mixed reactions to the arts bill

For nine years, players and stakeholders in the arts sector have lobbied for the enactment of the National Arts and Heritage Bill Which Parliament finally passed  on Friday.

Expectedly, news of the passing of the Bill, which proposes establishment of the National Arts  and Heritage Council (Nahec), has excited arts and culture enthuasts.

Musicians Union of Malawi (MUM) was the first to celebrate, describing it as the birth of a “structured body to oversee and promote the creative industry”.

Said MUM president Vita Chirwa: “Nahec will be pivotal in creating policies that support the growth of the creative industries. It will contribute to job creation, tourism and the preservation of the cultural heritage.”

He said the provisions in the Bill will ensure financial support for artists’ projects such as trainings, exchange programmes and arts promotions.

On his part, Film Association of Malawi vice-president Ashukire Mwakisulu, was also happy with the passing of the Bill.

He said filmmakers registered with his organisation will be able to get loans for their productions.

Equally over the moon was Minister of Local Government, Unity and Culture Richard Chimwendo Banda.

Speaking in Parliament after it was passed, he said the Bill will provide a legal framework for the council to “properly coordinate the promotion of the creative and heritage industry”.

This is good news, but wait. A scrutiny by experts talks a different language.

A lecturer in tourism and cultural heritage at Mzuzu University, Francis Muchemwa, said much as the Bill has covered a number of issues important to the arts and heritage industry, there are some loopholes that need amending.

He expressed disappointment that many of the issues the Bill has addressed are well covered.

“By this, I mean that the Bill is silent on the principles of heritage management and rights of ownership of the communities living near or with the heritage sites,” said Muchemwa.

He said he expected the Bill to cover areas that included responsibility of every generation to safeguard, protect and perpetuate heritage for its continuum, promotion of heritage resources for conciliation, understanding and respect and contribution to the development of a unified Malawi and national identity and provision of resources for training and capacity building of those working with arts and heritage, including the communities.

Said Muchemwa: “The Bill was supposed to explicitly cover aspects to do with the minimum standards for conservation and management of heritage objects which have a strong association with a place or community.

“Again, there is need for continuous assessment of values of heritage sites taking conscience of over-charging and evolving values in a globalised world.”

He also argued that the Bill did not explicitly address the living heritage for what he called ‘instant cultural tradition, oral history and its documentation and preservation, performances, rituals, popular memory, skills and tacit knowledge’.

On his part,  University of Malawi Associate Professor Zindaba Dunduzu Chisiza was not comfortable with the registration requirement.

Chapter 20 (1-2) of the Bill requires one to register with the council at a fee.

Chisiza said the regulation is restrictive because some artists will be prevented from doing their work.

“There are people who make a living through holding shows. It is, therefore, not right to stop them just because they are not registered. Some may not have the money [for registration],” he said.

He gave an example of some acrobats who want to perform to get some money, but could not because they are not registered.

Chisiza suggested that registration should just be an option, not a mandate.