Five out of ten on good governance

In this interview, I engage Ernest Thindwa, political science lecturer at Chancellor College, on how the Joyce Banda administration has fared on good governance in 2013.

Q: On rule of law, how do you asses her administration?

A: Her administration has done well compared to the latter days of the Bingu regime as evidenced by the repealing of repressive laws enacted and enforced by the previous regime, the situation on the rule of law is far from being satisfactory.

For instance, among many examples, freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution is under strain as evidenced by threats to journalist especially during presidential press conferences.

Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) is still largely a partisan public broadcaster, a sizeable number of top technocrats have been dismissed purely on grounds of perceived political incorrectness to the incumbent regime.

Suspects continue to be victimised physically or otherwise in police custody.

Q: What about on accountability and transparency?

A: Her administration has not fared any better than the previous regimes on accountability and transparency. For instance, if accountability is construed as responsibility or obligation of government officials to act in the best interest of the citizens and face consequences for own action or inaction, then the cashgate is a classic example of accountability failures by the administration. Almost the entire Cabinet which presided over the corrosal and unprecedented plunder of public resources at the core of the government seat in one of the most impoverished country in the world remain intact.

Transparency remains largely alien to government processes. The media, for instance, is not short of reports about unfair and suspicious award of public contracts. Reports of appointments in the public service which defile established order and put to shame recruitment procedures have claimed a fair share of space in the media. Think of numerous levies imposed on some products and services. Who knows how much is being collected and how it is being used. You may know how much each ministry is allocated, but there is hardly any effort by the administration to compel ministers to periodically report back to citizens through Parliament on progress made on usage of funds against allocations.

Citizens of city, town and district councils are no where nearer to access information necessary to hold the elected accountable. Perhaps the most critical transparency failure is leadership and entire executive reluctance to disclose personal wealth on ascendancy to high public office. Hardly is there political will to promote accountability and transparency. Perhaps understandably so.

Any advancement of accountability and transparency is likely to threaten vested interests of those at the centre of power. Given limited accountability and transparency, a perfect arena is created for corruption to thrive. Malawi continue to slump on yearly ranking on corruption index.

Q: What is your take on equitability, inclusiveness and participation?

A: The need to protect minorities, the most vulnerable groups and accommodation of diverse social groups are a fundamental requirement for good governance. Her administration should be commended for a reversal of the Bingu administration tendency of fueling ethnic consciousness and pursuing politics of exclusivity when being a Lhomwe was a perceived currency for participation and accessing valued opportunities in the public domain.

That said, her administration has a lot to do on this aspect. For instance, gay groups may not have been persecuted as was the case during previous regime. Yet we cannot claim this minority group has enjoyed the best of times under her administration. This administration has not been bold enough to take a position on gay rights.

The majority poor continue to be marginalised as even the below standard public services become scarce. The well-to-do can afford private services thereby enhancing their well-being. The scenario is contributing to the widening gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ in terms of wellness and future prospects, thereby limiting equitable gain and meaningful participation by the most vulnerable majority poor.

Ultimately, the majority poor are increasingly being pushed to the sharp edge of poverty and subconsciously becoming willing passive participants in national affairs heavily dependent on unsustainable handouts issued by those who control the public purse.

Q: What about on consensus building?

A: Perhaps the greatest challenge facing her administration and the nation at large is consensus building. Admittedly, reconciling different and often competing interests to reach broad consensus on what is in the best interest of Malawi is not the easiest of national projects. Securing national consensus demands long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable national development.

While it is not practically possible to reach consensus on all national issues, an effective government should be seen to achieve broad consensus on key national issues. Her administration has to some extent sought consensus on some key national concerns such as boundary disputes with neighbouring Tanzania evidenced by the administration’s inclination to engage opposition parties to curve a common approach.

However, one is persuaded to conclude that consensus is only sought when it serves the interest of the incumbent administration. Short-termism continues to guide the administration’s policy choices and actions on a number of potentially divisive national issues. There are indications Malawi is still divided on key national issues with a bearing on national development.

Political settlement on Farm Input Subsidy Programme (Fisp), quota system for entry into public universities, rights of gay groups and dual membership to Sadc and Comesa are among areas where consensus remains elusive. It would be unfair to apportion the blame for lack of the political settlement on these national concerns among others exclusively on her administration. The failure has historical roots and spares no regime since the reintroduction of plural politics in 1994.

Q: On a scale of one to 10, how would you rate her?

A: I think five on a scale of one to ten. I am sure others will say I have been generous.