Of promises and grand alliance

28/03/07—Two weeks ago, I talked about why former president Bakili Muluzi better stop dreaming in colours about his prospects for returning to the State House, because I said, the odds were stuck against him. I dwelt at length on why it would not be prudent for him to contest the 2009 presidential elections because he has a name or integrity to protect, which he would lose if he tried and failed.
I also said the economy is so far doing well: interest rates are going down, inflation is down to a single digit (9.6 percent), which is the first time in 12 years it has come this low. Donors not only resumed aid to Malawi which was cut because of lack of good governance and accountability during Muluzi’s administration, but also cancelled all multilateral debt accumulated during his reign. The gods have also smiled on us by giving us abundant rains for two straight years resulting in bumper harvests in these years. I said Muluzi has an uphill task to make people forget these things in order to win them over to his side.
But Muluzi is just too power hungry. In Chichewa they say ‘mwana akalilira nyanga ya nsatsi musemere, imufotere yekha’. That is exactly what Malawians should do to Muluzi. Leave him. Let him fullfil his ambitions selfish as they are.
I was, however, quite disappointed this week to see that government is so determined to stop at nothing in its efforts to frustrate Muluzi in his comeback bid. Let us call a spade by its real name and not a big spoon. Deploying the army to stop the UDF rally in Mulanje, some 80 kilometres away from Blantyre, where President Bingu wa Mutharika was supposed to hold his DPP meeting last week, showed total desperation on the part of government. If I may warn Bingu, these are some of the things that create heroes out of villains. Muluzi, and anybody in the UDF or opposition for that matter, should be allowed to hold political meetings freely and anywhere in the country without fear and intimidation.
We cannot have a better demonstration of political ineptitude on the part of government than last Saturday’s incident. Bingu was ill-advised on the matter.
Having said this, I now turn to the substance of Muluzi’s speech at the rally he addressed in Mulanje on Monday this week, which I find lacking in depth and breadth. I will comment on three things: Muluzi’s free fertiliser talk (reminiscent of his 1994 free shoes promises); that the combination of the MCP president John Tembo, New Republican president Gwanda Chakuamba, MDP president Kamlepo Kalua (and did I hear him say Amunandife Mkumba?) and Muluzi himself, cannot be a losing team; and that Muluzi will put money back into people’s pockets to enable them to complete projects that are now at a standstill.
What Muluzi means is that opposition leaders will form a united front to oust Bingu from power. It is always easier said than done. An alliance with Tembo? Unless Muluzi is contemplating joining forces with Tembo as a junior partner, I do not see the MCP leader being anybody’s running-mate in 2009. It is actually nonsensical to even expect Tembo doing that looking at the strength of his party.
As for the free fertiliser, Muluzi has said he has already identified donors to fund his dream plan.
Hear this: This year government has spent K7 billion to subsidise fertiliser by about 60 to 65 percent of the total cost. All fertilisers were reduced to K950/50kg (K3,400 for 23:21:4; K3,400 for Urea; and K2,750 for CAN). Assuming all variables remain the same by 2009, Muluzi will need to source a minimum of over K12 billion or seven percent of this national budget from his donors. The basic question to ask is why Muluzi was not able to do that between 1994 and 2004 when the country experienced the worst hunger in decades? Is he not talking about free fertilisers now just because he has seen what magic the subsidised fertiliser programme others have introduced is doing?
Muluzi’s promise to put money into peoples’ pockets to enable them to complete their building projects if re-elected in 2009 is another perfect example of the rot that characterised the former government.
If people were earning this money, they should have continued to do so long after Muluzi left government. This man is now openly saying he was getting the money from government coffers. The reason Muluzi wants to come back is, therefore, to continue filching government.
Now let us bring Tembo in the context of Muluzi’s grand alliance and his fee fertiliser plan. We have said Tembo cannot allow to partner Muluzi as a junior side. The only option for an MCP/UDF grand alliance is if Muluzi can accept a running-mate position. Assuming the plan succeeds, would Muluzi as vice-President still be able to bring into the country the K12 billion for his free fertiliser?
I leave it to you readers to make your own conclusions. One thing about which there should be no doubt is that the 2009 presidential campaign has started. Maybe too early for many people’s comfort.

Pastors protest Muluzi re-run

by Bright Kumwenda, 31 March 2007 - 06:51:45

The Blantyre Pastors Fraternity Thursday threw its weight behind the Malawi Council of Churches (MCC) that the former President Bakili Muluzi should not stand for presidency in 2009. Over 40 pastors from different churches supported MCC’s stand on the matter during their monthly meeting held at the Baptist Church in Blantyre. The clergy, affiliated to the Evangelical Association of Malawi (EAM), wondered why Muluzi wants to come back when he plundered the economy and his rule was characterised by grinding poverty, chronic food shortages, rising in prices of basic needs, rampant corruption and breakdown of the rule of law. The pastor’s meeting, chaired by Pastor Evans Honde, also observed that the framers of the Republican Constitution failed to envisage a situation where a former president would seek a re-run after five years on vacation. Pastor Webster Kameme, former MP for Chitipa North, showed the meeting scars he allegedly sustained after he was hacked by UDF Young Democrats for opposing the infamous third term bid in 2003, by which Muluzi wanted Parliament to change the law to allow him a third term in office.

Africa: Oh No, Not You Again Mr President

Financial Gazette (Harare)

COLUMN
March 28, 2007
Posted to the web March 29, 2007

Mavis Makuni
Harare

When London-based telecommunications tycoon Mo Ibrahim announced plans last year to offer prizes of up to US$5 million as an incentive for African leaders to relinquish power, he overlooked an emerging category -- former leaders who are determined to stage political comebacks.

