Interview with analyst Rafiq Hajat

As Malawi heads to elections later this month, IRIN spoke to Rafiq Hajat, the director of the Institute for Policy Interaction, on the legacy of 10 years of multi-party democracy. Rather than applauding the past decade, Hajat reflected on the need to inculcate a spirit of democracy in the country. QUESTION: You've had 10 years of democracy in Malawi, what is there to celebrate? ANSWER: We've had slippages, reversals, we've got despair, we've had all kinds of challenges facing us, but there are definitely good things to celebrate, such as the triumph of civil society in the bid for an open term, and then thereafter the third term - the extension of the tenure of the presidency - the gradual awakening of civil society to start to perform its vital role as a stabilising factor in a democracy, the ultimate check and balance. That is, notwithstanding the weak capacity, the fragmentation, the vested interests and the plethora of problems that exist within such a multifarious, multifaceted society. But, be that as it may, civil society has shown the ability and the will to coalesce into a force that cannot be ignored. The trick is to tap that source and make it more sustainable. If you look at achievements, we now have freedom of speech. People may say freedom of speech is not that much; it may not be much to some, but for those who didn't enjoy it before, who wouldn't have been able to speak the way I'm speaking to you now, this is a great pleasure. We have the freedom of association, where you and I can go out to a pub and have a chat without looking over our shoulders, without me being locked up or being thrown to the crocodiles. That draconian fear suppressing everything, that gloom, has lifted. We've got a vibrancy now in society and among the people; people voice out their concerns - people may not be living as well as they did before, but I look at it as a stepping stone. Q: In terms of second-generation rights, of economic empowerment, there seems to have been a significant reversal in people's standards of living? A: I agree, I concur entirely. Q: What have been the elements of that? what is the scale of the problem? A: The elements ... are mismanagement, callousness on the part of government, non-responsiveness on the part of government, donor pressure, the IMF [International Monetary Fund], World Bank - I could give you numerous examples, such as selling our reserves of maize and then the people suffering from starvation. However, what you may not know was that the maize was sold on the advice of the IMF. I use the term "advice" tongue-in-cheek, because advice from the IMF is actually an order. There was also profiteering in maize - it is rumoured by the private sector as well as politicians. Nothing has been proved to date, but we do know there were people who bought maize at 3 kwacha a kilo, who did not actually move it from the silo. They waited a few weeks and sold it back to the same silo at 17 kwacha a kilo. People died from starvation, not because food was unavailable, but because they couldn't afford it: the ultimate crime! We have the greatest polices around, the most liberal constitution. We have a constitution that any liberal democracy would be proud of, but the will to implement, the spirit of constitutionalism, the spirit of democracy, is not there. What I'm saying is, we've developed the institutions of democracy, but it hasn't yet been consolidated into the inculcation of the spirit of democracy and the culture of democracy among the populace. Q: Why not? A: Simple: you are battling against 85 percent of the population living below the poverty line; 65 percent are illiterate. You were talking about second-generation rights, the right to livelihood? What we're saying is, you cannot feed democracy to starving people, or human rights, but the starting point has got to be economic empowerment; the redistribution of wealth, but that redistribution needs to be on an equitable basis, without endangering the backbone of the economy. Malawi is deemed a poor country. I don't call it a poor country, I call it a raped country ... If Malawi got a fair price for its crops [on international markets], Malawi would not be a poor country. Q: We've talked about the inculcation of democracy, but the issue seems to be the politicisation of personalities. The democracy scene revolves around individuals without real party structures. Why is that? A: We have a here a legacy of neo-patrimonalism - the patronage system is very much alive and well in Malawi. It is a heritage of colonial days, and thereafter [Malawi's first president Hastings Kamazu] Banda, who was the quintessential patriarch, and we have it as a culture here. The village culture is the chief; the chief is the source of all largesse, advice and wisdom in the village, so it is the extension of that paradigm to the national level. We have a dysfunctional party system, with party hierarchies only nominally in place ... Q: Are the politics of personality undermining the democratic project in Malawi? A: Yes. However, the politics of personalities has been recognised by society, by the populace, as an impediment to the exercise of their rights, and slowly there is a groundswell growing. This election there have been so many comments from society: why do you use campaign rhetoric and character assassination? Why don't you concentrate on issues? Why don't we wean ourselves away from personality politics and go on to issue politics? That lack of ideology in all the parties has been mentioned and elaborated on. We have an independent candidate [Justin Malewezi] saying 'I'm not interested