No, the decision was ill-timed
BY ANANIYA ALICK PONJE
News that ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Director of Political Affairs Harry Mkandawire’s had been fired from the party must not have come as any new to many Malawians who were keenly observing the path on which he was treading. And his subsequent decision to form a pressure group christened Northern Region Fora must not have come as a surprise to most people, including the party itself.
This should be the case because, out of the blue, Mkandawire got the courage to challenge his boss, President Bingu wa Mutharika on ‘some of Mutharika’s decisions on quota system, local government elections, Muhlako wa Ahlomwe, public appointments and separation of powers’.
It must be the case that Mkandawire quite well knew that his ‘scathing’ remarks would not go down well with the president and he must have already known all possible repercussions that would fall on him in the wake of his challenge. Of course, one might argue that there is no need to bring the president in as far as the issue of firing Mkandawire is concerned; but the fact of the matter remains that those who presided over Mkandawire’s hearing could not have done anything apart from that which would please the head of state.
On the other hand, soon after the disciplinary hearing where Mkandawire was the centre of attention, it was reported that top DPP officials who were there during the hearing said that whatever had transpired there was an internal matter, (not meant for public consumption).
I should believe that if such was the case, and since Mkandawire himself as well confirmed that what had transpired during the disciplinary hearing was an intra-party matter, then Mkandawire was not fired during the hearing. He was fired later, and there should have been someone who precipitated the decision. In this case, the president cannot be ruled out.
One thing that looms large is that Mkandawire must have intentions to ‘break away’ from the party long ago but only waited for an opportune time to arise. In other words, he was waiting for a scapegoat and truly it came in the name of ‘Mutharika’s blunders’ which have been condemned by many. It may be right to suggest that his pressure group was never formed recently; rather it must have been there even before his ‘scathing’ letter to the president and it only come out ‘formally’ now.
There is something peculiar about Mkandawire: since President Mutharika ascended onto the throne of power, no party member has come in the open to criticize his (Mutharika’s) decisions even where it was clear that some members had misgivings.
If at all some party officials wanted to attack the president, they would only do so ‘in hiding’ while “speaking on strict condition of anonymity”. The issue of ‘succession blues’ in the ruling party is a perfect example. Many top party officials are essentially not happy with how it is being handled, especially now that the party should be strategizing on who should be its torchbearer some 2014, but on-one has come in the open to express their concerns.
But Mkandawire defied all odds and took the president to task. He failed to play bootlicking politics; it was against his conscience to do so and he had to do all it would take to clear his conscience. Now the rest is history: he is no longer part of the ruling party, for he fell out with the president despite what he, himself, called ‘constructive criticism’.
Now, people are asking: was the ruling party right to fire Mkandawire? And the extension of the question would be: was the ruling party right to fire Mkandawire because of his ‘constructive criticism?’ So far, some people have analyzed the Mkandawire saga and have found that DPP’s decision to get rid of Mkandawire from the party is the best any party would take on a ‘rebel’ like Mkandawire.
Others believe that the party has made the worst mistake ever and that the decision itself is entirely ill-timed. It is my desire to join the bandwagon of those that feel DPP’s decision to fire Mkandawire was ill-timed and of course, the worst mistake the party has ever made. The party has made many blunders before, but this one is standing out, especially this time when it (seems) to be sailing in troubled waters.
It is clear that there are numerous cracks in the party and Mkandawire’s case is just a tip of the iceberg. The first pointer of cracks in the ruling party began to show when Mutharika condemned his cabinet ministers for ‘failing to concentrate on development projects, but only positioning themselves for the party’s presidency for 2014’. The president’s remarks never came out of a vacuum.
There was tension within the party as Raphael Tenthani pointed out in his article titled ‘Succession blues’. Instead of ministers concentrating on development projects, they were busy eyeing Bingu’s seat. That is why the ruling party should have been concentrating on ‘rebuilding’ itself instead of firing its members for positive criticism.