Ibrahim announced that the awards to be given by his foundation were designed to reward leaders who were not guilty of rigging elections or enriching themselves through corruption and pillaging during their stints as leaders of their countries. The philanthropist believed that the initiative would give African leaders an alternative to poverty, corruption and clinging to power beyond their sell-by date. "Nothing is as important as good governance in ensuring development and reducing poverty. Africa's leaders Face many challenges and this award will help recognise those of them that have done well.

But if Ibrahim's awards are to serve as an incentive to persuade reluctant incumbents to pass on the baton, what is to be done to discourage former presidents who have had their turn at the helm of the ship of state from staging unpopular comebacks? This question has become pertinent in light of moves by at least two former African presidents who tried unsuccessfully to amend the constitutions of their countries to prolong their incumbencies to contest elections once again. These are Malawi's former head of state Bakili Muluzi and Namibia's founding president, Sam Nujoma.

It was reported in the press recently that Muluzi has declared his intention to contest the 2009 presidential elections in Malawi if his party, the United Democratic Front, nominates him. He has previously served two terms of office that ended in 2004. His attempts to amend the constitution to give himself a third term of office were rebuffed by parliament. As a result his former protégé and now arch rival, Bingu wa Mutharika was swept into power albeit in a disputed election. Muluzi is said to be capitalising on a constitutional semantic loophole to revive his dream. He is reported to pin his hopes on a clause in Malawi's republican constitution that limits an incumbent's stint as head of state to "two consecutive terms" He says this can be interpreted to mean that one can make a comeback after a break. It is debatable however, whether this is the understanding of the generality of the people, who regarded constitutional term limits as a means to ensure the injection of new blood through regular changes of guard.

Former Namibian president Sam Nujoma is reported to be working on similar plans. His attempt to amend the constitution to allow himself to prolong his stint when his term of office ended in 2005 met with stiff resistance from Namibia's parliament.

He is reported to be inching his way back through the control he still exerts on the ruling South West Africa Peoples Organisation(SWAPO). The argument often advanced by long-serving African presidents is that they need to stay in office long enough to see their visions come to fruition but "long enough" has come to mean decades or lifetimes. And in the case of Muluzi and Nujoma, their comebacks would present a double standard in that they would condemn their successors, wa Mutharika and Hifikepunye Pohamba to one-term presidencies.

During the World Economic Forum in Cape Town last year, South African president Thabo Mbeki spoke out against unlimited presidential terms, saying it was inconceivable that leaders would "continue to enjoy the support of their people" if they clung to power for the rest of their lives. He said the big challenge in Africa was to ensure that all components of society enjoy access to resources in an equitable way. "That means access to political power and access to resources." Ironically, after taking such a principled stance against Life Presidencies, he has been accused of harbouring ambitions to extend his own incumbency after its expiry in 2009 by amending the constitution.

Another head of state who has tried to tamper with his country's constitution to allow himself to remain at the helm is Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo. Last year a bill that would have enabled him to seek a third term of office as leader of Africa's most populous state was thrown out by the senate. Obasanjo had been accused of waging a smear campaign against his deputy, Atiku Abubakar as a way to eliminate him from the presidential race this year. To his credit however, Obasanjo accepted defeat when his attempts to fiddle with the constitution failed, saying: "The constitution must be held hallowed and sacred. And on the basis of the constitution in hand we must start to plan the next election." Yoweri Museveni of Uganda is into his 21st year as head of state this year because he successfully forced an amendment of the constitution to allow himself to remain in control.

The bottom line is that whether it is incumbents amending constitutions to cling to power or ex-presidents exploiting loopholes to stage unpopular comebacks, some African countries look set to be stuck with the same leaders for decades

Voices against Muluzi

The announcement by former Malawi’s president, Bakili Muluzi, that he wants to stand in the 2009 elections continues to generate political in discussions by Malawians at home and abroad. Bakili Muluzi served his two year-term between 1994 to 2004. Debate over the legality of his intention is equally strong. But the former president seems set, a situation that makes Bright Molande who writes at Anti-Bakili Muluzi blog look at Dr Muluzi’s “Backward flight” comparing his presidency with Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda and the incumbent Dr Bingu wa Mutharika:

Muluzi’s 10 years are pitied between two visionaries and great statesmen. He had a mandate which was accomplished. It was short and transitionary. Muluzi’s mandate was to take Malawi from where Kamuzu Banda had left off particularly in 1964. Our societies had forms of democracy even before the coming of colonialists. … What Muluzi should have known is that after his mandate of restoring democracy, Malawi needs leaders with a vision to take over. There may be some within UDF. But now all sane Malawians of goodwill know that Muluzi was not gifted with a vision or commitment for development beyond his mandate. This is why it is extremely dangerous for Muluzi to come back.

Except from www.globalvoicesonline.org

How will Muluzi turn the tide?

