The country’s two major political parties – the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) – are facing renewed criticism for failing not only to field their candidates at Thursday’s presidential debate, but also for missing an opportunity to articulate their policy blueprints.
When approached for responses on key issues raised during the debate, including public debt management, relations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), foreign exchange shortages, human rights, and the Malawi 2063, MCP spokesperson Jessie Kabwila and her DPP counterpart Shadric Namalomba offered no substantive answers.
Kabwila, who earlier defended Lazarus Chakwera’s absence by disparaging his rivals as minnows unworthy of his time and attention, did not pick our calls nor respond to specific policy questions put to her via WhatsApp.
On his part, Namalomba initially said: “The manifesto says it all. Give me time to package in the manner of your questions,” but never reverted with answers.
Political analysts say the silence compounds the damage of boycotting a debate organised by the Presidential Debates Task Force, which drew three other contenders—former president and PP leader Joyce Banda, the UTM’s Dalitso Kabambe and Atupele Muluzi of UDF—to spirited exchanges on debt, forex shortages, and relations with international financial institutions.
Political Science Association of Malawi spokesperson Mavuto Bamusi observed that MCP and DPP leaders had “missed a golden opportunity” by not attending the debate.
“It was clear from the start that candidates who took the stage benefitted immensely in explaining their visions on managing debt, stabilising the economy and relations with the IMF and World Bank.
“By staying away and then remaining mute when given another chance, MCP and DPP risk sending the impression that they are not ready to subject their policies to scrutiny,” he said.
Another critic, who opted for anonymity, said voters expect presidential hopefuls to defend, expand and clarify their policy prescriptions in real time.
“The refusal to debate and subsequent silence from the spokespersons suggests a worrying reluctance to engage with the electorate on the country’s most pressing challenges,” she said.
But governance and human rights advocate Undule Mwakasungula offered a nuanced view, cautioning against overdramatising the absence of the two major players.
“The absence of MCP and DPP candidates from the presidential debate should not be exaggerated. Both parties have other platforms to share their manifestos with Malawians. Whether their leaders appeared at the debate or not does not add or subtract from their readiness to govern,” he said, stressing that both parties have long relied on grassroots structures and mass rallies as their core campaign machinery.
Mwakasungula also argued that the decision not to engage should be seen as a deliberate strategy, rather than weakness.
“From what the parties themselves communicated earlier on, their choice not to participate was deliberate. They questioned the added value of these debates.
“Both MCP and DPP are established players with clear campaign priorities, but they have chosen different avenues to articulate them, so that cannot be forced,” he said.
On voter perceptions, Mwakasungula suggested that the impact may be limited.
“Remember that in Malawi’s political culture, mass rallies and community-level engagements remain far more influential in shaping voter perceptions than these debate platforms. Debates enrich our democracy, but for MCP and DPP, their campaign machinery lies elsewhere among the grassroots,” he added.
The absentees’ silence stood in stark contrast to the candidates who did attend. All three largely agreed on the need to restructure debt, repair Malawi’s relations with the IMF and World Bank, and stabilise the kwacha to restore investor confidence.
With the next debate coming up within a fortnight, the MCP and DPP must decide whether to continue stonewalling or show up and give voters clarity on their alternative policy visions.
