The recent debate on social media over allegations of harassment in Malawi’s media and entertainment spaces has reignited a long-overdue conversation.
The post was personal, emotional, and painful. It revealed how reporting harassment can lead to retaliation, side-lining, and mental distress. It also showed how harassment hides behind procedure, technicalities, and silence.
But if we want real change, we need a holistic review of the anti-sexual harassment policies and the politics that surround them. We need to understand why these issues persist even when workplaces have policies, disciplinary committees, and codes of conduct. Because, as much as we hate to admit it, rules alone cannot fix a broken workplace culture.
Let’s be honest — we like solutions that feel simple. So when a story like this surfaces, many rush to propose harsh punishments; automatic dismissal, legal prosecution, or sweeping bans on any relationship between bosses and junior staff.
At first glance, this sounds protective. But when you scratch the surface, it becomes clear that blanket rules can create entirely new problems.
For one, prohibiting any relationship between a supervisor and a junior sounds empowering, but it can reinforce paternalistic beliefs. It suggests women are incapable of consenting or making rational decisions.
That may feel like protection, but it quietly erases agency. We cannot empower women while also treating them like helpless subjects.
Then there is the uncomfortable reality few want to talk about: in some cases, employees willingly pursue romantic access to superiors for promotions, visibility, or favourable assignments.
The senior uses sexual access to dispense advantage, while the junior uses sexual access to obtain advantage. When policies assume only one direction of coercion, they ignore the reality that systems can be “gamed”.
If a junior later alleges harassment after benefiting from preferential treatment, should the promotion stand? That does not just reward manipulation — it punishes normal merit.
We need to be honest about unfair advantage, not just abuse.
Look at how workplace dynamics operate: the moment promotions can be earned through personal access rather than performance, trust collapses. Standards become meaningless.
And when allegations appear after the benefit ends, institutions must decide whether they are responding to trauma or drama. That is why these cases are so complex.
Meanwhile, taking complaints to social media may generate sympathy, but it rarely produces justice. It exposes survivors to cyberbullying, creates public division, and polarises debate. Screenshots fade. Public interest moves on. Policies do not change. And organisations do not learn.
Formal channels matter — not because institutions are perfect, but because documentation outlives outrage. If someone has proof, following through with labour complaints, internal grievances, or legal action is necessary. Systems cannot change if every case is tried in the comments section.
Consider how appointment structures themselves are weak. When the same small group controls hiring, oversight, and punishment, retaliation becomes easy.
Colleagues may enable abuse because they fear losing their jobs. Others may remain silent because “it’s not happening to them”. That silence is not neutrality; it is complicity.
Yes, speaking up matters. But structural protection matters more.
We need to ask ourselves difficult questions: Should superiors evaluate partners romantically involved with them? Should organisations revoke promotions earned through romantic access? Should retaliation be treated as seriously as harassment itself?
These are not easy discussions, but we can’t pretend that policy alone will fix the problem. If rules collapse the moment the wrong person is in charge, then the system was never solid.
We need independent reporting channels, procedures for relationship disclosure and anti-retaliation protections. We need policies that do not rely on silence, fear, or social prestige.
Because workplace safety should not depend on who is in power.
Otherwise, the same patterns repeat — different people at the top, same culture underneath.
If we are serious about change, we need policies that recognise that coercion in the workplace goes both ways. Employees, whether junior or senior, male or female should be held to the same standards of accountability and responsibility.
That is where our focus should be.