March 14,2007 so, it is now official. Former President Bakili Muluzi will contest the 2009 presidential elections on a UDF ticket. Why not? Does the Constitution not allow him to do so? What with being the strongest person in UDF that can unseat President Bingu wa Mutharika! At least that is how some UDF cadres especially regional governors see things. But this is because Muluzi himself has chosen not to groom anyone to be the party’s flag carier in the next polls. Such a process would have been well underway had the party opted to go to a convention to choose a candidate.
The counterpoint to this view is that the Constitution is not everything. In the case of Muluzi’s intention to contest for the 2009 elections, legal merits must be carefully balanced with the prevailing political climate. But what does the literature justifying Muluzi’s candidature say?
Muluzi himself said last Sunday he is game if people elect him for the 2009 race. Unfortunately, he has said no more. The only person who has given an insight into Muluzi’s comeback is UDF Economic Affairs director Friday Jumbe. He was quoted by the local media last week that when Mutharika resigned from the UDF, he created confusion and misunderstanding, and put the party in total disarray especially after poaching some members from it. Jumbe has speculated that Muluzi may have bounced back against this background to rebuild the party.
Jumbe has also said Muluzi might have come back because he has not been allowed to assume the role of advisor to the State President which he wanted to play after putting Mutharika in power.
In short, Jumbe’s view is that Muluzi wants to come back because he has unfinished business to transact. This business is to rebuild the party. The question is: why does Muluzi think it is not possible to rebuild the party outside of government? One would be tempted to conclude Muluzi wants to use government resources to rebuild the UDF. If that is the reason Muluzi wants to contest for the presidency, then it is based on selfish motives. But this conclusion is drawn from what Jumbe has told us. Muluzi might say, “no, I have other reasons for coming back”. I want to argue that although Jumbe is no ordinary person in UDF and knows what he is saying, there are other strong reasons why Muluzi would do well not to risk his reputation and run for the presidency even if the supreme law of the land allows him to do so.
In 2004, Muluzi imposed Mutharika on the people. UDF has admitted that was a mistake. Both Muluzi and the party have suffered the grave consequences of that decision. By declaring that he will contest for the top job, Muluzi has, in effect, imposed himself on the people. Some UDF aspirants have already bowed out of the race following Muluzi’s move. The question now is how will he go about convincing the electorate that the move will not replicate the consequences that have cost the UDF so dearly?
In 2004, we saw how the party treated people who tried to oppose Muluzi’s choice or manner of electing a candidate. They were either dropped from the Cabinet, or incarcerated verbally and physically. Senior UDF cadres were called madeya while the party’s Young Democrats dealt with those with alternative views. More people could resign from the party now, a move that is likely to weaken UDF further.
Then there is Muluzi’s own integrity. As a former President, Muluzi should be concerned with what is best for him, what he would like to be remembered for as a former president, and how he can claim his position among the ranks of his fellow retired presidents in the region, a status that would enable him to play the role of advisor. Suppose he contests for the presidency and fails, will people respect him again?
There are more reasons Muluzi ought to seriously consider that are likely to militate against him in the crusade to return to Capital Hill.
Apart from being a good campaigner, for him to win this battle, Muluzi must also demonstrate that he can do better, economically than Mutharika. A glance at the economic indicators shows that there are clear advantages for the retention of the status quo: inflation is down to a single digit (9 percent), interest rates have gone to 20 percent enabling banks to borrow money from banks, lending institutions have written off most of the country’s external debt, there will be maize surplus this year for the second straight year. These show that Muluzi has a task of gargantuan magnitude to perform to make people listen to him.
To complete the equation in the 2009 elections, we must bring in MCP and its president John Tembo. The MCP leader won the 2004 polls. This is by UDF’s own admission in 2005. Tembo and his party are still very bitter for this, and understandably so. That is very evident from the party’s sour relationship with government since 2004. MCP will have a strong case to prove in 2009.
Add to this the fact that people vote along regional lines, which will divide the vote in the South between Mutharika and Muluzi. But going by the 2004 experience whereby Mutharika (the ruling party candidate) got substantial amounts of votes across the regions because of the strength of the public media, Muluzi is likely to emerge the weakest candidate in 2009.
All these things considered, if I had the chance of advising Muluzi on this matter, I would say the odds are firmly stuck against him

