A virus called independent MPs

A strange virus, called independent MPs, has been detected in the bloodstream of Malawi’s democracy. It is slowly, but steadily, multiplying.

If left unregulated, it will soon have wrecked the country’s democracy.

Just recall what transpired during the recent by-election in Mzimba Central.   

After winning the parliamentary seat, Joseph Kachali—who contested on an independent ticket—disclosed he had joined the ruling People’s Party (PP), and as such, he would sit on government’s bench.  

But during the elections, PP had its own candidate, Aram Beza.

If people had wanted their MP to come from PP, they would not have given the 8 154 votes to Beza, but the 9 412 they gave to Kachali.

The discrepancy here is a symbol that people of Mzimba Central chose Kachali’s independent ideals.

Now that Kachali has, in a flash, crossed to the same ideals that people rejected, what does this mean to the electorates? Do they, after having the power of electing him, have powers to recall him? 

This is not just the story of Kachali. It is a story about the rise in the politicking of independent MPs in the country, the betrayal they relay to the electorates, and most importantly, the absence of a legal mechanism that protects the voters.  

It was during 1999 general elections when Malawi witnessed the first wave of independent MPs. They were four and all of them were formerly members of the then ruling party, United Democratic Front (UDF).

According to Sam Mpasu, one of the veteran politicians of UDF, the four were products of frustrations they suffered during primaries.

“During 1994, we had primaries as well. But we did not end up with cases of independent MPs because the process was free and fair. In 1999, things changed. Our leaders developed a spirit of imposing candidates on people,” he explains.

That spirit, admittedly, grew with years. During the 2004 general elections, Malawi registered 40 Independent MPs. The number dropped a little to 34 during the 2009 elections.

What, then, is this trend a response to?

“It’s nothing apart from lack of intra-party democracy. The trend is a potent symbol of a serious lack of, or respect of, institutionalised procedures of selecting party candidates,” says Dr Henry Chingaipe, a Lilongwe-based governance and development expert.

Even Mpasu agrees.

“It all began in 1993, the period Malawi was democratising. By 1994, the country had successfully democratised, but political parties did not. They revolved around personalities—quite a Dr Kamuzu Banda hangover.

“You had businesspeople with fat briefcases trooping to party leaders with financial support to, at least, get some government business offers.

“So, even when parties had offices of treasurer general, it was the party leader who kept the finances—and this becomes the source of their power to manipulate a party’s course,” he says.

Mpasu gave the example of Bakili Muluzi, the former president and UDF chairperson.

“By 1994, he was not that strong. He became so after 1994 because he had developed a series of connections. This explains why we never had independent MPs in 1994, but in 1999. He was trying to reward friends by imposing them on people,” he adds.

Of course, history shows that it is not just Muluzi who has done that. Such cases were rife in Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) during the 2009 General Elections. Just as People’s Party (PP) has publicly confessed imposing candidates, DPP, too, did that in its heydays.

There is nothing wrong in being an Independent MP. It is legal. However, independent MPs swim in unregulated seas, something that poses a serious danger to the country’s representative democracy.

Dr Chingaipe argues that independent MPs raises a serious case of political allegiance to the country’s democracy.

“A candidate tells you a political allegiance. People, as a result, vote basing on that political allegiance.

“Certainly, the duty of an elected leader is to maintain your allegiance which contributed to your success. It is a betrayal. You do not have to switch unless through seeking a fresh mandate,” he says.

Unfortunately, the electorates in the country continue to be betrayed by independent MPs, and because Section 65 does not affect them, they do it with impunity.

What this means is that the duty of a Malawian voter is to vote, but after voting, they do not have power on the decisions the voted leader makes.

But is this representative democracy?

“I think this is another case that clearly shows the failure of Section 65 to protect and promote the interest of the voters, which ideally, is what it was supposed to,” says Chingaipe.

He does not stop there.

“The section stops at dealing with scenarios where an MP changes from one party to another. This means instead of protecting the voter, it protects political parties,” he says.

What needs to be done then?

“Substantive provisions in the section require instant amendment. In its current form, it is bad; it does not serve the electorates, it serves political parties.

“And again, we need to tailor it in such a way that there should not be elements of petitioning the Speaker and also the Speaker declaring seats vacant. It should be automatic. The moment an MP switches allegiance, the Electoral Commission should be given the power to publicly confirm,” he says.

Mpasu, on a different note, argues that because independent MPs are offshoot of lack of intra-party democracy, something also needs to be done about parties.

In fact, even Chingaipe agrees.

“I really think we need to begin debating political party regulation in Malawi. There is only a regulation on registration. We need a Political Party Act.

“Some of the provisions should be that every party should hold free and fair primary elections and conventions. This should be compulsory. Any party that imposes candidates should be deregistered,” he says.

Perhaps that could be the beginning of fighting the virus which is about to wreck the country’s democracy. But above all, the instant fight against it lies in revisiting Section 65. In its current form—both in terms of wording and application—it does not help to provide a quick treatment to the virus.