Debate exposing ‘big name’ parties, candidates

If there is one thing that the historic nationally televised presidential debate has achieved, it is that it has exposed the deficit of transformative ideas among the ‘big name’ political parties and their attendant candidates for State House.

On that Tuesday night, you could see that the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and the United Democratic Front (UDF) were boxed in their same old failed policies and approaches to governing.

From these two, there were precious few ideas that were innovative and bold.

On the other hand, the lesser known candidates such as National Salvation Front’s (Nasaf) James Nyondo, United Independence Party’s (UIP) Abusa Helen Singh and People’s Progressive Movement (PPM) leader Mark Katsonga had radical and potentially transformative ideas that challenge the status quo.

While their ideas may not be perfect, just like most thoughts are, they provide the much-needed impetus for reform.

The so-called ‘small party’ candidates also demonstrated that they are ready and willing to embrace and spearhead reforms across the Malawi Government system.

And that is what Malawi needs: a total re-engineering of how business should be done at Capital Hill and its satellite offices nationwide if the next 50 years are to be more meaningful than the last.

That is why I want to agree with those who say stay-away Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Peter Mutharika and the People’s Party’s (PP) President Joyce Banda squandered an opportunity to showcase their transformative ideas, if they have any, and help win unaffiliated voters.

You see, when a presidential race is as close as this year’s, you never know what might tip the election in your favour. A presidential debate, especially one as novel as the Namisa ones, can be the game changer that candidates may be looking for.

I should also add that these debates are helping to bring moderates into the political discourse and who are getting more and more engaged in the political process.

Such a development is good not just because it adulterates the vitriol usually associated with the electoral conversation, but also because this could be the time the undecided voters decide.

If you are President Banda and Peter Mutharika, you would not want to forego the undecided voter. They just might go to the lesser known parties who have, so far, impressed on the newest and biggest political stage to date.

On that note, let me share this very impressive critique from one Martin Chiphwanya on the debate analysis I did for The Nation on Thursday:

Dear Ephraim,

I have just finished reading your eloquent analysis of “The Debate That Never Was.” I entirely agree with your observation that “…the output was crudely misnamed…” However, I beg to differ with you on a few issues which have been highlighted in your inspiring piece.

To begin with, in my considered view, James Nyondo’s articulation of issues during the debate was certainly not the best. You have highlighted that when asked about the kind of leadership Malawi needs, Nyondo responded by saying that “…Malawi needs a man or woman secure enough to hire people more competent than themselves.” I do not find this line of thought that plausible to warrant a big round of applause. Bingu wa Mutharika did hire highly competent individuals such as Goodall Gondwe, Dr Jean Kalirani and Dr Ken Lipenga, just to mention a few.

Joyce Banda, too, has the likes of Dr. Maxwell Mkwezalamba, Dr Lucious Kanyumba and others. These are competent people in their own right; but have they really met the expectations of the general populace? Nyondo was just reminding us about what we have always lived with. In my analysis, he did not break new ground, but simply restated the situation on the ground. I feel his performance was not the very best.

While I do agree that Abusa Helen Singh proved many critics wrong and deserves a better rating, you have rated her highly based on her emotional appeal. I would be grateful if you had given the emotional appeal just some reasonable space. All the paragraphs are discussing how strong her emotions won it for her. I felt perhaps you could also place emphasis on important policy issues which she did in fact articulate.

With regard to Kamuzu Chibambo, you have observed that he was fired up and sounded agitated. I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps, he was trying to breathe fire into the debate. I find your analysis a little bit contradictory because in your opening paragraph you argued that “… there were no rebuttals; no heated exchanges.’’ In my considered view, Kamuzu Chibambo may have noted that “the debate” was lukewarm and he may have been attempting to give it energy.

All in all, this is a great article and I have learnt a lot from it.

With kindest regards,

Martin