Muluzi – backward flight

by Bright Molande, 15 March 2007 - 07:05:25

Tragedy, Africa’s tragedy! Four decades after his death, he still stands tall above the earth of Africa. Poised at a calculated, an envisioned stride with a finger pointing far into the future, this is not just a statue elevated but Kwame Nkrumah lives into the future today. It is because he had a vision. He wanted Africa united, and Ghana developed. Great men of humbling lives. The great Nelson Mandela had a vision too. “When I walked out of prison,” says Mandela of his 27 humiliating years spent on bare feet without underpants, “[I wanted] to liberate the oppressed and the oppressor both…that was my vision.” His Long Walk to Freedom says it all. Mandela had to liberate his enemy from hatred. He longed to reconcile with his oppressors for the greater good of South Africa. What a rare vision, built on a solid motive for the common good! Humans are made of their thoughts and motives matter in politics, too. The motive with which one comes to the seat of power largely determines the quality of leadership and its place in history. Two things: wrong motives and lack of vision are the greatest problems with Bakili Muluzi’s coming back. A vision is not just a manifesto. It is not a political promise. It is seeing a new path for a people. We have learnt and taught over the decades that Malawi is a landlocked country. Books, teachers and Internet websites still say this. It took one man to see the passage we have all seen for seasons and to say Malawi is not landlocked. President Bingu wa Mutharika has seen the Shire-Zambezi Waterway to reverse our thinking. Schoolbooks in Social Studies are still teaching our children something called urbanisation. They say the movement of people from rural areas to urban places is a factor of development. This is the thinking that began with colonialists who thought they brought development from the West and planted it in towns to which villagers had to flock. Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda endorsed the thinking when he told the Asian business community to leave the rural centres for the city. Reversing gears, Mutharika is urging the Asian business community to go back into the villages because even the villager needs development at his doorstep. Development does not, and should not, belong to the city. These are true examples of thinking with a vision, and leading with the motive to develop a people. Muluzi’s 10 years are pitied between two visionaries and great statesmen. He had a mandate which was accomplished. It was short and transitionary. Muluzi’s mandate was to take Malawi from where Kamuzu Banda had left off particularly in 1964. Our societies had forms of democracy even before the coming of colonialists. This is what also made Mandela a true and great democrat. He grew up in a traditional palace with a king who knew how to listen and to build a consensus, a team. Traditionally, “democracy meant all men had to be heard, and a decision had to be taken together as a people. Majority rule was a foreign notion. A minority was not to be crushed by a majority,” writes Mandela in his biography. And he says he has always followed these principles. Kamuzu Banda must have found a democratic spirit of the people which he lost from the 1964 Cabinet crisis onwards. Muluzi’s clearest mandate was to restore democracy, to remove the terror the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) had brought. This, he accomplished and put in place the structures and institutions of modern democracy. Then, he understood the needs of the people. Now, he says “I understand people’s wishes”, and they wish him back. But the people’s wishes are not necessarily our needs. Our need is development. Muluzi does not understand people’s needs. Those that are vehemently supporting his candidacy are driven by “selfishness and greed”, according to The Daily Times. We have spoken publicly, shamelessly, that we want UDF back into power because we need easy access to money “to finish … [our personal] houses that have installed at window level.” These are the people’s wishes, and if Muluzi is a true leader, he must see beyond the wishes to locate and pursue the needs. A leader must speak not what the people want to hear, but what they must hear. But that is not his focus. The focus is, “whether Bingu likes it or not, he is getting out of power in 2009.” This is the agenda Muluzi has declared when he declared his candidacy at Njamba Freedom Park on a rainy bleak afternoon—the beginning of another long, bleak season if Muluzi comes back. Bleak because his vision, focus, agenda and longing are as myopic as to remove Mutharika, not to develop the country. Everyone in the UDF camp says they want someone who can remove Mutharika, not someone who can develop Malawi beyond what Mutharika is doing. This is tragic. What Muluzi should have known is that after his mandate of restoring democracy, Malawi needs leaders with a vision to take over. There may be some within UDF. But now all sane Malawians of goodwill know that Muluzi was not gifted with a vision or commitment for development beyond his mandate. This is why it is extremely dangerous for Muluzi to come back. Suppose that His Old Excellency Bakili Muluzi is our next President! The more a person is opposed upon getting in power, the more one longs to consolidate his power base. He will, perhaps ruthlessly, want to secure power that dribbled and eluded him when “the shameful” Third Term Bill was defeated, only to dodge him again when Mutharika denied him ruling by remote control. Muluzi may just make a worse dictator. He will want to settle scores, and he has made hints. He says he is “forced to bounce back in 2009 because of what President Bingu wa Mutharika is doing.” Clearly, Muluzi is driven by the motives of the selfishness of those who used to plunder government coffers, by bitterness, hatred, frustration and vengeance, yet, without a vision or any serious intention to develop Malawi. Mandela had love to liberate his enemies, the white oppressors and for the greater good and love of his country. Now, Muluzi’s mandate is to defeat and demolish Mutharika, which now sounds like to demolish Malawi because Muluzi does not intend to build beyond and above Mutharika. Muluzi’s comeback is a national tragedy! Yet, what the people of Malawi need (not just wish) is to move forward, beyond! The standing again of Muluzi in 2009 is a symbol of UDF going backwards, not forward. It is Malawi’s backward flight. It is symbolic of its failure to hand over leadership to new blood, new visions. If you argue that UDF tried this with Mutharika in 2004, you should also remember his candidacy in UDF was not by any long-term plan of succession. It was because the Muluzi who never wanted to quit failed to make it through the Third Term. Mutharika’s standing again, even his winning is Muluzi’s falling—morally and politically. It will be painful; Muluzi’s fall will be tragic. But no matter how deep the pain of the loss, the bereaved won’t be buried with the corpse. Malawi will not go down with him. Bright Molande is a poet, political commentator and lecturer in English Literature, University of Malawi, Chancellor College.

