‘Malawi demos no last resort’

Though described as a ‘milestone’ in the country’s democracy, the January 17 demonstrations faced a series of calls—both from government and civil society, to have them called off. What does this speak about Malawian’s resolve to express their right to demonstrate? Ephraim Nyondo sought views of political science scholar Michael Jana.

Q. Why is it that most Malawians seem apprehensive about exercising their right to demonstrate?

 The countdown to the January 17 demonstrations revealed to me how we, as a nation, are slowly becoming apathetic to demonstrations in general—something I strongly fear, if left unattended to, might lead us into a passive society that can easily be oppressed by those in authority.

 What could be the cause of this apathy?

 I think July 20 2011 demonstrations where the trigger-happy Malawi Police Service killed 20 people—like many past public demonstrations where government showed its brutality through its unprofessional police—seem to make many Malawians so guilty for participating in demonstrations that some are at the verge of apologising to the government.  The government is now seen as a know-it-all parent and the citizens as irresponsible children who must be controlled and disciplined by the government. Public demonstration is now perceived as rebelling, uprising, “kugalukila”, violence and “kuwukila”—and not as a form of authentic and legal peaceful public expression and negotiation. This negative socialisation is at the heart of this apathy, which to me is a sad development in a free society like Malawi. This, I am certain, will only lead to a passive society. As Mahatma Gandhi warns, if we behave like worms, we are bound to be trampled upon.

 Can’t government’s failure to bring the shooters to justice also be a cause of popular fears of participating in demonstrations?

A.It is a known fact that to participate in public demonstrations is a constitutional right and not a privilege. People are not even supposed to seek permission from anyone to exercise this right. The least people can do if they want to hold a public demonstration is to inform the authorities so that they can create a conducive environment for the exercise of this right. This entails that the police must accompany the demonstrators to protect them and their property and not to kill them. What therefore happened on July 20 2011 where, instead of protecting the demonstrators the Police killed them, is unacceptable and should not be condoned. Those who committed these atrocities need to face justice. In this context, the 20 July 2011 killings, instead of making us apologetic for holding demonstrations, is supposed to spur us to raise this as another issue that government should resolve, and even hold a public demonstration to protest the killing of our fellow Malawians by the police that is maintained by our own taxes. In this context, government officials should not be seen as know-all parents but as our employees who are likely to abuse our rights and therefore must at all times be held to account.

 Why is it that the Joyce Banda government, like the reign of Bingu wa Mutharika and Bakili Muluzi, appear worried with public demonstrations?

 Given the history of demonstrations in Malawi, it is easy for Malawians to accept that public demonstrations are violent and fatal. But this hides a bigger and deeper truth that public demonstration is a right and a strong tool in the hands of the citizens to express themselves and hold their leaders to account. The reason why governments are often against public demonstrations is not necessarily that they want to protect people’s property or lives. In any case, we have examples of public demonstrations elsewhere where governments protect property and lives even during the demonstrations. The real reason why governments detest public demonstrations especially when people are not satisfied with public policies is that demonstrations are often a sign of people’s loss of trust and confidence in the incumbent leaders; they show that the incumbent is losing legitimacy and this can only mean that the incumbent is heading towards an exit door; that if there were elections today for instance, they would lose their power. Governments will however never give the public this reason but will use propaganda to convince people never to hold public demonstrations.

How do you assess the notion that mass demonstrations should be a last resort to give dialogue a chance?

 It is a fallacy to allege that public demonstration is a strategy of last resort when negotiating with government. Negotiation between the governors and the governed is not as simple and straightforward all the time. There are politics that play into the dynamics of the relationship between the two parties. Government is often a rigid institution covered by bureaucratic barriers to the extent that it is very difficult for local people to bring their grievances to the attention of top government officials through talks. The process to do that can take a lot of time and may not even reach crucial government decision makers. Government officials, including the President, are aware of this red tape and use it effectively to shield themselves from opposing voices.  On the other hand, people do not need permission from anyone to hold public demonstrations, and bureaucracy has less power to thwart this strategy. Public demonstrations is a strategy that authorities cannot easily ignore as it touches at the core of legitimacy; and is an effective strategy to bring grievances that need urgent attention to the doorstep of the decision-makers. In this context, public demonstrations cannot be said to be a strategy of last resort. It can be a strategy of first resort especially if the issues are pressing and need urgent attention. As a matter of fact, public demonstrations can put so much pressure on authorities to call for urgent talks. Therefore, instead of resorting to talks first initiated by the oppressed that will face numerous bureaucratic barriers, public demonstration can actually compel authorities to break all bureaucracy and initiate urgent talks hence raise hope for urgent resolution to the grievances.