Is Our Freedom Practical?

Freedom is a complex term, understood differently from one setting to another. It may be a result of the liberation that was or has been endowed on a nation or individual, but sometimes freedom tends to be analyzed in its practicability sense. Thus, it has oftentimes been argued that freedom for mankind may just be illusory – a kind of freedom that exists in books only – or it may indeed be practical – that is a kind of freedom that is seen in all its basic interpretations.

The aspect of many nations being under indirect rules of other nations has been taken onto the centre stage by some writers – African writers in particular – who argue it is high time African countries got ‘really’ free. In fact, there is the notion of neocolonialism existing within the minds of many Africans including Malawians. Yet, in Malawi, universal history holds that father and founder of the nation, Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda, broke the ‘stupid federation’ and broke Malawi free from the pangs of colonial oppression, thereby rendering Malawi a free nation, free at last.

Essentially, the term neo-colonialism was coined by the first Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah who argued that Africa was just undergoing a new kind of colonialism with Europe still having a hand in the ruling of African countries. This might be decades ago, but the notion is still noted to this day, and is applied in different analyses of African states’ freedoms.

These states, Malawi inclusive, are said to be currently in a phase which is a new form of imperial rule stage managed by the colonial powers to give the colonized the illusion of freedom. And most of the times, we fail to fully and convincingly answer the question of whether or not we are indeed free. Is our freedom really practical, or just theoretical?

It appears 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, as neo-colonialism was defined at the 1961 All-African People’s Conference held in Cairo, still exists.

About two months from now, Malawians from all walks of life will be thronging the giant Kamuzu Stadium to cerebrate the country’s 46th independence anniversary, assuming it is going to take place at the traditional venue. This is always a rare occasion marked by new inventions of marking the day which usually have never been there before. That independence came within the context of freedom that became a reality some three years previously or so.

As a matter of fact, at the passing of forty-five years since the British Administration in Malawi handed over power to native Malawians, there was plenty of glamour. It was a rare occasion, garnished with novel exhibitions that left most of us wondering why Malawi remains one of the poorest countries in the world despite having very creative citizens; why we still rely on the West in most of our development projects; and whether the freedom that Kamuzu grabbed from the colonial masters is viably working.

It may be worthy noting that ever since Malawi broke away from the ‘stupid federation’, two types of governments have been experienced, namely the one-party system and the multiparty system. And now, about a half a century down the line, some, if not most people, still believe our freedom 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 freedom, 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.

“We are free in theory; on paper, our freedom is there, but in practice we are far away from that. Well, we rule ourselves, but how can we say we are free when economically we cannot fully provide for ourselves? They (the West) control our economy, and we cannot claim we are free. Even the political freedom that we think we have is not necessarily there,” argues James Kawaye, a fourth year Political Science student at Chancellor College.

Perhaps, his line of thought 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, we may indeed be forgiven for arguing that there are indirect ruling hands from outside Malawi which rule us.

Maybe indeed there is nothing peculiar about our freedom apart from the fact that we have a native Malawian as the country’s president and that we have our own national flag and constitution; and, our constitution can be taken to be just another vindication that our freedom, at least for now, is not complete, since it is just an adapted version of the British constitution.

As a practical thing, Malawi, it seems, is not a free state. However, to a certain extent, some analysts point out that all the arguments advanced for the justification of the fact that Malawi is not a free state are ill-conceived. They go on to argue that there is no denying that most developing countries rely on donour funds, but this does not conclusively imply that they are not politically free.

Many nationalists and commentators see the independence gained from the withdrawing of colonial powers as only partial liberation. In other words, they argue that independence in its fullness is yet to dawn on Malawi, and most African states. Some call it ‘false freedom’. 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.

But, others still see Malawi to be a completely free state. “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 do not have their freedom in entirety,” argues Leonard Mphande in his yet to be published research paper titled Malawi’s Freedom Seen From an Outsider’s Perspective.

In 1992, the donour community threatened that it would pull out its support to Malawi if the one-party government did not improve on human rights issues and proper governance. 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.

But Willy Kambwandira chooses to differ. “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,” observes the third year student at Chancellor College.

He goes on to point out that it is wrong to argue that the nations are under the rule of the organisations. Some time back, he observes, the United Nations and the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) warned Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe that they would impose sanctions on him once he did not comply to enforcing peace with the leader of the main opposition party, Morgan Tszangirai but this did not mean Zimbabwe was not a free state and it shall never be so.

Perhaps, indeed, 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. It could be true that 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, need to be altered by ourselves.

Some commentators maintain that “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 really free 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 freedom – on 14 may 1961, 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. Perhaps, here is where we may feel that we are not free until the day when we will finally be able to compliment our own economy fully.

But still, if donations mean the absence of freedom, then not more than one percent of the world’s countries would be termed as free states, agues a lecturer at Chancellor College. He further observes that 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 has its freedom and as a practical thing, it is ruling itself.

There could indeed be nothing like theoretical freedom. As a matter of fact, there is no country in the world which is being ruled by another country, and every country is free – freedom it its fullness, and never partial, argues the lecturer.
He goes on to say that even Iraq, which is under constant threats from the United States of America, is a free state. It has its own president elected by native Iraqis.

Perhaps, we also need to consider the fact that there are some brave individuals who fought relentlessly for Malawi to gain its freedom, among whom Dr. Banda is one, and it would be mockery to these departed souls to claim that Malawi is still not free. But, if truth is there, should it not be told because of fear to offend the dead?

But, on the other hand, it has to be noted that freedom does not mean solitude. As a country, we cannot live in absolute solitude without any external influence. Just like any other state in the world, Malawi will continue interacting with other countries, and yet our freedom will never cease to be. But perhaps, we cannot run away from the fact that this freedom is not yet complete.

And on the other hand, much as we 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.

Above all, Malawi is a free state just like any other country in the world. There is nothing more to being free other than the fact that we have our own leader. But, the question which might bring us to conclude that our freedom is not entire yet is that of the international community, oftentimes, having a hand in the affairs of this country.