One last piece

by Mzati Nkolokosa, 15 March 2007 - 07:03:13

Politics, like language is, by nature, dialogic, meaning a voice should speak, come to an end or stop and listen to other voices. A voice that speaks and does not listen is authoritative. We see far from the experience of years. We see and learn a lot from education—both formal and informal. Which is why when an old person speaks, we should listen because he or she does so from the perspective of years lived meaningfully in a world that teaches lessons everyday. When an elderly, educated person speaks, we should listen carefully, we should pay attention. One such person has spoken. Malawi has a question mark, he said in Weekend Nation. Desmond Dudwa (DD) Phiri is an elder, over 70 years. He has the wisdom of humanity. He is a human being who has commented—and mostly competently so—on almost every topic. He is educated, too, and well read. He went to the London School of Economics where he graduated with a BSc in Economics in 1962 and returned home to work as a civil servant until he retired in 1976—and that is 31 years ago. When such a man speaks, wise people stop what they are doing to listen. “Tanzania has had several presidents (Nyerere, Mwinyi, Mkapa). Now there is [Jakaya] Kikwete,” said DD Phiri in the Weekend Nation. “But you don’t hear that former presidents want to run for the presidency again. You don’t hear Mkapa [saying] I want to run again. There is too much struggle for power in Malawi.” He was not through. “In Tanzania former presidents are not quarrelling with Kikwete,” he said. “Malawi has a question mark.” Perhaps not Malawi but some individuals. Perhaps DD Phiri coated his talk with diplomacy for he worked as a diplomat for years. After all, there is one former president living in Malawi, Bakili Muluzi, and he wants to contest again in 2009. Muluzi and some who support him say the laws of Malawi do not stop him from contesting. But one question he hasn’t asked himself is on political morality. As Bright Molande—young, wise and brilliant—likes to say, not all that is legal is moral. This is another voice we should listen to. It seems we we can’t stop the United Democratic Front (UDF) from fielding Muluzi as its presidential candidate in 2009. But we can stop Muluzi from becoming president, again. The reasons are legitimate. One, Muluzi has not done much on the national or international scene since he retired from office in 2004. If anything, he has spent the last years seeing his doctors in the UK and South Africa. Now that he is well, he is on a campaign trail, saying he will contest in 2009. The office of the president is a serious one that should not be pastime for someone who doesn’t have much to do. The office needs people who are busy. President Bingu wa Mutharika has been busy in the last decades. No wonder life in Malawi is coming back to normal. People, including those at Kapoloma, have food, thanks to nature which has seen our seriousness and has been giving us rains. Five years ago, we were all playing, ayimanso, sayimanso and so on that even rains could not come. The gods were laughing at us. Two, Muluzi was president and economically messed up the country. His rule confirmed that it takes one man to build or destroy a country. Muluzi worked with Goodall Gondwe as economic advisor and Mutharika as Minister of Economic Planning. But the economy was bad news. Today the same people are in power and Malawi is turning around. Muluzi had brilliant ministers, Justin Malewezi, Aleke Banda, Ken Lipenga and that team from Aford, the Aford of 1996, not the one that supported the Third Term Bill. These were failed by Muluzi. Three, Muluzi should find a meaningful retirement life. If he can’t manage his retirement days, he can’t manage the affairs of the country. It is not that he should retire from politics. In case Muluzi doesn’t know, he can campaign for UDF candidates just like he did in 2004 and just like all retired presidents, everywhere do. Four, Malawi is moving forward. Muluzi should not take us backwards by disturbing the political atmosphere with an early campaign, confirming that he doesn’t have much to do except addressing rallies. Muluzi might not contest but may simply wish to disturb Mutharika’s administration having failed to impeach him. Yet we will allow Muluzi to do what he wants. We will allow him to take us one step backwards so that we move two forward. As Vladimir Lenin said of communism, democracy may allow Muluzi take us one step backwards so that “we shall take two forward”. This is the last article I will ever do on Muluzi’s manoeuvres to contest in 2009 presidential elections. His politics is not journalistically—neither is it intellectually—engaging to attract meaningful analysis from serious journalism that strives for a better Malawi. But I will finish by quoting two journalists I admire so much: Fareed Zakaria and Michaell Elliot. Zakaria, a former professor of political science at Harvard University, now editor of Newsweek International, says democratic elections do not automatically produce democrats. Muluzi is a typical example. He failed to run the country and now he is failing to run his retirement. Elliot, a former professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science, now editor of Time International, has the magic of the pen and is everything a highly ambitious journalist should aspire to be or beat. In one of his famous commentaries on George Orwell, Michael says, “if you are a writer on contemporary events and aspire to immortality, you had better have something special in your pen.” This is true of politics. If you are a politician and aspire to be a statesman like Nelson Mandela, then you had better have a peculiar, listening heart. If Muluzi aspires to political immortality, if he really cares about his after life, he should listen to wisdom. If Muluzi can listen to the elderly, the better. If he can listen to the elderly, educated people that’s even much better. He needs to listen to voices from outside UDF for those from the party are his own voices and a man who listens to himself, and himself only, ends up the Shakespearean tragic way—always.

Our tribute to a true patriot

Aleke Banda
Chairperson of PPM (Malawi Opposition Party)

Our tribute to a man making a difference against all odds

President of Malawi
Bingu Wa Mutharika

Paladin to proceed with $185m Malawi uranium development

URANIUM PROSPECT Paladin to proceed with $185m Malawi uranium development The Malawi government has entered into an agreement with Australian resources group Paladin for the development of the $185-million-plus Kayelekera uranium mining project, in northern Malawi.

The new mine's commissioning is scheduled for September 2008.

Paladin MD John Borshoff says the agreement gives the Malawi government a 15% shareholding in the project.

In return, Paladin's corporate tax rate will be slashed from 30% to 27 5% and the company will be exempted from the 10% resource rent tax.

"The development agreement is a far-reaching document providing a stable fiscal regime for at least ten years from the commencement of production and will provide a high degree of certainty for the project," says Borshoff.

The agreement will see the company's royalty rate reduced from 5% to 1,5% during the first one to two years of mining. In addition, Paladin will not pay the 17,5% import value-added tax and there will be an immediate 100% capital write-off for tax purposes.

Under the agreement, Paladin will be requirerd to provide social infrastructure in the Kayelekera area, including primary and secondary schools and health facilities, most probably funded in the third year of the project.

"The 15% government shareholding will offer a long-term stabilising element for the project, as it will align the interests of the company and the government in the project, creating a sustainable environment which the company believes is for the long-term benefit of both the company and Malawi," says Borshoff.

Paladin is currently readying itself for the predevelopment works, involving local access preparation, preliminary site establishment, a secure equipment storage area and a communications facility.

This work is scheduled for the fourth quarter of this year.

Paladin has also started buying equipment for the project and has so far acquired a second-hand 5,03-m-diameter, 8,54-m-long Dominion SAG mill.

A bankable feasibility study undertaken by international consultancy firm GRD Minproc indicated that the project is financially and technically viable, with an 11-year life-of-mine. The survey results peg the total yearly production for the project at 3,3-million pounds of U3O8 over the first seven years, up from the 2,3-million pounds that was initially envisaged.