in personalities, I'm not interested in parties, I'm interested in issues. I want to launch Operation Rescue Malawi'. So there is some kind of incision being made into that culture. Q: The issue of the voters roll - there has been a major controversy because there seem to be around a million extra voters on the roll. Is this serious? A: There are a lot of anomalies in that voters' roll, which is not helped by the fact that the election commission could not provide a proper copy of the voters' roll in all the voting centres - they said they didn't have the capacity to do it. A new computer server has been brought in from South Africa for this purpose, whereby the voters' roll is being scrutinised minutely to detect the anomalies that have created this scenario. But if they are not cleared up fast, then nobody is going to believe these elections. Q: And a concomitant fear of violence I presume? A: Well violence could certainly erupt, because you've got to remember, [for] a lot of these candidates - I would say four out of the five candidates - this is their last shot at the title. It is winner takes all, and a roll of the dice to determine. So, obviously, if the roll of the dice is deemed to be loaded, it will erupt - no doubt about it - there's too much at stake. Q: It seems a very odd situation, where the outgoing president Bakili Muluzi is ... [attracting more attention] campaigning ... [than] his successor as party leader, Bingu wa Mutharika. He seems to be at the forefront of the campaign for the UDF [United Democratic Front]. What do you make of this? A: The UDF is an appendage of Bakili Muluzi. He supplies all the funds, all its resources, and it seems it's his energy and his will that holds the party together. UDF stands for United Democratic Front - and that's exactly what it is ... a front. I would call it a coalition of vested interests, and the glue that holds it together is Muluzi - that is his party. Every car you see with UDF markings ... its owner is Bakili Muluzi, not the party. Q: One of the emblems of this government has been universal primary education, but there have been problems over the quality of the education provided and the lack of teachers. A: It is actually symptomatic. We have great policies, but the will and resources to implement them properly are not there. Free primary education? Great. We are ranked as one of the 10 poorest countries in the world - how do you achieve that? I would say to you, okay, the education may not be great, people sit under a mango tree to learn, but it's better than nothing at all. It's a step in the right direction. And then there's free secondary education for girls. Why? Because girls will be the mothers of tomorrow, and that love for knowledge will be imparted to their children. So it is a very gradual approach, and it is encumbered by lack of funds and corruption. Q: The third-term issue [in which Muluzi attempted to change the constitution to stand for an extra term] - did that represent the flowering of civil society, or was resistance simply event-driven? A: Civil society actually started in '92/'93, with the churches issuing the pastoral letter [calling for democratic reform of the one-party state]. The UDF was a pressure group, it was part of civil society, that's where it came from - I know, I was there. However, since '94, civil society has mushroomed, and in that kind of mad helter-skelter you will get excesses that then cloud the achievements. Civil society has been growing steadily, and it has started to achieve some kind of unity of purpose that showed its full potential over the third-term issue. Q: President Muluzi has been highly critical of the church in this election, which has seemed to play a more overtly party political role. Do you consider it positive - the role the church is playing? A: I'm in a bit of a dilemma about the church. The church's role in 1992 was vital - nobody can deny that. Without the churches stepping in at that vital time, we may not have had democracy today. That's the first point, and let's not forget it. Since then the churches have always sort of performed as the conscience of the nation, the voice of the voiceless. In the third term bid, the churches were vital - without their support this effort would have fallen to the wayside. Again, they steered it onto the right track. Today the churches are being deemed overtly political: when they issued the pastoral letter, was it not overtly political? When they took a stand against the third term, was it not overtly political? Today ... they are backing a seven-party coalition [Mgwirizano "unity"], basically to create a strong opposition - that's what the motive was - a strong counterpoint to pose a challenge to an establishment that has been recognised as having failed the people in numerous areas. Corruption is rampant - whether that is proven or not, it is the perception that is important - the level of poverty has increased, the economy is going down the drain and people are suffering, and the church has stepped forward to say 'let's try and reverse this trend'. Q: Before, it was about justice and democracy, but now it's a clearly partisan position, which is slightly different; which raises the issue of Islam versus Christianity [Muluzi is a Muslim, as are one fifth of Malawians, with Islam the fastest growing religion]. Do you feel this is significant in the context of Malawi politics? A: I don't feel it's that significant - I think that element is being used by unscrupulous groups to gain attention. Personally, I don't see that divide as being a tangible divide, unless it's exploited by unscrupulous politicians.