In fact, a strong message has been sent from the centre: there is no democracy in the party and it lacks tolerance because these two aspects entail the accommodation of dissenting views.
In any democratic dispensation, there is need for tolerance and accommodating dissenting views. Hence the ruling party’s decision to fire Mkandawire is a double blow to its future.
I believe that Mkandawire has massive support from whoever is concerned (what more with the many adverts about his Northern Region Fora that appear in the papers) and this means that by firing him from the DPP, the party has alienated itself from all Mkandawire’s supporters and this should be very dangerous this time than never before.
His pressure group does not comprise himself alone; there are many others involved. If the party retained Mkandawire, it would win the ‘sympathy’ of other members of the group. But now, following the firing of the group’s torchbearer, his group is very likely to mount more pressure on Mutharika’s government than if Mkandawire remained in the party.
In fact without the firing of Mkandawire, the group might have been left underlying but now it has come out and obviously it is going to receive massive support from all those who are against Mutharika’s policies, at least for now. Of course, the possibility that Mkandawire is being financed by some individuals or stakeholders that are not happy with Mutharika’s way of governance, cannot be entirely ruled out.
Above everything, the ruling party should now be strategizing on what to do to ‘rebuild’ itself as now it is clear that there are divisions within it. It should have come out and do a number of things that would assure Malawians that the party is really democratic; like by accommodating dissenting views of its members, like those raised by Harry Mkandawire.
It should not have fired him now that the party appears to be treading on a bumpy road. Perhaps Bingu no longer cares about the future of his party now that he is quite aware that he is in the last phase of his stay at the palace. Maybe he feels that this is the best time he can wield his powers to the utmost because it may not be necessary for ‘the works of his hands’ to speak for him.
If this is His Excellency’s line of thinking, then he is making a big mistake. The legacy of his party is his own legacy and its failure will be attributed to him just as the MCP’s and the UDF’s failures are being attributed to their presidents. This is why I believe the president can do something about the mistake his party made by firing Mkandawire.
Mutharika will be judged by what he has destroyed; and not what he built. And should his party fail in the 2014 elections because of problems like the firing of Mkandawire, Mutharika will be haunted till his last breath.
Yes, he exceeded limits
By Hardson Chamasowa
When the media broke the news that ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Director of Political Affairs Harry Mkandawire had written a very critical letter to president Bingu wa Mutharika in which he accused the Malawi leader of a number of things, many Malawians were waiting with bated breaths for what would befall Mkandawire.
It became obvious to many that such a letter would not fail to incur the displeasure of the party, at large, and the president, himself. It was a letter which some argue was filled with the blinding truth while others feel it lacked honorific aspects and was a very upsetting kind of open defiance to the head of state.
In fact, DPP’s Publicity Secretary Hetherwick Ntaba was quoted as saying that “Mkandawire went too far; he exceeded the limits.” Above all, it is DPP’s decision to fire Mkandawire that has aroused the attention of some critics from different corners of this country. People doubt the presence of democracy in the party and argue that it does not give room for criticism for it considers any opposing view as rebellion.
In a situation like that of Mkandawire, people need to sideline the preconceived ideas they have about the ruling party and allow reason to govern every critique. Malawi attained multiparty democracy as one way of liberating itself from the chains of oppression which found ground in the autocratic rule of one party leadership.
The consolidation of multiparty democracy gave birth to various human rights encompassing with it many other distinguished classes of freedoms of which one is the freedom of expression. This freedom implies that every citizen of this nation is entitled to his or her opinion. The problem rotating in different personalities is that they fail to realize the limitations to the rights they proudly posses.
Every agent of human rights is required to first ask himself if he is entitled to a particular right before reacting to it. If the agent is entitled to the right, they should then find out the extent to which they are to exercise their right and finally acknowledge that they are not violating somebody’s right when they are exercising their right.