Paladin will use a portion of the $250-million it raised from capital markets in December to kick-start the project. It is also seeking a $90-million debt facility from its banker, Societe Generale Australia.

The company requires working capital of$45-million for the development stage of the project, whose capital cost is pegged at over $185-million.

Paladin recently applied for a 25-year mining licence and submitted the bankable feasibility study report, the management plan and the environmental-assessment study for the project to the Malawi government for review and approval.

"Initial responses have been favourable and approvals are expected towards the end of March 2007," says Borshoff.

Paladin is also exploring work in the vicinity of the Kayelekera deposit in order to boost the size of the resource.

"With its strong focus on exploration drilling planned to test existing uranium targets in its surrounding tenements over the next three to four years, Paladin is confident that satellite deposits will be discovered, offering the potential to extend the project life beyond the 11 years identified in the bankable feasibility study," concludes Borshoff.

Malawi good for investment as it improves on credit worthness

by Taonga Sabola, 11 March 2007 - 09:19:38

There is more positive news on the economic front with a global economic think-tank rating Malawi more favourably in terms of investor confidence and reliability in its latest report. The development means there is reduced risk for companies and institutions dealing with Malawi’s entrepreneurs. Both industry and the financial sector have hailed the latest ratings which are used by foreign banks and investors in deciding whether to do business with the country and to what extent. In the report the body, Fitch Ratings, has upgraded Malawi’s long-term foreign currency Issuer Default Rating (IDR) — which reflects the ability of an entity to meet financial commitments on a timely basis — from CCC to B- (B minus) with a Stable Outlook. A B rating means the financial situation in the country varies noticeably while the former rating of CCC meant the country was considered vulnerable and dependent on favourable economic conditions to meet its commitments The rating firm, which is dual-headquartered in New York and London, said in a statement posted on Reuters on Tuesday Malawi’s long-term local currency IDR was similarly upgraded to B- (B minus), with a Stable Outlook, from CCC and the short-term IDR to B from C. A C rating is given to entities that are considered highly vulnerable, perhaps in bankruptcy or in arrears but still continuing to pay out on obligations. Malawi’s country ceiling has been raised to ‘B-’ (B minus) from CCC. Fitch Ratings is a leading global rating agency committed to providing the world’s credit markets with independent, timely and prospective credit opinions. It was one of the three Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSRO) designated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in 1975. Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (MCCCI) described the development as very positive, arguing that the new ratings have a huge bearing on how other people view the country. MCCCI Chief Executive Officer Chancellor Kaferapanjira told the Economic Report on Wednesday that going up the ladder on the Fitch report may yield positive results for the country. “That’s a very significant development because these ratings are used by many people outside the country when they want to do some business with you. It also has an impact in terms of investment as it gives some confidence to investors when they want to go into a particular country,” said Kaferapanjira. Bankers Association of Malawi (Bam) president George Partridge agreed, adding that getting a good grade on the Fitch ratings is “of utmost importance” for a country like Malawi. “Basically it determines outsiders’ perspective on whether they can lend you money or deal with you in general. It gives the outsiders a chance to assess a country’s ability to pay back credit. “Such ratings are also important for the banking sector when we want to establish Letters of Credit. The outsiders look at the country risk which usually determines the price at which one may borrow. The higher the risk the lower the cost,” said Partridge. Malawi’s creditworthiness has improved markedly since 2004. And in recognition of the policy measures that underpin this improvement, in August 2006 Malawi reached completion point under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (“HIPC”) initiative organised by multilateral and bilateral creditors, and received a write-down of bilateral debt. Consequently Malawi qualified for the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI), which cancelled all pre-2004 debt to the World Bank and African Development Bank, and pre-2003 debt to the IMF. The development left Malawi’s external debt at 23 percent of GDP at the end of 2006, compared with 142 percent at the end of 2005. External debt service will be less than one percent of current account receipts in 2007-08. “Debt relief has not been the only positive development. The fiscal deficit has been reduced, and controls on public spending tightened,” says Charles Seville, Associate Director of Fitch’s Africa and Middle East sovereign team. Debt relief and improved fiscal discipline since 2004 has allowed the government to reduce domestic borrowing, which now accounts for half of total government debt of 42 percent of GDP. This in turn has allowed the Reserve Bank of Malawi to ease monetary policy. Lower interest rates will help the government reduce interest costs and lengthen the maturity profile of its debt. It will also encourage credit growth, investment and economic activity. The government is supporting the private sector by targeted infrastructure spending and measures to improve the business climate. But the report also notes that Malawi still suffers from various structural weaknesses, including vulnerability to economic shocks, and dependence on agriculture. Growth reached 8.5 percent in 2006 on a strong harvest, but Malawi’s recent growth performance has been somewhat weaker than rating peers such as Cameroon (‘B’ Stable), Mozambique (‘B’ Stable) and Rwanda (‘B-’ Positive), which have also received debt relief from HIPC and the MDRI. Its domestic debt is also higher and more costly than that of its peers. In light of social spending and investment needs, the budget will continue to be highly dependent on aid. Relations with donors — led by the UK government — are good, and Malawi can count on firm aid inflows provided standards of governance are maintained. A reversal of recent progress in this area is one of the main risks to the rating. Fitch says it expects new borrowing to push up the debt burden, although debt service will rise more slowly. “Loans will be exclusively on concessional terms from multilateral lenders, as a condition of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (“PRGF”) with the IMF that expires in mid-2008. The government will also build up its capacity to manage external borrowing to avoid a rapid accumulation,” says Fitch. Measures of external liquidity such as reserves are weak, but are set to rise. Current account and fiscal receipts will receive a further boost from the Kayelekera uranium mine, which is scheduled to open in September 2008, Fitch noted. “It remains to be seen whether Malawi can build a track record of improved fiscal performance without the incentive of debt relief. It must also negotiate the path towards the legislative and presidential elections scheduled for 2009, which are likely to be closely contested. “However, there is scope for Malawi to progress in time to a higher rating within the ‘B’ category provided recent improvements in governance, the policy framework and economic performance continue,” reads the statement.

