Is Malawi Really Independent?

The aspect of many nations being under indirect rules of other nations has been taken into the centre stage by some writers – African writers in particular – who argue it is high time African countries got ‘really’ independent. In fact there is the notion of neocolonialism existing within the minds of many Africans including Malawians.

The term was coined by the first Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah who argued that Africa is just undergoing a new kind of colonialism with Europe still having a hand in the ruling of African countries.

African nations, Malawi inclusive, are said to be currently in a phase of neo-colonialism, which is a new form of imperial rule stage managed by the colonial powers to give the colonized the illusion of freedom.

At the 1961 All-African People’s Conference held in Cairo neocolonialism was defined as “the survival of the colonial system in spite of the formal recognition of political independence in emerging countries which become the victims of an indirect and subtle form of domination by political, economic, social, military or technical means.”

About two months ago, Malawians from all walks of life thronged the giant Kamuzu Stadium to cerebrate the country’s 45th independence anniversary. It was a rare occasion marked by new inventions of marking the day which had never been there before. As a matter of fact, forty-five years have passed since the British Administration in Malawi handed over power to native Malawians.

Ever since Malawi got independent, two types of governments have been experienced, namely the one-party system and the multiparty system. And now, forty-five years down the line, some people still believe our independence is not practical.

They go on to argue that in fact there are many countries in the world, with African countries topping the list, whose independence up to date is not practical, even though these countries appear to be independent theoretically.

Some people even reach the point of claiming that Malawi is just under a sophisticated type of colonialism with some underlying colonial masters hidden somewhere miles away.

This line of thought mainly emanates from the fact that the country relies extensively on donour funds for the majority of its development projects. Since some of the donations come in form of grants where there is an already defined purpose for the donation where the recipient only needs to implement it, some people argue that there are indirect ruling hands from outside Malawi which rule us.

That is why now, just because more than half of our National Budget comes from the donour community, some commentators feel that the aspect of Malawi being independent is only theoretical. They argue that there is nothing peculiar about Malawi’s independence apart from the fact that it has a native Malawian as the country’s president and that it has its own national flag and constitution.

They believe that as a practical thing, Malawi is not an independent state. However a deeper analysis of independent states proves that all the arguments advanced for the justification of the fact that Malawi is not independent are ill-conceived.

There is no denying that most developing countries rely on donour funds, but this does not conclusively imply that they are not independent. Many nationalists and commentators see the independence gained from the withdrawing colonial powers as only partial liberation. In other words, they argue that independence in its fullness is yet to dawn on Malawi. Some call it ‘false independence’.

Full or real freedom, they believe, will come with economic independence, that is the time when Malawi will be able to fund its own development projects using its own money. Yet there are many rich countries in the world that in certain cases rely on donations even from poorer countries when they have been caught napping in certain crises.

Malawi has ever made donations to other countries, but this cannot imply that those countries are not independent. In 1992, the donour community threatened that it would pull out its support to Malawi if the one-party government did not change on the government system which was there.

The donour community wanted Malawi to start practicing multiparty politics. Some people see that as an underlying rule where foreign countries dictated Malawi’s politics. I find this argument a little irrelevant as regards independence. Even the United States of America which is taken to be the world’s super-power will embrace advice from other nations.

In fact there are international organisations which nations belong to and these nations are supposed to abide by any rule that has been implemented by the organisations. And it is wrong to argue that the nations are under the rule of the organisations.

Some time back the United Nations and the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) warned Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe that it would impose sanctions on him once he did not comply to enforcing peace with the leader of main opposition party, but this did not mean Zimbabwe was not independent.

That Malawi is still under the control of Western powers with our rulers being either willing puppets or involuntary subordinate of these powers is misguided and a big misrepresentation of facts. The main economic theories supporting the concept of independent countries being ruled indirectly by other countries come from the dependency school developed in the late 1950s by Marxist economists.

Focusing our attention on misguided reasoning that our country is still under foreign rule has drawn our attention away from internal forces that are crucial to the understanding of our condition and which, unlike external conditions, needs to be altered by ourselves.

The fatalistic opinion that Malawi is stuck in ‘foreign hand ruling’ continues obstructing the growth of popular political movements for social and economic change in our beloved country.

In fact, the claim that Malawi is not independent is the one which is theoretical, because it only exists in the minds of some people. The fact of the matter cannot be changed and it remains that upon independence Malawi became a free nation, able to plan for its own future.

When considering the economic conditions of nations in the world it is wise to think of them as belonging to different levels in the global pyramid. At the bottom are the poorest of the poor; while at the top is a tiny minority of some rich countries.

And for the balance of the global market, there is need that some countries’ wealth is complimented by donour funds, yet this does not imply that they are being ruled by foreign powers indirectly.

If this is what donations meant, then not more than one percent of the world’s countries would be termed as independent states. Despite the fact that a nation may rely extensively on external assistance, as long as it has its own leader elected by the natives, its own constitution designed by its own natives, it is independent and as a practical thing, it is ruling itself.

There is nothing like theoretical independence. If at all, there are some individuals somewhere who feel they are ruling some countries indirectly, then they only miss the point. As a matter of fact, there is not country in the world which is being ruled by another country, and every country is independent – independence it its fullness, and never partial.

Even Iraq, which is under constant threat from the United States of America, is an independent state. It has its own president elected by native Iraqis. There are some brave individuals who fought relentlessly for Malawi to gain its independence and it would be mockery to these departed souls to claim that Malawi is still not independent.

Independence does not mean solitude. Perhaps those who feel Malawi is still not independent want us to live in absolute solitude without any external influence, which is an absurd thing. Just like any other state in the world, Malawi will continue interacting with other countries, and yet our independence will never cease to be.

Much as Malawi may receive funds from other countries, especially from the West, the government of Malawi has the final say. Even if it is a grant, the donour will not dictate other aspects. For example, the donour will not decide where the grant has to be implemented, though it has to be acknowledged that the purpose will not be changed.

To sum up, Malawi is an independent state just like any other country in the world. There is nothing more to being independent other than the fact that we have our own leader and a constitution written by native Malawians. And above all, we rule ourselves without any outer interference. That is why our president will not hesitate to chase away any foreign traders whom he feels have nothing good to offer Malawians. This is a great sign of our independence.