I bet Mkandawire found it unnecessary to abide by the limitations of his human rights when he enjoyed his freedom of expression on October 17. He put pen to paper and experienced the art of weaving words into long loops that criticized Mutharika’s involvement in the Mulhako wa Alhomwe; his stand on quota system which Mkandawire thought (or still thinks) has the potential to divide the country; failure to hold local government elections; abuse of the rule of law; suspicious public appointments and the separation of powers.
Many can hail Mkandawire for pointing out that the President is flouting the constitution for ruling without councilors and functioning assemblies. He may as well be applauded for suggesting that the President is masterminding tribalism and for his opinion that the President also seems to favour the Shire Highlands region in his appointments but it is the channel through which he decided to express himself that has outdone all the points which he raised.
His courage to confront the President and address his weaknesses is a welcome development in a democratic government like ours as it is one way of sustaining our democracy which cost blood of innumerable innocent people.
However, he did not follow the right protocol. He was the director of the party’s political affairs and if he really had passion of controlling the image of the party he would summon the president to the party’s executive committee.
The fact that Bingu is the head of the party means that all allegations against him are automatically the party’s internal issues. By turning such issues into public consumption, it is right to point out that Mkandawire’s aim was to damage the image of the party and the president and at the same time registering as a mere spy and not a true member of the party. That is why it is my view that Mkandawire deserved dismissal.
We can not blame DPP for expelling him out of the party because every party has its rules and regulations and any breach of any rule entices a punishment depending on the nature of the offence. It is obvious that Mkandawire offended the party’s provisions.
And it pleased the authorities to fire him; and so they did! His reaction had the potential of influencing divisions in the party and therefore uncalled for. The expulsion can well be described as a democratic action and a true reflection of DPP as a democratic party since Mkandawire was kicked out of the party for the reason that he abused his democratic freedom of expression by exercising his rights without drawing boundaries.
What Mkandawire did is what is known as open defiance. It is not wrong to criticize the failures of a leader especially in a democratic country like ours but Mkandawire’s approach appears to have intended purposes.
The news of his expulsion from the party closely followed (or preceded) his announcement that he had founded a pressure group called Northern Region Fora. This development did not come in good faith; it only signifies that all along Mkandawire had that in mind. When his letter got leaked by the media, reports have it that he did not show any sign of shock, simply showing that it was a planned escapade.
Reasoning from his background, Mkandawire wanted to bring confusion among the members of the party which would entice internal rebellion which would entail the party’s downfall in the 2014 elections.
His colleagues have been grilling his motive behind operating outside the party, ignoring procedures to be used when presenting grievances or opposing views. The extreme mischief of the former DPP official is found in Mzimba West constituency where its residents got shocked at his reaction to a loss of seat in the 2009 parliamentary elections.
Mkandawire repossessed vehicle tyres he had given to a chief during the campaign season. Referring to this undesirable background, it can not be illogical to conclude that Mkandawire did not have passion for the party, because of what the loss that he experienced in the 19 May elections.
Forming a pressure group is not that bad when the genesis of the idea has cream grounds. After all, the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Alliance for Democracy (AFORD) began as pressure groups and transformed into strong political parties because they were formed on sound grounds whose common aim was to dismantle power from Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda. Similarly, Mkandawire’s pressure group would otherwise be recommended if it was not a product of inconvenience.
There are enough reasons to prove that the existence of his Northern Region Fora is an instrument to use in opposing the policies of the DPP and the party officials must have been brave enough to nip him in the bud. His conduct has proven he is not a right member to keep in the DPP as he was always busy damaging the image of the party and searched for various means of seeking political sympathy from the people of this nation.
Thus, I maintain my stand on the matter, that DPP’s decision to sack Mkandawire is the best every party that is concerned about its future would take on any member who rebels against it.
That was the only remedy for Mkandawire and nothing would have worked better than getting rid of him. He showed that he was not a genuine member of the party and such a person had to be treated as such. Simply put, he had to be shown the exit door, whatever the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment