Citizen participation and good governance in Malawi

The massive looting of public resources that has come to be known as the Cashgate scandal has just exposed how helpless and powerless the Malawian citizen is in influencing good governance and accountability. The local man and woman is only relevant during elections when he is used as a ladder for others to get to power.

Ideally, the voter should be relevant at all times, not just when he has to cast the vote. Democracy is not a one-off game. There must be ways and means of making the voter have a say on national policies and programmes. The voter must also have some powers to scrutinise public spending.

The cashgate scandal involves various forms of corruption and abuse of public offices that have culminated in swindling of billions of public funds in the past five or so years. A few individuals and companies have benefited from these corrupt schemes while millions of Malawians have been crying for God’s intervention to deal with serious issues of abject poverty, drug shortages in hospitals, poor infrastructure and and many more problems.

The question that comes to mind is whether the local citizens could have prevented this catastrophe. Is it possible that if we had effective governance systems in place the cashgate scandal could have been prevented? Or should we say that we do not have enough accountability systems in place? And yet on the face of it there seems to be so many of them in place.

The democratic Constitution of 1994 was founded on principles of transparency and accountability. There are checks and balances in place. There are also constitutional bodies to protect human rights, fight corruption and make recommendations for law reform on an ongoing basis. Thus, we have the Human Rights Commission, Law Commission, office of the Ombudsman and the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

We have a democratic Parliament where each constituency is represented by a Member of Parliament. There are also independent courts in place. The courts are there not only to interpret the laws but also ensure that those individuals that are in conflict with the law are punished accordingly and appropriately.

Parliament itself has a number of committees that are expected to improve the interface between Parliament and the general public. They have oversight powers over the Executive arm of government. Through these committees, the Executive arm of government is kept in check on how it is using the authority that it exercises on trust on behalf of the people.

In other words, the new democratic political set-up had almost everything that we thought we needed to have to achieve good governance, rule of law, transparency and accountability. The Constitution of the Republic of Malawi was dubbed one of the best on the African continent. And yet all these systems and institutions seem to have failed us in the wake of the cashgate scandal.

This calls for serious reflection on what mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that people do not just come in to vote and then wait for another five years before they can have their say on governance issues. I will briefly focus on only three institutions namely, Parliament, the media and civil society. These are institutions that are people- centred by their very nature.

Parliament is the peoples’ assembly. If there is one institution that was established to represent the people, then it is Parliament. Through Parliament, Malawians are represented through their Members of Parliament (MPs).  The assumption is that MPs are expected to channel the views of their constituents to the national assembly.

Indeed, time after time we hear MPs saying, “My constituents have sent me to present such and such an issue.” Even when they scrutinise the national budget, they will sometimes make reference to the fact that there is something or nothing for their constituents.

But it is very clear that in practice Parliament has largely failed to represent the people and meet their expectations. MPs are hardly in touch with their constituents before, during and after a parliamentary session. Although there are mechanisms in place to allow MPs consult their constituents every weekend by way of early adjournments on Fridays and starting business in the afternoons on Mondays such arrangements do not benefit the constituents because MPs have not taken the initiative to utilise the arrangement to organise consultative meetings in their constituencies during weekends.

The oversight powers of the parliamentary committees have also not lived up to our expectations. If they did, this scandal could have been identified and dealt with before billions were lost in the corruption drain. Previously, the major problem has been that the Public Accounts Committee has been scrutinising audit reports that were over five years overdue. It is high time audit reports were expedited so that issues of concerns can be addressed while they are still relevant.

The media has been dubbed as the fourth arm of the government. It is a useful tool for interfacing the local populace and policy makers.  But in the wake of the cashgate scandal there is very little indication of how the media has benefited the people. One expected the media to provide a platform to local people not only to communicate their issues of concern to those people in authority but also to enlighten them on emerging issues. For instance, the sensational reporting has just focused on the sums of monies stolen and the arrests while paying little or no attention to practical issues and basic facts.

It is interesting to note that  so many people have joined the bandwagon in their outright condemnation of the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMIS) without clearly explaining what IFMIS is, how it has worked, its positives as well as its weaknesses and what needs to be done to improve it. All you are hearing about the IFMIS is its evils and yet when you talk to those professionals that know the system very well, they always say that the system itself is not a problem.

Professionals actually say that one of the benefits of the system is efficiency. But people have condemned the re-introduction of IFMIS when they do not even know what it is. And this applies even to parliamentarians. I can bet my one-year salary that half of the legislators do not fully understand IFMIS.

Some of these gaps in information flow from the corridors of power to local people could also have been filled by a vibrant civil society. The civil society could have taken the lead not only in educating the masses about economic literacy issues but also to establish appropriate forums where policy makers and other government agents could interface with the people.

It is my conclusion that the institutions of Parliament, media and civil society could have done better to serve as a voice for the people on and prevent abuse of public resources but they have so far not done enough.