Quote of the Week

"Listen to the language of Gwanda Chakuamba and the UDF camp. All they are thinking is how to defeat Mutharika instead of articulating a new vision for Malawi. Look! They cannot even challenge Mutharika’s vision any meaningfully! Kamuzu came to defeat “the stupid federation”, yes, but also had a long term vision. His solid will that unfortunately turned out to be political arrogance is also what ironically ensured that his vision must be fulfilled. It is only the misfortune of great men that their greatness lives well in their death."

- except from the Nation Interview with Chancellor College Lecturer published on 7th March 2007

France to cancel Malawi’s K1bn debt

by Ephraim Munthali, 09 March 2007 - 04:46:37

France will this year cancel a US$9 million (K1.26 billion) debt Malawi owes that country, the French Ambassador to Malawi and Zambia Francis Saudubray said on Wednesday. The ambassador made the disclosure on the sidelines of a ceremony to honour two local language lecturers—Professor Boston Soko of Mzuzu University and Dr. Allan Lipenga of Chancellor College—for their outstanding work in promoting African culture and languages. “France is impressed with how the Bingu wa Mutharika administration has been managing the economy. The country’s macro-economic conditions have improved considerably, hence our decision to cancel the debt,” said the Lusaka-based envoy. Saudubray, who represents France in Zambia and Malawi, said his government is discussing with Malawian authorities on how to efficiently and effectively utilise the freed resources for the benefit of the poor and the economy in general. “On our part, we would like to see most of these resources going into the mining sector and the conservation of the environment,” he said. Saudubray said Malawi and France will sign an agreement between June and September this year to formalise the debt relief.. Finance Minister Goodall Gondwe and Secretary to the Treasury Radson Mwadiwa could not be reached for comment on the development. France’s announcement comes on the back of decisions by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank at the end of last August to cancel Malawi’s debts after the country became the 20th to reach the completion point under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (Hipc) debt relief programme. In October last year, government creditors in the Paris Club followed suit to forgive Malawi’s foreign debt which, before the multilateral cancellation, stood at around US$3 billion (about K420 billion). The debt cancellation is poised to leave Malawi with annual debt service savings of over US$100 million (about K14 billion) over the next 20 years. This translates to 1.7 months of additional import cover. Thus, apart from helping to boost donor and investor perceptions, the write-off is tipped to improve the country’s balance of payment position which is always in the red largely because its trade account has traditionally maintained a deficit.

It could be Amin, Kamuzu or Muluzi

For acting Idi Amin, the savage dictator who ruled Uganda in the 1970s, actor Forest Whitaker on Monday night scooped an Oscar, the highest award Hollywood accords to the cream of the cinema industry.
But as the world cheers Whitaker for his superb performance in the movie entitled The Last King of Scotland, let’s not forget that Amin was real and not an imaginary character in a Greek tragedy. He was a real head of state whose dictatorial reign of terror in the 1970s was a real tragedy for the innocent people of Uganda.
Now that Amin is long dead, we can afford to watch and be amused with the dramatised story of his tragic life as a leader. But should our children, who were probably young or not yet born when the last king of Scotland hunted and killed his own people with the passion of a Stone Age game hunter, wrongly think the movie is a mere piece of fiction, tell them the story of Amin is a real tragedy that indeed happened?
And it is still happening.
In fact, had Whitaker not acted Amin, he could as well have won an Oscar by acting His Excellency, the Life President, Ngwazi Dr. Kamuzu Banda, the Lion of Malawi, a friend of Queen Elizabeth II, Mchikumbe Number 1, Nkhoswe ya Amayi M’malawi.
Kamuzu may not have been the cannibal that Amin is reputed to have been but, like Amin, detaining without trial or even killing his real or imaginary enemies appeared to be his pastime.
So brutal was his regime that a whole Compensation Tribunal was set up later to compensate victims of its atrocities. Indeed, so many were the victims that to this day, the queue of those seeking compensation appears endless.
Ironically, the Ngwazi too had a special place for Scotland in his heart. He bragged about it as his second home. He also claimed that he was an Elder of the Church of Scotland. Probably as a proof that the Ngwazi was a complete Scottish gentleman of the 20th century at heart, he never parted with a white shirt, three piece suit, a hat, black shoes and a walking stick. A fly whisk was the only visible item from Africa in the whole paraphernalia that defined Banda’s taste and deportment.
Kamuzu’s successor—Bakili Muluzi—is also another Malawian head of state with a legacy that can make good material for the big screen. I’ve always found it very amusing that after being accorded an honorary doctorate by several universities abroad, Muluzi saw to it that his wife, Shanil, got an honorary doctorate from the Mzuzu University and his friend Chakufwa Chihana an honorary doctorate from the University of Malawi. Dr. Muluzi was the Chancellor of both universities.
If you don’t know the value of these honorary doctorates in politics, just listen to the songs of praise that were composed every time Muluzi was accorded an honorary doctorate. It was like the man with modest academic achievements had suddenly become a member of the intelligentsia.
But apart from bragging about honours, Muluzi’s 10-year reign of mediocrity was also a real tragicomedy that could have earned Whitaker an Oscar. Here is a man who boasted about putting his life at a risk by fighting Banda’s dictatorial regime so he could end the life presidency and ensure that democracy is entrenched in Malawi. Yet at the end of his tenure, he tried to secure a life presidency for himself.
He even allowed jobless youths called Young Democrats to inflict pain on anyone—politicians, traditional leaders, the clergy, journalists, human rights activists and ordinary people—who dared express dissenting views.
And, when all that failed, Muluzi the democrat hand-picked a successor who ditched him upon assuming power. Having been hoodwinked, Muluzi came back from retirement and went into camp, preparing to contest in the next general elections, probably the first former head of state in democratic Africa to do so.
Well, how about President Bingu wa Mutharika? His reign is still unfolding but already there’s good material for an Oscar winning movie. Here’s a man who only in 1999 failed to secure a seat in Parliament and scooped the least number of votes in the presidential race. Come the next presidential polls, he comes carried on the shoulders of the incumbent president who travels the whole length and breadth of Malawi, being sold as the ‘Economic Engineer’ who can take free Malawi to prosperity.
Mutharika then ditches Muluzi soon after winning the elections, accusing Muluzi’s party, UDF, of harbouring corrupt officials and vowing to deal with them. The new President even goes to the extent of saying he could not associate with a party that rigged the 2004 presidential polls for which he was the beneficiary.
Later, his relations with his predecessor become so bad that the Mutharika administration denies Malawi’s former head of state use of VVIP lounge at the airport. The plot of the Mutharika rule is still unfolding....
— Feedback: backbencher2005@yahoo.com

