court ruling, as it was "irresponsible and insensitive".
Eventually on 4 July 2002 parliament met to debate the proposed amendment
to the constitution. The bill to change the constitution was introduced by
an MP for the opposition Alliance for Democracy. The introduction of this
bill by Aford came as no surprise as this was perceived as more evidence
of this party’s attempt to forge stronger links with the UDF. Controlling
95 of Parliament`s 192 seats, UDF needed the support of an additional 33
opposition MPs to obtain a two-thirds majority of 128 votes. The ruling UDF
was confident that, with support from the opposition, the constitutional
change would be passed without problems and that Muluzi could stand again
in the 2004 elections. However, both opposition parties, Aford and the MCP
were split on the issue. The vote count revealed that 29 opposition MPs and
one independent voted for the amendment, but a total of 59 opposition votes
against was enough to block it. The amendment to the constitution, allowing
President Muluzi a third term in office, fell only three votes short of obtaining
a two-thirds majority. With the amendment defeated, signs were positive for
the strengthening of democracy in Malawi. Muluzi cynically commented that
democracy called for "tolerance of different views," while he persisted
in pursuing his quest for a third term along other channels.
Two weeks later, on 20 July, at a special UDF meeting in Blantyre it was
agreed that the party should field no other candidate in 2004 other than
Muluzi and that the UDF should resubmit the original private member`s bill
as a government bill. This essentially means that instead of an Open Term
Bill, it will be proposed that president Muluzi in his personal capacity
be allowed to serve for a third term, on the basis that this amendment would
not apply to any future presidents.
It is now amply clear that Muluzi and his close allies have no intention
of backing down until Muluzi has secured his third term in office. The weaknesses
of institutions safeguarding the democratic freedoms that have been enshrined
in Malawi’s constitution contribute immensely to an environment enabling
further manipulation of the constitution to go largely unchallenged. It would
be in the interests of Malawians at large to address these underlying structural
problems to ensure that future attempts to change the constitution are legal
and represent the will of the majority of the voters. Public condemnations
of events in Malawi by leaders in the Southern African region and Africa
at large have not been forthcoming. This establishes a further precedent
(to those of Zimbabwe and Zambia) of tolerance for the subversion of democracy
in the interest of ruling elites, prepared to cling to power by all means.
The leaders of the African continent need to make it clear that such unconstitutional
practices find no support in the new era of the African Union and The New
Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development; whose founding charters
espouse the principles of good governance and democracy. Failure by the Chair
of the African Union, South African President Thabo Mbeki, to rally regional
support against such undemocratic practices puts into question the commitment
to democracy, which is at the heart of recent pan- African initiatives. Should
the African Union fail to meet the demands required by this challenge, Malawi
will inevitably slide back down the slippery slopes towards greater autocracy.
Chris Maroleng
Researcher
Africa Security Analysis Programme
Institute for Security Studies
Appendix
The final standings of the Parliamentary vote to amend the Constitution to
allow for an open term Presidency
UDF MPs for third term 95
AFORD MPs for third term 10
MCP MPs for third term 19
AFORD MPs AGAINST 19
MCP AGAINST 36
Independents AGAINST 3
Independents for third term 1
MCP Abstain 3
MCP Absent 3
AFORD Absent 1
Independents Absent 1
128 votes needed to amend the Constitution
66.67% = 128
Against the motion = 59 (30.7%)
For the motion = 125 (65.1%)
