Chakwera retains top seat, untrimmed power
Last week, President Lazarus Chakwera went unopposed as the leader of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP), putting his re-election bid firmly on track despite a battery of broken promises, including the pledge to trim presidential powers. Our Assistant Lilongwe Bureau Chief SUZGO CHITETE asks legal scholar, Professor Danwood Chirwa, why the President seems sneaky on that part of building a better Malawi for all where no one is above the law. Excerpts.
During his inaugural address in June 2020, President Chakwera reiterated his campaign promise to trim presidential powers. If the President lived by his word, would there be any legal ramifications worth his worry?
The promise to trim presidential powers is attractive only to a candidate for presidential elections who seeks to knock the incumbent off the pedestal. Chakwera the candidate then lashed on to this as a political ploy.
We now know, as some of us already knew then, that he was never serious about trimming down presidential powers.
By conduct, President Chakwera has shown that he enjoys the power that comes not just from the law but also social fabric the Malawian context presents.
Are there best practices within southern Africa or the entire continent where the president has less powers than Chakwera?
The Malawian presidency enjoys legal powers that are not out of sync with constitutional standards and practices in southern and east Africa. In almost all countries in these regions, presidents enjoy powers similar to those conferred on the Malawian President.
The difference lies in the fact that the Malawian presidency is able to exercise those powers for ulterior and improper purposes with impunity and without any accountability whatsoever.
There are no established usages and practices to guide the proper exercise of those powers. The President is also able to claim more powers than those recognised under the law, also without any form of accountability.
Surely, there was a good reason for concentrating so much power in the hands of the presidency. The President has a hand almost in crucial appointments for accountability institutions. What’s the implication of this legal structure?
The social dynamics make incumbents subjects of adulation and admiration so much that those that are supposed to serve as critical levers of accountability recoil in reverence for the presidency or are easily crushed.
The offices and institutions of accountability do not enjoy the same level of socio-political support. They only rely on legal authority, which isn’t enough to render them effective in practice.
We have seen how the Anti-Corruption Bureau and other institutions have been rendered toothless. The Malawi elite does not hold itself to any moral standards. The moral deficit among the elite means that the leaders that emerge are not used to following the rules and procedures applicable to their positions, lack the ability to recognise what’s wrong and what is right, do not value or comprehend what is in the national interest.
The President campaigned on a Hi-5 agenda which includes ending corruption and a promise to promote the rule of law. In this regard, what is your observation?
It is clear that no matter how many legal reforms are done in Malawi, they do not result in better governance nor improved service delivery and economic performance. This is because of the problems I have highlighted.