Why we need Bingu beyond ‘09

Like polar bears that resurface during spring time to search for their favourite delicacy, salmons, after an unpleasant period of harsh winter spent under the dugout caves below the layer of sheer snow and ice, the year 2009 is very interesting to note as regards Malawian politics because now we hear of political discords either within the ruling DPP party or the opposition. This has degenerated into announcements of new party formation. Reason? Architects of such new parties are smelling delicacy in two years time. But do they have what it takes to become president of an economically crippled Malawi?
Malawians should be ware of oratorically skilled politicians because what they always talk to the press-deficiency crowds is mere trash and not beneficial to the electorate’s day to day social welfare needs.
The nation must learn to incline to presidential candidates of academic superiority and personal integrity. Most candidates of academic inferiority have some good looks, and this coupled with their talking skills, pose as a bait to the unsuspecting electorate. They may sail through at the presidential test, but, unfortunately, they can eventually lead this small country into a squall of economic peril. Why? They have no genuine intellectual ideas to help transform the country from being third world and poor to middle income and prosperous other than reaping its already meagre financial resources, resulting into total economic mismanagement without consideration for the suffering majority from whom they lured votes.
To them, politics is business and business means monetary rewards. The notion of serving the people and helping in the transformation of their lives isn’t in the minds of most such prospective leaders.
The previous regime before Bingu Mutharika is a clear testimony of leadership without intellectual capabilities and integrity. Its lack of planning for the country’s food security, rampant corruption, high inflation rates, lack of new significant infrastructure, rise of death rate due to hunger and diseases, dwindling foreign reserves, high crime rates, closure of important companies, lack of foreign investments, and distribution of K50 bank notes to few people—all give a summation of a “leadership without brains and a vision.”
You tend to wonder how do people elect such leadership. The answer is in the second paragraph. It has got to do with speech presentation and attractive faces. A common villager will always be fooled by the two.
The Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda regime speaks volumes of how intellectual capacity can be a significant factor when it comes to governing a country like Malawi. This is so despite banda’s shortfalls in human rights. He sustained food security for his people, foreign investment was conspicuous, there was lack of corruption in the government, foreign reserves were appealing, low crime rate was witnessed, and generally new infrastructure was blossoming. The leadership had a vision. Given the rare natural resources that either DR Congo or Angola have, I believe this leadership could have performed an economic miracle for Malawi. I don’t see such a possibility in the regime after Dr Banda given such resources.
In Bingu Mutharika, I see a leader who has both vision for the country and intellectual skills to elevate impoverished Malawi to a small economic powerhouse in Southern Africa. His qualities and policies are reminiscent of that of Dr Banda’s, and given another chance during the next election, the country can benefit more, other than have greedy, unqualified candidates run the affairs of Malawi. Mutharika has demonstrated his capabilities through things like winning back donor support, eliminating corruption, reducing inflation rates, planning for food security, rural industrialisation plans, construction of roads and general addition of more infrastructure, not forgetting the Shire/Zambezi Waterway which will be the nucleus of Malawi’s prosperity. The country still needs him. Period!
Some politicians will preach to the people the gospel of economic hope and some will even start telling them again that they will be blessed with free new pairs of shoes and free money and without shame promising of constructing a bridge between Makanjira and Chipoka. Malawians wake up!
They want to dig even more in the small coffers come 2009, thereby paralysing you with more financial hardships. These are prophets of doom not hope. I mean they expect baskets full of money even if they didn’t work hard. Wise leaders will strive to motivate farmers so they benefit from their hardwork. Wise leaders they will create an environment for new companies to flourish so college and high school graduates can have ease of job scouting, they will make travelling easy by having so many roads financed regardless of region.
It, therefore, takes a well qualified dynamic person with full of positive ideas and ambitions coupled with real sacrifice of oneself without harbouring thoughts of greed and monopolism to become president of a country like Malawi. Thus the country needs to follow standards in presidential candidature not just being governed by anyone in the political arena. Has the country listened then? Will it avoid these prophets of doom?
— The author is a Malawian studying at Indiana University.